本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

soc2-audit-prep

/cs:soc2-audit-prep <scope> — SOC 2 Type II readiness 6-question forcing interrogation. Observation-period focused. Use before Type II observation begins, mid-period checkpoint, or pre-field-test month-10 readiness.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

/cs:soc2-audit-prep — SOC 2 Type II Forcing Questions

Command: /cs:soc2-audit-prep <scope>

The SOC 2 Type II auditor pressure-tests any SOC 2 work. Six observation-period-disciplined questions before any Type II cycle.

When to Run

  • Pre-observation period (months 1-2 of cycle)
  • Mid-observation period (month 6 checkpoint)
  • Pre-field-test (month 10)
  • Post-report (planning next cycle)
  • After scope change (adding TSC category)
  • After major incident during observation period

The Six SOC 2 Type II Questions

1. What's the scope, and which TSC categories are in?

Security always required; others elective based on customer ask.

  • Common Criteria (CC1-CC9) under Security always
  • Availability (A1): for SaaS with SLA commitments
  • Processing Integrity (PI1): for systems processing transactional / financial data
  • Confidentiality (C1): for systems handling proprietary / confidential data
  • Privacy (P1-P8): for systems handling personal data (overlap with GDPR if applicable)
  • AICPA AT-C 205 description of system: complete + accurate + boundaries clear

2. Did any control skip a cycle during observation period?

Type II requires consistent operation — single skipped cycle = likely exception.

  • Quarterly controls (e.g., access reviews): all 4 quarters covered
  • Monthly controls (e.g., vulnerability scans): all months covered
  • Continuous controls (e.g., logging): no gaps during period
  • Annual controls (e.g., BCP exercises, training): completed within period

3. Show me the change-management evidence for any control implemented mid-period.

Mid-period changes = high audit risk.

  • New controls implemented during observation: documented with change-management
  • Modified controls: rationale + effective date + impact on prior samples
  • Removed controls: rationale + customer impact assessment
  • Strategy: avoid mid-period changes; defer to next cycle

4. Where's the exception log, and what's the materiality assessment?

Real-time exception logging — not retroactive.

  • Each exception logged when discovered, not at audit time
  • Per exception: what / when / impact / remediation / owner
  • Materiality assessment: does the exception affect overall control operation?
  • Audit firm threshold: typically 1-2 exceptions per control acceptable; 3+ = finding

5. Show me sample evidence from each TSC criterion in the FIRST month of observation.

Not the last week — the first month.

  • Audit firm samples across the observation period
  • Front-loaded evidence demonstrates operational discipline
  • Back-loaded evidence (last 30 days) = "scrambling" signal
  • Sample IDs should be reproducible from operational systems

6. What's the cross-walk to ISO 27001, and which evidence reuses?

75% control overlap — the canonical pair.

  • Run cross_framework_mapper.py for HIGH-confidence overlap themes
  • Each shared artefact cited by both audits (one collection, two reports)
  • Coordinate audit calendar with cs-ciso-iso27001
  • Avoid producing duplicate evidence files for same control

Workflow

# 1. Scoping + gap analysis (pre-observation)
python ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/scripts/gap_analyzer.py current_state.json

# 2. Control matrix with ISO 27001 cross-walk
python ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/scripts/control_matrix_builder.py program.json

# 3. Continuous evidence tracking (during observation)
python ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/scripts/evidence_tracker.py evidence_log.json

# 4. Mock audit (pre-field-test month 10)
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py soc2_scope.json

Output Format

# SOC 2 Type II Audit Prep: <scope>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Observation Period:** YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD

## The Decision Being Made
[scoping | pre-observation | observation-status | pre-field | report-response]

## TSC Scope
- Security: included
- Availability: <yes/no>
- Processing Integrity: <yes/no>
- Confidentiality: <yes/no>
- Privacy: <yes/no>

## Observation Period Status
- Months elapsed: N / 12
- Controls operated consistently: % of total
- Cycle skips identified: <list>
- Mid-period control changes: N (each documented with change-mgmt: yes/no)

## Exception Log
- Total exceptions logged: N
- Per-control max exceptions: M (audit firm tolerance: typically 1-2)
- Material exceptions (overall control affected): <list>
- Remediation status per exception: complete/in-progress

## Sample Evidence Coverage
- Month 1-3 evidence: complete/gaps
- Month 4-6 evidence: complete/gaps
- Month 7-9 evidence: complete/gaps
- Month 10-12 evidence: complete/gaps (only for pre-report status)

## ISO 27001 Cross-Walk Reuse
- HIGH-confidence overlap themes: N
- Shared artefacts in evidence pool: <count>
- Duplicate evidence collection avoided: % savings

## Audit Firm Readiness
- Scoping discussion: complete/pending
- Description of system per AT-C 205: complete/pending
- Walkthrough rehearsal: complete/pending
- Sample preparation: complete/pending

## Verdict
🟢 ON-TRACK | 🟡 NEEDS-ATTENTION | 🔴 MATERIAL-RISK

## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + observation-period timing]

Routing

  • /cs:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view
  • /cs:iso27001-audit-prep — for ISO 27001 cross-walk pair (75% overlap)
  • /cs:gdpr-audit-prep — for Privacy TSC overlap
  • /cs:ciso-review — for executive cybersecurity strategy

Related


Version: 1.0.0

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

aeo

無料

Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

alirezarezvani のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する