When the user wants to apply to startup accelerators, incubators, or fellowship programs. Also use when the user mentions "YC application", "Techstars", "accelerator", or "apply to programs".
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。
When the user needs to prepare for SOC 2, build a compliance roadmap, assess security posture, quantify security risk, or says "we need SOC 2", "security audit", "compliance", "enterprise customer wants SOC 2", "CISO advice".
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。
Activate when a founder is preparing for SOC 2 certification, has been asked by a customer or prospect for a SOC 2 report, needs to quantify security risk for board or budget discussions, wants to build a compliance roadmap sequenced for business value, or needs to assess overall security posture. Also activate when the user mentions "SOC 2," "compliance audit," "trust service criteria," "security budget," "we need SOC 2 to close this deal," or "CISO."
# Security & Compliance Assessment: [Company Name]
## Risk Quantification — top risks with ALE, mitigation cost, expected value
## Gap Analysis Matrix — TSC criterion, requirement, current state, gap, priority, remediation
## Compliance Roadmap — sequenced timeline: SOC 2 Type I > Type II > ISO 27001/HIPAA
## Policy Documents — generated as needed, each with purpose/scope/roles/statements/procedures
## Implementation Timeline — phased checklist with milestones
## Evidence Collection Checklist — per-control artifacts, storage location, refresh cadence
## Security Metrics Dashboard — table of key metrics with current values and targets
Translate technical risks into business impact: revenue loss, regulatory fines, reputational damage. Use ALE to prioritize.
Formula: ALE = SLE x ARO (Single Loss Expectancy x Annual Rate of Occurrence)
Board language: "A $200K security program preventing a $2M breach at 40% annual probability has $800K expected value. The program pays for itself 4x over."
Frame security spend as risk transfer cost, not overhead.
| Category | Metric | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated / total) | > 80% |
| Detection | Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) | < 24 hours |
| Response | Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) | < 4 hours |
| Compliance | Controls passing audit | > 95% |
| Hygiene | Critical patches within SLA | > 99% |
| Access | Privileged accounts reviewed quarterly | 100% |
| Vendor | Tier 1 vendors assessed annually | 100% |
| Training | Phishing simulation click rate | < 5% |
Security (Common Criteria -- always in scope): CC1-CC2 (control environment, communication), CC3 (risk assessment), CC4-CC5 (monitoring, control activities), CC6 (logical/physical access, encryption), CC7-CC8 (system ops, vulnerability mgmt, incident response, change mgmt), CC9 (vendor management, business continuity).
Optional: Availability (A1), Processing Integrity (PI1), Confidentiality (C1), Privacy (P1-P8).
Information Security, Access Control (MFA, least privilege, access reviews), Change Management (code review, rollback), Incident Response (detection through post-mortem), Risk Assessment (annual, with register), Vendor Management, Data Classification, Business Continuity/DR (RTO/RPO, backup testing), Acceptable Use, HR Security (background checks, onboarding/offboarding).
| Tier | Data Access | Assessment Level |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | PII/PHI access | Full assessment annually |
| Tier 2 | Business data | Questionnaire + review |
| Tier 3 | No sensitive data | Self-attestation |
Type I vs Type II: Type I examines control design at a point in time (3-6 months, good for closing the first enterprise deal). Type II examines control operation over 3-12 months (what sophisticated buyers want, plan 12 months total). Start Type I immediately; begin Type II observation once controls are in place.
Right-Sizing by Stage: Seed (5-15): foundational controls, automation-heavy, concise policies, one part-time owner. Series A (15-50): dedicated compliance owner or fractional CISO, formal access reviews. Series B+ (50+): full-time security team, internal audit, GRC platform.
Cost-Effective Tooling: Compliance automation (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe — significantly reduces manual effort), SSO (Google Workspace or Okta), MDM (Kandji or Jamf), monitoring (Datadog, PagerDuty), vulnerability scanning (Dependabot, Snyk, Trivy).
All findings tagged before reaching decision-makers: Verified (confirmed against evidence), Medium (reported but not independently verified), Assumed (inferred, needs validation).
privacy-policy — SOC 2 Privacy criteria (P1-P8) align directly with privacy policy commitments. Ensure consistency.security-review — Technical security controls from security-review map to SOC 2 Common Criteria (CC6, CC7, CC8). Use findings to inform gap analysis.User: "A prospect wants SOC 2 before signing a $200K contract. We have nothing."
Good output excerpt:
Business case: This $200K deal justifies a $30-50K compliance investment. At your stage, every enterprise deal blocked by missing SOC 2 has an opportunity cost.
Area Status Key Gaps Access Control Partial MFA not enforced on AWS root, no SSO, no formal reviews Change Management Partial GitHub PRs used but no documented policy Incident Response Missing No documented plan, no on-call rotation Risk Assessment Missing No formal risk assessment conducted Recommended approach: Type I in 3 months, then begin Type II observation. Immediate actions: (1) Sign up for compliance automation. (2) Enforce MFA everywhere. (3) Select an auditor with startup experience. Interim response to prospect: Share security questionnaire response, SOC 2 Type I commitment timeline, and a signed mutual NDA with security addendum.
User: "We already use Okta for SSO and do code reviews. Where are we relative to SOC 2?"
Good output excerpt:
Gap Analysis Summary: 55% ready
Compliant: CC6.1 Okta SSO with MFA, CC8.1 code reviews via PRs. Partial: CC6.2 no quarterly access reviews documented, CC7.2 IRP never tested, CC6.3 no formal offboarding checklist. Missing: CC3.1 no annual risk assessment, CC2.1 no security training, CC9.2 no vendor management, CC4.1 no control monitoring, all 10 required policies need drafting.
Disclaimer: This skill provides SOC 2 preparation guidance for planning purposes only. It does not constitute legal, audit, or professional compliance advice. SOC 2 reports can only be issued by a licensed CPA firm. Engage a qualified auditor to confirm readiness before scheduling an audit.
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
When the user wants to apply to startup accelerators, incubators, or fellowship programs. Also use when the user mentions "YC application", "Techstars", "accelerator", or "apply to programs".
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。
When the user needs to design or evaluate system architecture — service boundaries, data models, API contracts, infrastructure topology, database selection, or dependency analysis. Also activate for "design the system", "how should I architect this", "monolith vs microservices", or architecture decision records.
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。
When the user needs to write a monthly or quarterly investor update, prepare a board deck, or communicate company progress to stakeholders.
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。
When the user needs to identify at-risk accounts, understand why customers are leaving, reduce churn rate, build health scores, design save plays, or create win-back campaigns.
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。
When the user needs to set up or improve CI/CD pipelines — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, deployment automation, or says "set up CI", "automate deployment", "add tests to pipeline", "fix my build".
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。
When the user asks for a code review, shares code for feedback, or says "review this", "check my code", "what's wrong with this". Also activate when reviewing a pull request or diff.
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。