Prepare for ISO 27001 audits by reviewing six areas of an information security management system: audit coverage, risks, access, suppliers, incidents, and management reviews. Summarize evidence gaps, readiness, and three priority actions with owners and timelines.
/compliance-os:iso27001-audit-prep [scope] — ISO 27001 ISMS audit readiness 6-question forcing interrogation. Use before annual Clause 9.2 internal audit, surveillance audit prep, or stage 1 certification readiness.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /compliance-os:iso27001-audit-prep <scope>
The ISO 27001 ISMS auditor pressure-tests any ISMS work. Six sample-driven questions before any internal audit, stage 1 readiness, or surveillance audit.
No 3-year coverage discipline, no defensible programme.
isms_audit_scheduler.py in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/isms-audit-expert/Stale risk register = certification finding.
iso27001_audit_playbook.md for stage 1 expectationsMost-cited finding area.
Second-most-cited finding area.
A.5.24-27 + A.6.8 — high-stakes audit area.
Clause 9.3 required inputs are prescriptive — easy to miss.
multi_framework_audit_playbook.md) preferred to separate reviews# 1. Audit programme planning
python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/isms-audit-expert/scripts/isms_audit_scheduler.py audit_scope.json
# 2. Mock audit for readiness check
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py iso27001_scope.json
# 3. Cross-framework reuse (SOC 2 = 75% overlap; ISO 42001 = 60% reuse)
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json
# ISO 27001 Audit Prep: <scope>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## The Decision Being Made
[programme-plan | finding-severity | cert-readiness | incident-followup]
## Audit Programme Status
- Clauses scheduled this year: <list>
- Annex A controls scheduled: <count>
- Rolling 3-year coverage: clean | gaps in <list>
- Auditor independence: clean | issues in <list>
## Risk Register Health
- Last refresh: YYYY-MM-DD
- High/critical risks without Annex A control link: N
- Residual risk acceptance documentation: complete | gaps
## High-Stakes Controls Status
- A.5.15 + A.8.2 + A.8.3 access control: pass/fail with sample
- A.5.19-A.5.21 supplier mgmt: pass/fail with sample
- A.5.24-27 + A.6.8 incident response: pass/fail with sample
- A.8.15-16 logging: pass/fail with sample
## Management Review Status
- Last review date: YYYY-MM-DD
- Required Article 9.3 inputs present: yes/no
- Open action items past due: N
## Cross-Framework Impact
- SOC 2 controls affected: <list>
- ISO 42001 controls affected (if applicable): <list>
- GDPR Article 32 controls affected: <list>
## Verdict
🟢 READY | 🟡 CLOSE-CRITICALS-FIRST | 🔴 NOT-READY
## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + corrective-action timeline]
/compliance-os:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view/compliance-os:soc2-audit-prep — for SOC 2 cross-walk pair (75% overlap)/compliance-os:aims-audit — for ISO 42001 AIMS cross-walk/compliance-os:gdpr-audit-prep — for Article 32 organizational measures overlap/c-level-agents:ciso-review — for executive cybersecurity strategy/c-level-agents:decide — to log the verdictcs-ciso-iso27001isms-audit-expert../soc2-audit-prep/, ../aims-audit/, ../gdpr-audit-prep/, ../compliance-readiness/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.