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.
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
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
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.
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill "compliance-os/skills/aims-audit"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
- 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 - 02
Workflow
Review the “Workflow” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review and apply the “Workflow” source section. - 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 - 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 - 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
The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.
python ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/scripts/aims_gap_analyzer.py evidence.jsonRuns scripts
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.jsonEvidence record
Why each signal appears
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 84/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 23,781 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated 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.pyto 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.pyper 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.pywith 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.mdfor 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
- Agent:
cs-aims-iso42001 - Skill:
iso42001-specialist - Adjacent:
../../skills/compliance-os/,../ai-act-readiness/,../compliance-readiness/
Version: 1.0.0
Alternatives
Compare before choosing
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
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.
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
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