Complete architecture reference for the A3 insurance platform — file locations, data flow, conventions, microservice map, and fullstack patterns
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。
Use when identifying cybersecurity-specific regulations and incident reporting obligations. Covers NIS2, DORA, SEC cyber disclosure rules, CISA incident reporting, state breach notification laws, cyber insurance requirements, and security certification frameworks. USE FOR: NIS2, DORA, SEC cybersecurity rules, CISA, breach notification, incident reporting, SOC 2, ISO 27001, cyber insurance, FedRAMP, StateRAMP, CMMC, data breach response DO NOT USE FOR: implementing security controls (use security skills), security testing tools (use security/security-testing), general data privacy (use privacy-data-protection)
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。
Disclaimer: This skill provides general educational information about legal topics relevant to software development. It is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always consult a qualified attorney licensed in the relevant jurisdiction before making legal decisions for your organization.
Cybersecurity is no longer just a technical concern — it is a regulated activity. Mandatory incident reporting, board-level accountability, and third-party risk requirements are expanding globally. Organizations that experience a cyber incident face not only the technical challenge of response and recovery but also a complex web of legal obligations with strict timelines. Failure to comply with these obligations can result in penalties that compound the damage of the underlying incident. Understanding your reporting obligations, certification requirements, and insurance coverage before an incident occurs is essential.
| Regulation | Jurisdiction | Scope | Key Requirements | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIS2 Directive | EU | Essential + important entities across 18 sectors | Risk management measures, 24hr incident reporting, supply chain security, board accountability | October 2024 |
| DORA | EU | Financial entities + ICT providers | ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, third-party risk management | January 2025 |
| SEC Cyber Disclosure Rules | US | Public companies | Material incident disclosure within 4 business days on Form 8-K, annual risk management disclosure | December 2023 |
| CISA Incident Reporting (CIRCIA) | US | Critical infrastructure | 72hr incident reporting, 24hr ransomware payment reporting | Rules being finalized |
| State Breach Notification Laws | US (all 50 states) | Organizations with residents' data | Notification to affected individuals + state AG within specified timeframes | Varies by state — some as short as 30 days |
| PSTI Act | UK | Consumer IoT devices | No default passwords, vulnerability disclosure policy, defined support period | April 2024 |
| CER Directive | EU | Critical entities | Risk assessment, resilience measures, incident notification | October 2024 |
One of the most critical aspects of cybersecurity compliance is understanding how quickly you must report an incident and to whom. These timelines begin running from the moment you become aware of the incident, making rapid detection and assessment capabilities essential.
| Jurisdiction / Law | Timeline | Notify Whom | Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| GDPR | 72 hours | Supervisory authority + data subjects if high risk | Personal data breach |
| NIS2 | 24hr early warning + 72hr notification + 1 month final report | CSIRT / competent authority | Significant incident |
| HIPAA | 60 days | HHS + individuals + media if >500 affected | PHI breach |
| SEC | 4 business days | SEC on Form 8-K | Material cybersecurity incident |
| California | Expedient, without unreasonable delay | AG + individuals | Personal information breach |
| Australia | 30 days assessment + notification | OAIC + individuals | Eligible data breach |
Key considerations:
Many customers, partners, and regulators require evidence of your security posture through formal certifications or audit reports. Choosing the right framework depends on your market, customer base, and regulatory environment.
| Framework | Type | Scope | Who Needs It |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Audit report (Type I or Type II) | Service organizations | SaaS vendors selling to enterprises |
| ISO 27001 | Certifiable international standard | Any organization | Global enterprises, particularly in EU and APAC |
| FedRAMP | US federal government authorization | Cloud services for federal agencies | US government contractors and cloud providers |
| StateRAMP | State government authorization | Cloud services for state/local government | State and local government contractors |
| CMMC | DoD certification (Levels 1-3) | Defense contractors | US defense supply chain |
| TISAX | Automotive industry certification | Automotive supply chain | Automotive suppliers and partners |
| HDS | Healthcare hosting certification | Healthcare data hosting in France | Organizations hosting healthcare data in France |
SOC 2 vs. ISO 27001: SOC 2 is dominant in North America and focuses on controls relevant to service organizations (security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy). ISO 27001 is more widely recognized internationally and provides a certifiable information security management system (ISMS). Many organizations pursue both.
FedRAMP: If you sell cloud services to US federal agencies, FedRAMP authorization is effectively mandatory. The process is rigorous and can take 12-18 months. FedRAMP Rev 5 aligns with NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls. The FedRAMP authorization boundary must be clearly defined and all components within it must meet the required control baselines (Low, Moderate, or High).
CMMC: The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification is required for Department of Defense contractors. CMMC 2.0 simplified the model to three levels: Level 1 (foundational, self-assessment), Level 2 (advanced, third-party assessment for critical programs), and Level 3 (expert, government-led assessment). Level 2 aligns with NIST SP 800-171.
Cyber insurance has become an important component of organizational risk management, and insurers are increasingly prescriptive about the security controls they require.
What cyber insurance typically covers:
Common insurer requirements:
Insurers increasingly require specific security controls as a condition of coverage. Failure to maintain these controls can void your policy or result in claim denial:
Premium factors: Premiums are influenced by industry, revenue, data volume, security maturity, claims history, and the specific controls you have in place. Organizations with strong security postures and certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001) often receive more favorable terms.
Multiple regulations now legally require organizations to maintain and test an incident response plan. Beyond regulatory compliance, a well-prepared incident response capability dramatically reduces the cost and impact of security incidents.
Regulations requiring incident response plans:
Key components of a compliant incident response plan:
Critical legal consideration: Involve legal counsel at the start of any incident response, not at the end. Communications during incident response may be discoverable in subsequent litigation or regulatory proceedings. Structuring the response under attorney-client privilege can protect sensitive assessments and recommendations.
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。
概要と使いどころ
Complete architecture reference for the A3 insurance platform — file locations, data flow, conventions, microservice map, and fullstack patterns
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。
Drafts U.S. commercial real estate access and indemnity (right-of-entry) agreements for pre-closing due diligence. Covers license grants, non-invasive vs invasive testing gates, insurance/endorsement requirements, indemnity with discovery carve-outs, restoration and lien remedies, confidentiality, and anti-indemnity guardrails. Trigger: access agreement, right of entry, due diligence access, Phase I/II, invasive testing, pre-PSA site inspection.
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。
当用户需要对意外险投保问卷进行专业、结构化的核保审查,提取职业类别、工作环境、作业内容、危险活动参与情况、交通出行习惯、特殊工作暴露及其他可能影响意外险承保判断的高风险信息,并生成适合意外险核保、补问流转和风险分层处理的结构化分析结果时使用本 skill。
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。
Inspect, schema, and fill true AcroForm PDFs using sciClaw's pdf_form_inspect, pdf_form_schema, and pdf_form_fill tools. Use when: (1) checking whether a PDF is a real fillable AcroForm, (2) listing form field names, types, and choices, (3) filling a supported form from structured values, (4) preparing reviewable insurance, legal, administrative, or clinical form drafts, (5) reporting skipped fields or unused input keys after a fill. Do not use for scanned PDFs, OCR tasks, or XFA-only forms.
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。
Guide actuarial analysis for insurance pricing. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with actuarial-analysis related tasks.
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。
Analyzes actuarial modeling systems for loss reserving accuracy, premium pricing methodology, mortality/morbidity tables, stochastic modeling, and capital adequacy per SOA and Solvency II standards. USE THIS SKILL WHEN: - You need to review or audit actuarial models (reserving, pricing, capital) - Someone asks about loss triangle analysis or reserve adequacy - You are evaluating IBNR calculations, chain ladder methods, or Bornhuetter-Ferguson - A project involves insurance pricing, GLM rating models, or ratemaking - You need to assess Solvency II SCR calculations or RBC compliance - Someone mentions actuarial opinions, ASOP compliance, or SOA standards - You are reviewing stochastic models, ESG configurations, or DFA frameworks - A codebase uses actuarial libraries (chainladder, lifetables, ChainLadder R package) TRIGGER PHRASES: "actuarial", "loss reserving", "IBNR", "chain ladder", "premium pricing", "mortality table", "Solvency II", "capital adequacy", "ratemaking", "GLM pricing", "risk-based capital", "reserve analysis", "actuarial 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。