本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

soa-status-reconciliation

Use this skill when the implementation status column of a statement of applicability may not match reality, and the team asks "is our SoA accurate", "check the implemented column", "do we have evidence for every implemented control", "reconcile the SoA with our evidence", "pre-audit evidence check" or "the auditor found a control marked implemented with no records". Samples the records behind every control marked implemented, grades the evidence, proposes a corrected status for each row and writes a reconciliation table plus an evidence gap list with 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.md7.3 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 six to ten weeks before an external audit, and at each internal audit of the management system. You get two files in a new folder, ./soa-status-reconciliation/: a spreadsheet you can open in Excel comparing, control by control, the status the company claims with what its records actually show, and the status they support (status-reconciliation.csv), and a to-do list per owner of the proof that is missing and how long it takes to produce (evidence-gaps.md). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective. The reconciliation proposes statuses; the control owner and the approver of the statement decide them.

Inputs to gather

Read: the statement of applicability, the treatment plan, the evidence index or compliance platform export, policies and procedures, and the records the agent can reach (ticket exports, review records, logs exported by the reader, training records, supplier assessments). Ask the reader for the audit period the next audit will cover and which systems are the source of truth for people, assets and changes. Write the period's start and end dates in the gap list; a record outside them supports nothing.

Step 1: list the claims

For each control marked implemented or partially implemented, add a row to the reconciliation spreadsheet (status-reconciliation.csv): the control id, the claimed status, the owner, and the evidence the statement or index points to. Note controls with no evidence pointer at all; they go straight to the gap list (evidence-gaps.md).

Step 2: classify what the control is

The type sets what evidence proves it:

  • Recurring: runs on a schedule (access review, backup test, vulnerability scan review). Proof is a record per run in the period.
  • Event-driven: runs on a trigger (leaver, new supplier, change, incident). Proof is the record for a sample of triggers.
  • Configured: a technical setting (disk encryption, multi-factor sign-in, logging). Proof is a current configuration export plus the process that keeps it true.
  • Documented: a policy or plan that must exist and be approved. Proof is the approved version, communicated to the people it applies to.

Step 3: sample and grade the evidence

Sample sizes that hold up for a first pass: for recurring controls, every run in the audit period up to the last four; for event-driven controls, five from the population, chosen across the period and not from the last week; for configured controls, the current export plus one check that the population is complete (every laptop, every production account), and the mechanism that keeps the setting true (drift alert, enforced policy, periodic re-export); without one, the control is supported only as of the export date. Where a population is smaller than the sample, test all of it. An empty population needs a check that it really was empty: no leaver records is fine in a year with no leavers, and untested if the HR export shows departures. Grade each control:

  • Supported: records exist for the sample, are dated in the period, cover the population and show the practice ran.
  • Design only: a policy or procedure exists, no operating record.
  • Stale: records exist but are older than the period or the stated frequency.
  • Partial population: records cover some systems, teams or sites only.
  • Missing: nothing found.
  • Contradicted: a record shows the opposite (a leaver active after the stated removal time, an encryption export with exceptions).

Step 4: propose the status

The proposed status follows the weakest grade in the sample. Supported keeps implemented; design only or stale becomes implemented, evidence pending or in progress with an action; missing becomes planned or in progress; contradicted becomes in progress with a correction raised to the owner at once. For each change, write one line on why, with the record paths, and mark that the statement needs updating, so the approver changes the governed document before the audit. Where the standard's expectations on what the status column means matter, run a framework lookup rather than assuming.

Step 5: write the gap list

Write the gap list grouped by owner role: control id, what is missing, the exact artefact that would close it, and how long before it can exist (a quarterly control needs a quarter). Put contradictions first; they are likely audit findings and may be incidents. Then rank by how likely the auditor is to sample the control: controls tied to top risks, recent incidents or customer claims come before low-traffic ones. Ask before overwriting either file.

What good looks like

  • Every proposed status rests on sampled records with paths, not on interviews.
  • The common mistake is accepting a policy or a single screenshot as proof that a recurring or event-driven practice runs. The tell is a reconciliation where every row is Supported and the evidence column lists policy documents.
  • Evidence created in bulk just before the audit is noticed: a cluster of records with creation dates in the same few days is something an auditor sees too.
  • Population completeness is checked. Encryption on 40 laptops proves little if the asset list has 55.
  • The gap list is short enough to close before the audit, or honest that it cannot be.

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-soa-status-reconciliation

Rules

  • MUST cite record paths for every grade and every proposed status change.
  • MUST raise every contradicted control to its owner role as the first item in the gap list.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./soa-status-reconciliation/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER change the statement of applicability or any record; propose and let the owner act.
  • NEVER grade a recurring or event-driven control as supported on a policy alone.
  • NEVER copy personal data from sampled records into the outputs; refer to records by path and id.

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