本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

vendor-tiering

Use this skill when a company needs to decide how much assessment each supplier deserves, or asks "tier our vendors", "which suppliers are critical", "we have 200 vendors and cannot assess them all", "build a third-party risk tiering", "rank suppliers by risk" or "which vendors need a security review this year". Builds the complete supplier population from finance, single sign-on and contracts, scores each supplier on data, access and dependency, assigns a tier by the highest axis, sets the assessment depth and cycle per tier, and writes a tiered list with the reason for every score.

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.md7.5 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 once to set up supplier risk management, then whenever a supplier is onboarded or its use changes. You get three files in a new folder, ./vendor-tiering/: a spreadsheet you can open in Excel listing every supplier with its scores, tier and next review (vendor-tiers.csv), a one-page note on how the tiers are decided, short enough for an owner to apply alone (tiering-method.md), and the questions each business owner must answer to confirm their suppliers' scores (questions-for-owners.md). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective. The tier is a proposal; the business owner of each supplier confirms it.

Inputs to gather

Read the supplier list if one exists, the accounts payable export for the last twelve months, the single sign-on application list, the contract repository, the list of signed data processing agreements, the architecture overview and the business impact analysis if there is one. Ask the reader, in one message: which three services the company could not run without for a week, which teams buy software on cards or expenses, and whether any regulation in scope treats some suppliers specially (for example, services supporting critical functions of a financial entity).

Step 1: build the full population

Merge the sources and deduplicate by legal entity, not by product name. The supplier list alone is never complete. Add what finance pays, what single sign-on shows, what engineers call from code (hosting, email delivery, error tracking, analytics, AI models), contractors and agencies with access, and free tools where staff upload company or customer data; no spend does not mean no risk. Mark each row with where it was found.

Step 2: score three axes

Score each supplier on a three-level scale per axis and write one line of reasoning per score:

  • Data: none or public (1); internal or limited personal data (2); customer data, confidential data, regulated data or personal data at scale (3).
  • Access: none, or access only to the supplier's own service (1); user-level access into company systems or networks (2); privileged access, access to production, source code or the ability to change what customers receive (3).
  • Dependency: replaceable within a week (1); replaceable within a month, or a key process degrades (2); critical, no fast alternative, outage stops revenue or a regulated service (3).

Add flags that do not change the score but drive extra work: processes personal data on the company's behalf, supports a function a regulation treats as critical, located or accessed outside the company's jurisdiction, and handles personal data or has privileged access with no signed agreement covering security and processing terms (an immediate action for the owner).

Step 3: tier by the highest axis

The tier follows the highest axis, never the average. A payroll provider with low dependency but sensitive data is still top tier.

  • Tier 1: any axis at 3. Full due diligence: assurance reports, targeted questions, contract and data processing terms, exit plan. Reassessed every year.
  • Tier 2: highest axis at 2. Assurance report or short questionnaire, contract terms checked. Reassessed every two years or on material change.
  • Tier 3: all axes at 1. Register entry and terms checked at onboarding; reassessed on change.

Where a framework or regulation sets its own criteria for which suppliers need which treatment, run a framework lookup and record the mapping in tiering-method.md.

Step 4: sanity-check the result

In most companies tier 1 holds roughly 5 to 15 percent of suppliers. If half the list is tier 1, the axes are not being applied and assessment will collapse under its own weight; rescore with the owners. If a supplier the reader named as critical is not tier 1, one of the scores is wrong. Check for concentration: several tier 1 services on one provider is a risk worth one line in the method file. If the company publishes a sub-processor list, compare it with the flagged rows: a sub-processor missing from the spreadsheet, or a personal data supplier missing from the published list, is a defect to raise.

Step 5: write the outputs

The supplier spreadsheet (vendor-tiers.csv): supplier legal entity, service, source, business owner role, the three scores with reasons, flags, tier, assessment depth, last assessment date and method (report reviewed, questionnaire triaged, terms checked), next review. The method note (tiering-method.md): the scales, the tier rule and the cycle per tier, short enough for an owner to apply alone. Spell out what counts as a change that reopens a tier (new data category, wider access, new sub-processor, acquisition or breach at the supplier, use beyond the scored scope) and that the owner reports it. Propose an onboarding gate: no new tool receives company or customer data before it is scored and tiered. The owner questions (questions-for-owners.md): one block per owner with the scores they must confirm.

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

What good looks like

  • The population is wider than the supplier list: free tools, code-level services and contractors are in it.
  • Every score has a reason a business owner can confirm or correct in one line.
  • The common mistake is tiering by spend. The tell: the expensive office software is tier 1 and the cheap error tracking tool that receives customer data in stack traces is tier 3.
  • Averaging hides risk; the highest axis wins.
  • Assessment effort per tier fits the hours the team actually has.

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-vendor-tiering

Rules

  • MUST record the source of every supplier and the reason behind every axis score.
  • MUST tier by the highest axis, never by spend or by an average.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./vendor-tiering/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER contact a supplier, send a questionnaire or change a contract.
  • NEVER finalise a tier without the business owner's confirmation.
  • NEVER put personal contact details of supplier staff into the outputs; use roles.

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