跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

logging-and-monitoring-evidence-pack

Use this skill when an auditor, customer or regulator will ask how security events are logged and watched, and someone says "prepare logging evidence", "show we monitor alerts", "what do we log and for how long", "who looks at the SIEM", "prove an alert was handled" or "our monitoring evidence is just dashboard screenshots". Maps log coverage and retention per system, lists the alert rules that matter and where they go, traces real alerts end to end with timestamps, and writes an evidence pack with the gaps stated plainly.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md7.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Use this before an audit or a customer review, and again after any change to the logging stack. You get an evidence pack in a new folder, ./logging-and-monitoring-evidence-pack/: a spreadsheet you can open in Excel showing, per system, what is logged, where, for how long and who can delete it (coverage.csv); a short list of the alert rules that matter and who receives them (alert-rules.md); one page per real alert traced from firing to closure, with times (walkthroughs/<n>.md); and a list of gaps with an owner and a fix each (gaps.md). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective.

Inputs to gather

Read the system inventory, the logging and monitoring policy (it states what the company promised to log, keep and review), the architecture overview, and, read-only, the logging configuration, the alert rule list from the monitoring or detection tool, the on-call rota and the alert or incident tickets for the period. Ask the reader, in one message: which systems are in scope, where logs end up, who receives alerts out of hours, and which alerts they consider critical.

Step 1: map coverage per system

One row per in-scope system in the coverage spreadsheet (coverage.csv): which event types are logged (sign-in success and failure, administrator actions, access to sensitive data, configuration changes, security tool events), where the logs go, retention as configured, retention as the policy states, who can read the logs, who can delete or alter them, the time source the system syncs to, the control id from the company's own control matrix or statement of applicability, and the source of each answer. Read retention from the settings, not from the policy. Check that administrators of a system cannot quietly delete that system's audit log; logs stored in a separate account or with write-once settings answer that question, logs on the same host do not. Read access matters too: logs hold personal data and credential fragments, so broad read access is a finding in its own right. Check that systems sync to a common time source; every timestamp in Step 4 depends on it.

Step 2: list the alert rules that matter

From the rule list, keep in the alert rule list (alert-rules.md) the ones tied to real risks: repeated sign-in failures and impossible travel, new administrator accounts or privilege changes, logging switched off, unusual data export, malware detections, changes to network exposure. For each: what it detects, the control id it evidences, who receives it, the expected response time, and how often it fired in the period. Flag three patterns:

  • Routed nowhere: the alert goes to an unread mailbox or a channel nobody owns.
  • Never fired: a rule silent for the whole period may be broken; propose a safe test the owner can run.
  • Noise: a rule firing hundreds of times a day is not being read; propose tuning.

Step 3: show how review is recorded

Find the record that a human looked at alerts: a ticket per alert, a triage note, an acknowledgement in the paging tool, a weekly review log. "We watch the dashboard" leaves nothing an auditor can sample. Where review is real but unrecorded, propose the lightest record that fits the team, such as acknowledging in the paging tool with a one-line outcome.

Step 4: trace real alerts end to end

Agree the period first (the audit period, or the last 90 days when none is set). Pick at least three alerts from it: one closed as a false positive, one escalated to an incident, and one picked at random from the full ticket list, with the method recorded so the pick can be repeated. For each, write a one-page walkthrough (walkthroughs/<n>.md) with timestamps: rule fired, who acknowledged and when, what they checked, the decision and why, closure, and any follow-up such as a rule change. Compare response time with the target. A single real trace convinces an auditor more than a dozen configuration screenshots.

Step 5: assemble the pack and the gaps

Put configuration extracts, rule descriptions and walkthroughs together with the source of each. Replace user names, IP addresses and other personal data in log extracts with roles or placeholders unless the reviewer needs them. Write the gap list (gaps.md): systems without logs, systems logged but covered by no alert rule, retention shorter than promised, alerts routed nowhere, review not recorded, each with an owner role and a proposed fix. Where a framework sets expectations on retention or review frequency, run a framework lookup rather than assuming a number.

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

What good looks like

  • Retention is read from configuration and compared with the policy; mismatches are listed, not smoothed over.
  • Every critical alert has a named receiver and a recorded human response.
  • The common mistake is a pack of screenshots of the detection tool's dashboard and rule settings. The tell: nothing in the pack shows a person doing something with an alert on a given day.
  • Log integrity is addressed: who could erase the trail, and why they cannot.
  • The gap list is honest and short, and each line can become a ticket the same day.

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-logging-and-monitoring-evidence-pack

Rules

  • MUST trace at least one real alert from firing to closure with timestamps.
  • MUST cite the configuration, ticket or log behind every claim in the pack.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./logging-and-monitoring-evidence-pack/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER change logging, retention or alert configuration; propose changes for the owner.
  • NEVER trigger a test alert or simulated attack without the owner's explicit go-ahead.
  • NEVER copy secrets, tokens or unredacted personal data from logs into the pack.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills512026年10月21日 更新

查看 better-isms 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题