Source profileQuality 84/100Review permissions

alirezarezvani/claude-skills/compliance-os/skills/aims-audit/SKILL.md

aims-audit

/cs:aims-audit <scope> — ISO/IEC 42001 AIMS internal-audit 6-question forcing interrogation. Use before certification stage 1, before annual internal audit cycles, or when onboarding a new AI system into an existing AIMS.

Source repository stars
23,781
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-07-17
Source checked
2026-08-04

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

The ISO 42001 AIMS specialist pressure-tests any AI Management System work. Six questions before any certification commitment, internal audit cycle, or new-system onboarding.

Best for

    Not for

    • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
    • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

    Compatibility matrix

    Platform support, with evidence labels

    PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
    CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Open the compatibility checker

    Installation

    Inspect first. Install second.

    The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

    Source-detected install commandSource
    npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill "compliance-os/skills/aims-audit"
    Safe inspection promptEditorial

    Inspect the Agent Skill "aims-audit" from https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/blob/aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc/compliance-os/skills/aims-audit/SKILL.md at commit aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

    Workflow

    What the source asks the agent to do

    1. 01

      4. Has the AI risk assessment been re-run since the last material model change?

      Concept drift is not a one-time event. - Article 9 EU AI Act + ISO 42001 Clause 6.1.2 both require iterative risk assessment - Material change = retraining on new data, fine-tuning, architecture change, deployment context change - If "we did it 18 months ago and haven't touched…

      Article 9 EU AI Act + ISO 42001 Clause 6.1.2 both require iterative risk assessmentMaterial change = retraining on new data, fine-tuning, architecture change, deployment context changeIf "we did it 18 months ago and haven't touched it," the AIMS is broken
    2. 02

      Workflow

      Review the “Workflow” section in the pinned source before continuing.

      Review and apply the “Workflow” source section.
    3. 03

      When to Run

      Before stage 1 ISO 42001 certification audit

      Before stage 1 ISO 42001 certification auditBefore annual internal audit cycle (Clause 9.2)When onboarding a new AI system into existing AIMS scope
    4. 04

      The Six AIMS Questions

      Scope omission = certification finding. - Including: embedded models, third-party AI services, "experimental" production systems - Run aimsgapanalyzer.py to verify Clause 4.3 evidence - "AI features added by SaaS vendors we use" = in scope if they affect the company's services

      Including: embedded models, third-party AI services, "experimental" production systemsRun aimsgapanalyzer.py to verify Clause 4.3 evidence"AI features added by SaaS vendors we use" = in scope if they affect the company's services
    5. 05

      1. Does the AIMS scope statement name every AI system?

      Scope omission = certification finding. - Including: embedded models, third-party AI services, "experimental" production systems - Run aimsgapanalyzer.py to verify Clause 4.3 evidence - "AI features added by SaaS vendors we use" = in scope if they affect the company's services

      Including: embedded models, third-party AI services, "experimental" production systemsRun aimsgapanalyzer.py to verify Clause 4.3 evidence"AI features added by SaaS vendors we use" = in scope if they affect the company's services

    Permission review

    Static risk signals and limitations

    Runs scripts

    medium · line 61

    The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

    python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/aims_gap_analyzer.py evidence.json

    Runs scripts

    medium · line 64

    The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

    python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/ai_risk_register_builder.py risks.json

    Evidence record

    Why each signal appears

    EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
    SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
    Quality score84/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
    Repository stars23,781SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
    Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
    Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

    Pinned source

    Provenance and original SKILL.md

    Repository
    alirezarezvani/claude-skills
    Skill path
    compliance-os/skills/aims-audit/SKILL.md
    Commit
    aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc
    License
    MIT
    Collected
    2026-08-04
    Default branch
    main
    View the original SKILL.md

    /cs:aims-audit — AIMS ISO 42001 Forcing Questions

    Command: /cs:aims-audit <scope>

    The ISO 42001 AIMS specialist pressure-tests any AI Management System work. Six questions before any certification commitment, internal audit cycle, or new-system onboarding.

    When to Run

    • Before stage 1 ISO 42001 certification audit
    • Before annual internal audit cycle (Clause 9.2)
    • When onboarding a new AI system into existing AIMS scope
    • When AI risk register hasn't been refreshed in > 6 months
    • After material model change (re-evaluate risks per Clause 6.1.2)
    • When audit findings hint at AIMS / ISMS / QMS duplication

    The Six AIMS Questions

    1. Does the AIMS scope statement name every AI system?

    Scope omission = certification finding.

    • Including: embedded models, third-party AI services, "experimental" production systems
    • Run aims_gap_analyzer.py to verify Clause 4.3 evidence
    • "AI features added by SaaS vendors we use" = in scope if they affect the company's services

    2. Does the AI policy commit to lawful use AND beneficial purpose AND human oversight AND continual improvement?

    Missing any of the four = critical nonconformity at stage 1.

    • AI policy is NOT info-sec policy — it has separate substantive content
    • Reference ISO 42001 Annex A.2.2 + Clause 5.2
    • Marketing-copy "AI ethics" doesn't pass

    3. What's the risk register coverage, and which Annex A controls treat each risk?

    Risk identification without control mapping = Clause 6.1.3 fails.

    • Run ai_risk_register_builder.py per ISO 23894 methodology
    • Every high/critical risk must link to ≥ 1 Annex A control
    • "Residual verdict: additional_treatment_required" must be closed before stage 1

    4. Has the AI risk assessment been re-run since the last material model change?

    Concept drift is not a one-time event.

    • Article 9 EU AI Act + ISO 42001 Clause 6.1.2 both require iterative risk assessment
    • Material change = retraining on new data, fine-tuning, architecture change, deployment context change
    • If "we did it 18 months ago and haven't touched it," the AIMS is broken

    5. What's the Clause 9.2 internal audit plan, and is auditor independence respected?

    Without 9.2 plan, the AIMS is incomplete.

    • Run aims_audit_scheduler.py with scope + auditors + prior findings
    • Audit every clause + applicable Annex A control over rolling 3-year cycle
    • Same auditor cannot audit own work
    • Cross-check with cs-quality-regulatory if integrated with 13485 audit programme

    6. Has the AIMS been integrated with existing ISMS / QMS, or built in parallel?

    Parallel systems = 5x ongoing maintenance cost.

    • 60% of Clauses 4-10 evidence reuses ISO 27001 / 13485 with AI scope appended
    • CAPA loop should be ONE loop with AI-tagged nonconformities, not separate
    • Reference cross_framework_mapping_ai.md for the reuse map
    • Cross-check with cs-ciso-advisor on ISO 27001 alignment

    Workflow

    # 1. AIMS gap analysis
    python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/aims_gap_analyzer.py evidence.json
    
    # 2. AI risk register
    python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/ai_risk_register_builder.py risks.json
    
    # 3. Internal audit plan
    python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/aims_audit_scheduler.py audit_scope.json
    
    # 4. Cross-framework reuse map (via compliance-os)
    python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json
    

    Output Format

    # AIMS Audit: <scope>
    **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
    
    ## The Decision Being Made
    [gap-closure | risk-treatment | audit-scope | new-system-onboarding]
    
    ## Gap Analysis (Clauses 4-10)
    - Weighted coverage: X%
    - Critical gaps: N
    - Major gaps: M
    - Certification readiness: ready | stage_2_candidate | not_ready
    
    ## AI Risk Register
    - Total risks: N
    - By severity: critical=X, high=Y, medium=Z, low=W
    - Requires additional treatment: K
    - Top risk requiring action: <description>
    
    ## Clause 9.2 Audit Plan
    - 12-month coverage: clauses=X, controls=Y
    - Auditor independence: clean | issues
    - Prior-year follow-up: scheduled in Q1
    
    ## Cross-Framework Reuse
    - ISO 27001 evidence reused: % of AIMS Clauses 4-10
    - 13485 evidence reused: % (if applicable)
    - Net-new for AIMS: % (mostly Annex A)
    
    ## Verdict
    🟢 STAGE-1-READY | 🟡 CLOSE-CRITICALS-FIRST | 🔴 NOT-READY
    
    ## Top 3 Actions
    [3 concrete next steps with owner + date]
    

    Routing

    • /cs:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view
    • /cs:ai-act-readiness — if EU AI Act also applies
    • /cs:caio-review — for executive AI strategy decisions
    • /cs:ciso-review — for ISO 27001 cross-framework alignment
    • /cs:decide — to log the verdict
    • /cs:freeze 30 — on certification commitments

    Related


    Version: 1.0.0

    Alternatives

    Compare before choosing

    Computed 10023,781

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    app-store-optimization

    App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

    Computed 10014,225

    wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

    citation-audit

    Use it for operations and research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.

    Computed 1004,922

    dotnet/skills

    migrate-vstest-to-mtp

    Migrates .NET test projects from VSTest to Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP). Use when user asks to "migrate to MTP", "switch from VSTest", "enable Microsoft.Testing.Platform", "use MTP runner", set OutputType=Exe only for test projects in Directory.Build.props, or mentions EnableMSTestRunner, EnableNUnitRunner, or UseMicrosoftTestingPlatformRunner. USE FOR: MTP behavioral differences vs VSTest (exit code 8, zero tests discovered, --ignore-exit-code, TESTINGPLATFORM_EXITCODE_IGNORE); centralizing

    Computed 1002,504

    aaron-he-zhu/aaron-marketing-skills

    social-selling-planner

    Use when the user asks to "set up my founder social-selling routine", "build a daily engagement block for target accounts", or "turn funding / hiring signals into selling plays"; produces the founder/seller daily operating block — a time-boxed engagement-block spec (substantive value-add comments on target-account posts, never a pitch), warm-touch-before-ask cadence rules, trigger-response plays consuming the social-pulse-monitor B2B trigger watchlist (funding / hiring / launch signals), and a q