本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

backup-restore-test-evidence

Use this skill when a restore test is due, an auditor or customer asks for proof that backups can be recovered, or someone says "plan a restore test", "prove we can recover in time", "our backups succeed but we never restored", "test our RTO and RPO", "write up the disaster recovery test" or "document the backup restore for the audit". Picks what to restore, writes a test plan with success criteria set before the test, records timings against the recovery objectives, and produces a signed-off test record with the issues found and their owners.

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。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.2 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。

Use this at least once per review cycle the company has set, rotating across critical services, and after any major change to the backup setup. You get two documents in a new folder, ./backup-restore-test-evidence/: a test plan written before anyone touches a backup, with the service, the scenario and the pass criteria (test-plan.md), and after the test a record with the measured times, the results, the findings and a sign-off line for the system owner (test-record.md). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective. The reader's team runs the restore; the agent plans and records.

Inputs to gather

Read the business impact analysis or wherever recovery objectives are written (recovery time objective, how long the service may be down; recovery point objective, how much data may be lost), the backup policy, the architecture overview, and, read-only, the backup configuration and job history. Read earlier restore test records. Ask the reader, in one message: which service matters most if lost, who can run a restore, which isolated environment is available, and who signs off the result.

Step 1: choose what to restore

Pick the service with the tightest objectives or the most important data, and rotate to the next one in the following cycle so every critical service is tested over time. Restore what the business actually needs to run: the database, the file storage, the configuration and the secrets the application needs to start. Restoring one file proves the backup tool works; it does not prove recovery. Once a year, plan a restore into a clean environment that does not rely on anything in production, which is the situation after ransomware. List what the restored stack depends on (DNS, certificates, secret store, identity provider, email or payment endpoints) and which of those the test actually exercises.

Step 2: write the plan before the test

The test plan (test-plan.md) holds: the service and its objectives; the backup set to use and its age; the declared time of the simulated failure, so data loss is measured against a fixed scenario rather than the last convenient backup; the target environment, isolated from production, with its access controls stated; the people and their roles; open findings from the last test, to check; the success criteria, set now and not after the result is known (row counts within a stated tolerance, checksums, the application starts, a user can sign in, one business transaction completes); stop conditions; and how the restored copy is deleted or secured afterwards, because it contains production data. Get the system owner's approval of the plan before anything runs.

Step 3: record the run with timestamps

During the test, record times for: start, backup located, data retrieved, restore complete, application running, verification complete. Measured recovery time is start to verified. Measured data loss is the gap between the backup point used and the moment the simulated failure happened. Note every manual step, every missing piece of documentation, and every credential that only one person had.

Step 4: compare and write findings

Compare measured recovery time and data loss with the objectives. Mark each success criterion pass or fail with the evidence. Write findings as facts with an owner role and a proposed action: "Restore took 9 hours against a 4 hour objective; 5 hours spent waiting for access to the backup vault, held by one engineer." A failed test written up honestly with actions is good evidence; a test that "passed" without timings is weak evidence. A measured time beyond the objective also gets a proposed risk register entry for the risk owner to add; if the gap persists, the business owner either funds the fix or accepts the risk in writing, because the objectives are what customers were told.

Step 5: assemble the record and sign-off

The test record (test-record.md) holds the plan reference, timings, criteria results, findings, actions, confirmation that the restored copy was deleted or secured (a listing showing it is gone, not a screenshot of the delete), each earlier finding marked closed or still open, and a sign-off line for the system owner. Attach log extracts and screenshots that show times, with any personal data in them masked. Where a framework or regulation sets expectations on testing frequency or scope, run a framework lookup instead of assuming one.

If the output folder exists, ask before overwriting and offer a new subfolder instead.

What good looks like

  • The record proves a time, not just a success: measured recovery time and data loss sit next to the objectives.
  • Success criteria were written before the test; criteria written afterwards tend to match whatever happened.
  • The common mistake is offering backup job success logs as restore evidence. The tells: no timings anywhere, the same small file restored every year, and a restore that depends on the production account the backup is meant to survive.
  • Backups are checked for separation: stored in a different account or with deletion protection, so the people or malware that can damage production cannot also delete the backups.
  • Findings carry owners, and the next test checks they were fixed.

Framework lookups

If ISMS Copilot is connected to your agent (MCP server https://account.ismscopilot.com/v1/account/mcp), ask it the framework question with create_conversation (mode think, answer_format: decision) and keep one conversation for this task. Send only a short question in your own words, show it to the user first, and never include file contents, secrets, personal data or evidence. If it is not connected, check the official text of the framework yourself; this skill does not restate it. Set it up: https://www.ismscopilot.com/mcp?ref=grcskills-backup-restore-test-evidence

Rules

  • MUST write the success criteria and get the owner's approval before the test runs.
  • MUST record measured recovery time and data loss against the stated objectives.
  • MUST include the deletion or securing of the restored copy in the plan and the record.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./backup-restore-test-evidence/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER start a restore, delete a backup or write to production; the reader's team runs the test.
  • NEVER record a criterion as passed without the evidence behind it.

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。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Use this skill when a company needs rules for how staff use company systems, data, devices and AI tools, or asks "write our acceptable use policy", "AUP for employees", "can staff use ChatGPT at work", "AI usage policy", "BYOD rules", "remote work security rules" or "a policy people will actually read". Finds how people really work (devices, apps, AI tools, travel), puts the choices to the reader as decisions, drafts a short plain-language policy with concrete do and do not examples, and adds a comprehension check and an acknowledgement text for onboarding.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a periodic user access review is due, an auditor asked for access review evidence, or someone says "prepare the access review", "run the quarterly user recertification", "who still has admin", "check leavers still have access", "build the access review sheets for managers" or "our last review was a rubber stamp". Picks the systems in scope, builds account populations reconciled against HR, pre-flags leavers, orphans, shared and dormant accounts, assigns independent reviewers, defines the decisions to record, and plans the removal follow-up.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when staff already use AI assistants, coding tools or AI features and the company needs rules people will follow, and asks "write our AI usage policy", "can staff use ChatGPT", "generative AI policy", "what data can we put into AI tools", "approved AI tools list", "rules for AI agents and connectors" or "AI literacy for staff". Finds out what people actually use, sets a short list of approved tools with a data traffic light, rules for checking outputs and for agents that act, a fast route to request a new tool, and writes a two-page rule set, the approved tools list and rollout notes.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company must work out where each of its AI systems sits under the EU AI Act, and asks "is this high-risk", "classify our AI systems", "AI Act risk tier", "are we a provider or a deployer", "does Annex III apply to us", "is this a prohibited practice", "what does the AI Act mean for our chatbot" or "which AI Act obligations do we have". Tests each system, one at a time, for scope, role, prohibited practices, the two high-risk routes, the narrow exemption, transparency duties and general-purpose models, and writes a reasoned classification record per system plus a summary table of resulting obligations to confirm with whoever owns legal interpretation.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when one AI system needs its impact on people and on the company assessed before launch, after a significant change, or because a customer, auditor or regulator asks for it, and the team says "AI impact assessment", "assess the impact of this model", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "who could this AI harm", "bias assessment before launch" or "sign-off for the AI feature". Describes the system in its context, works through impacts on the people it affects with evidence, sizes them, proposes mitigations with measurable triggers, and writes one assessment ready for the system owner and an accountable executive to sign.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company that already runs a security management system wants to add an AI management system, or is preparing for an AI governance certification, and asks "scope our AI management system", "what should the AIMS cover", "AI governance roles", "who owns AI governance", "extend our ISMS to AI" or "write the AI management system scope statement". Decides which AI systems, roles, teams and lifecycle stages are in, maps interfaces and dependencies, reuses the processes the security system already runs, assigns roles with a RACI, and writes the scope statement, the roles file and the open questions for leadership.

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。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

better-isms のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する