Review plans involving customer data, compliance, or production access. Examine threats, potential damage, detection, incident response, notification requirements, and vendors, then summarize whether the plan can proceed, needs mitigation, or should be blocked.
/c-level-agents:ciso-review [plan] — Risk-paranoid interrogation of any plan that touches data, compliance, or production access. Use when launching features that handle customer data, before a SOC 2 / ISO audit, or after any incident or near-miss.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /c-level-agents:ciso-review <plan>
The risk-paranoid threat-modeler. Six questions before any production change that touches customer data or compliance scope.
What's the STRIDE threat model for this system, and which threat is most likely?
If this is fully compromised, what data is exposed and how many users are affected?
What signals indicate compromise, and how long until they're triggered (MTTD)?
Is there an IR runbook for this scenario, and has it been tabletop-tested?
What's the regulator notification window if this scenario occurs?
Which third-party vendors are in scope, and what's their security posture?
python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/c-level-advisor/ciso-advisor/scripts/risk_quantifier.py
python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/c-level-advisor/ciso-advisor/scripts/compliance_tracker.py
# CISO Review: <plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## Threat Model
- Top threat: <STRIDE category> — <description>
- Likelihood: H/M/L | Impact: H/M/L
- ALE: $X / year
## Blast Radius
- Data exposed (worst case): <description>
- Users affected: N
- Estimated cost: $X
## Detection
- MTTD target: X hours
- Current MTTD: X hours
- Detection rule: <name>
## Response
- IR runbook: ✅ / ❌
- Last tabletop: <date>
## Regulatory
- Frameworks in scope: SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA / GDPR
- Notification window: X hours/days
## Vendors
- New vendors added: N
- DPAs signed: N / N
- Security reviews complete: N / N
## Verdict
🟢 SHIP | 🟡 MITIGATE THEN SHIP | 🔴 BLOCK
/c-level-agents:cto-review — architecture alignment/c-level-agents:gc-review — DPA, regulatory implications/c-level-agents:decide — log risk acceptance/c-level-agents:boardroom — for CRITICAL riskscs-ciso-advisorciso-advisor../../../ra-qm-team/Version: 1.0.0
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.
Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.
Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.
Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.
Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.
Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.