Best for
- Use when the user asks to prepare for SOC 2 audits, map Trust Service Criteria, build control matrices, collect audit evidence, perform gap analysis, or assess SOC 2 Type I vs Type II readiness.
alirezarezvani/claude-skills/ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/SKILL.md
Use when the user asks to prepare for SOC 2 audits, map Trust Service Criteria, build control matrices, collect audit evidence, perform gap analysis, or assess SOC 2 Type I vs Type II readiness.
Decision brief
SOC 2 Type I and Type II compliance preparation for SaaS companies. Covers Trust Service Criteria mapping, control matrix generation, evidence collection, gap analysis, and audit readiness assessment.
Compatibility matrix
| 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
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 "ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance"Inspect the Agent Skill "soc2-compliance" from https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/blob/f2bac0a8f29b71846cc62d9d580249c2a3246030/ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/SKILL.md at commit f2bac0a8f29b71846cc62d9d580249c2a3246030. 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
1. Select applicable TSC categories based on business needs 2. Run controlmatrixbuilder.py to generate the baseline matrix 3. Customize controls to match your actual environment 4. Assign owners and evidence requirements 5. Validate coverage — every selected TSC criterion must h…
1. Document existing controls — inventory all security policies, procedures, and technical controls 2. Map to TSC — align existing controls to Trust Service Criteria 3. Collect evidence samples — gather proof that controls exist and operate 4. Interview control owners — verify u…
1. Document existing controls — inventory all security policies, procedures, and technical controls 2. Map to TSC — align existing controls to Trust Service Criteria 3. Collect evidence samples — gather proof that controls exist and operate 4. Interview control owners — verify u…
Run gapanalyzer.py against your current controls to identify:
Review the “Phase 3: Remediation Planning” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Permission review
The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.
python scripts/control_matrix_builder.py --categories security --format mdThe documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.
python scripts/control_matrix_builder.py --categories security,availability,confidentiality --format jsonEvidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 92/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 24,975 | 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
SOC 2 Type I and Type II compliance preparation for SaaS companies. Covers Trust Service Criteria mapping, control matrix generation, evidence collection, gap analysis, and audit readiness assessment.
SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls 2) is an auditing framework developed by the AICPA that evaluates how a service organization manages customer data. It applies to any technology company that stores, processes, or transmits customer information — primarily SaaS, cloud infrastructure, and managed service providers.
| Aspect | Type I | Type II |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Design of controls at a point in time | Design AND operating effectiveness over a period |
| Duration | Snapshot (single date) | Observation window (3-12 months, typically 6) |
| Evidence | Control descriptions, policies | Control descriptions + operating evidence (logs, tickets, screenshots) |
| Cost | $20K-$50K (audit fees) | $30K-$100K+ (audit fees) |
| Timeline | 1-2 months (audit phase) | 6-12 months (observation + audit) |
| Best For | First-time compliance, rapid market need | Mature organizations, enterprise customers |
Gap Assessment → Remediation → Type I Audit → Observation Period → Type II Audit → Annual Renewal
(4-8 wk) (8-16 wk) (4-6 wk) (6-12 mo) (4-6 wk) (ongoing)
SOC 2 is organized around five Trust Service Criteria (TSC) categories. Security is required for every SOC 2 report; the remaining four are optional and selected based on business need.
The foundation of every SOC 2 report. Maps to COSO 2013 principles.
| Criteria | Domain | Key Controls |
|---|---|---|
| CC1 | Control Environment | Integrity/ethics, board oversight, org structure, competence, accountability |
| CC2 | Communication & Information | Internal/external communication, information quality |
| CC3 | Risk Assessment | Risk identification, fraud risk, change impact analysis |
| CC4 | Monitoring Activities | Ongoing monitoring, deficiency evaluation, corrective actions |
| CC5 | Control Activities | Policies/procedures, technology controls, deployment through policies |
| CC6 | Logical & Physical Access | Access provisioning, authentication, encryption, physical restrictions |
| CC7 | System Operations | Vulnerability management, anomaly detection, incident response |
| CC8 | Change Management | Change authorization, testing, approval, emergency changes |
| CC9 | Risk Mitigation | Vendor/business partner risk management |
| Criteria | Focus | Key Controls |
|---|---|---|
| A1.1 | Capacity management | Infrastructure scaling, resource monitoring, capacity planning |
| A1.2 | Recovery operations | Backup procedures, disaster recovery, BCP testing |
| A1.3 | Recovery testing | DR drills, failover testing, RTO/RPO validation |
Select when: Customers depend on your uptime; you have SLAs; downtime causes direct business impact.
| Criteria | Focus | Key Controls |
|---|---|---|
| C1.1 | Identification | Data classification policy, confidential data inventory |
| C1.2 | Protection | Encryption at rest and in transit, DLP, access restrictions |
| C1.3 | Disposal | Secure deletion procedures, media sanitization, retention enforcement |
Select when: You handle trade secrets, proprietary data, or contractually confidential information.
| Criteria | Focus | Key Controls |
|---|---|---|
| PI1.1 | Accuracy | Input validation, processing checks, output verification |
| PI1.2 | Completeness | Transaction monitoring, reconciliation, error handling |
| PI1.3 | Timeliness | SLA monitoring, processing delay alerts, batch job monitoring |
| PI1.4 | Authorization | Processing authorization controls, segregation of duties |
Select when: Data accuracy is critical (financial processing, healthcare records, analytics platforms).
| Criteria | Focus | Key Controls |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Notice | Privacy policy, data collection notice, purpose limitation |
| P2 | Choice & Consent | Opt-in/opt-out, consent management, preference tracking |
| P3 | Collection | Minimal collection, lawful basis, purpose specification |
| P4 | Use, Retention, Disposal | Purpose limitation, retention schedules, secure disposal |
| P5 | Access | Data subject access requests, correction rights |
| P6 | Disclosure & Notification | Third-party sharing, breach notification |
| P7 | Quality | Data accuracy verification, correction mechanisms |
| P8 | Monitoring & Enforcement | Privacy program monitoring, complaint handling |
Select when: You process PII and customers expect privacy assurance (complements GDPR compliance).
A control matrix maps each TSC criterion to specific controls, owners, evidence, and testing procedures.
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Control ID | Unique identifier (e.g., SEC-001, AVL-003) |
| TSC Mapping | Which criteria the control addresses (e.g., CC6.1, A1.2) |
| Control Description | What the control does |
| Control Type | Preventive, Detective, or Corrective |
| Owner | Responsible person/team |
| Frequency | Continuous, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Annual |
| Evidence Type | Screenshot, Log, Policy, Config, Ticket |
| Testing Procedure | How the auditor verifies the control |
{CATEGORY}-{NUMBER}
SEC-001 through SEC-NNN → Security
AVL-001 through AVL-NNN → Availability
CON-001 through CON-NNN → Confidentiality
PRI-001 through PRI-NNN → Processing Integrity
PRV-001 through PRV-NNN → Privacy
control_matrix_builder.py to generate the baseline matrixRun gap_analyzer.py against your current controls to identify:
For each gap, define:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Gap ID | Reference identifier |
| TSC Criteria | Affected criteria |
| Gap Description | What is missing or insufficient |
| Remediation Action | Specific steps to close the gap |
| Owner | Person responsible for remediation |
| Priority | Critical / High / Medium / Low |
| Target Date | Completion deadline |
| Dependencies | Other gaps or projects that must complete first |
| Priority | Target Remediation |
|---|---|
| Critical | 2-4 weeks |
| High | 4-8 weeks |
| Medium | 8-12 weeks |
| Low | 12-16 weeks |
| Control Area | Primary Evidence | Secondary Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Access Management | User access reviews, provisioning tickets | Role matrix, access logs |
| Change Management | Change tickets, approval records | Deployment logs, test results |
| Incident Response | Incident tickets, postmortems | Runbooks, escalation records |
| Vulnerability Management | Scan reports, patch records | Remediation timelines |
| Encryption | Configuration screenshots, certificate inventory | Key rotation logs |
| Backup & Recovery | Backup logs, DR test results | Recovery time measurements |
| Monitoring | Alert configurations, dashboard screenshots | On-call schedules, escalation records |
| Policy Management | Signed policies, version history | Training completion records |
| Vendor Management | Vendor assessments, SOC 2 reports | Contract reviews, risk registers |
| Area | Automation Approach |
|---|---|
| Access reviews | Integrate IAM with ticketing (automatic quarterly review triggers) |
| Configuration evidence | Infrastructure-as-code snapshots, compliance-as-code tools |
| Vulnerability scans | Scheduled scanning with auto-generated reports |
| Change management | Git-based audit trail (commits, PRs, approvals) |
| Uptime monitoring | Automated SLA dashboards with historical data |
| Backup verification | Automated restore tests with success/failure logging |
Move from point-in-time evidence collection to continuous compliance:
| Score | Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100% | Audit Ready | Proceed with confidence |
| 75-89% | Minor Gaps | Address before scheduling audit |
| 50-74% | Significant Gaps | Remediation required |
| < 50% | Not Ready | Major program build-out needed |
| Finding | Root Cause | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| Incomplete access reviews | Manual process, no reminders | Automate quarterly review triggers |
| Missing change approvals | Emergency changes bypass process | Define emergency change procedure with post-hoc approval |
| Stale vulnerability scans | Scanner misconfigured | Automated weekly scans with alerting |
| Policy not acknowledged | No tracking mechanism | Annual e-signature workflow |
| Missing vendor assessments | No vendor inventory | Maintain vendor register with review schedule |
Every vendor that accesses, stores, or processes customer data must be assessed:
| Tier | Data Access | Assessment Frequency | Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Processes/stores customer data | Annual + continuous monitoring | SOC 2 Type II, penetration test, security review |
| High | Accesses customer environment | Annual | SOC 2 Type II or equivalent, questionnaire |
| Medium | Indirect access, support tools | Annual questionnaire | Security certifications, questionnaire |
| Low | No data access | Biennial questionnaire | Basic security questionnaire |
When your SOC 2 report relies on controls at a subservice organization (e.g., AWS, GCP, Azure):
| Aspect | Point-in-Time | Continuous |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence collection | Manual, before audit | Automated, ongoing |
| Control monitoring | Periodic review | Real-time dashboards |
| Drift detection | Found during audit | Alert-based, immediate |
| Remediation | Reactive | Proactive |
| Audit preparation | 4-8 week scramble | Always ready |
| Quarter | Activities |
|---|---|
| Q1 | Annual risk assessment, policy refresh, vendor reassessment launch |
| Q2 | Internal control testing, remediation of findings |
| Q3 | Pre-audit readiness review, evidence completeness check |
| Q4 | External audit, management assertion, report distribution |
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Point-in-time compliance | Controls degrade between audits; gaps found during audit | Implement continuous monitoring and automated evidence |
| Manual evidence collection | Time-consuming, inconsistent, error-prone | Automate with scripts, IaC, and compliance platforms |
| Missing vendor assessments | Auditors flag incomplete vendor due diligence | Maintain vendor register with risk-tiered assessment schedule |
| Copy-paste policies | Generic policies don't match actual operations | Tailor policies to your actual environment and technology stack |
| Security theater | Controls exist on paper but aren't followed | Verify operating effectiveness; build controls into workflows |
| Skipping Type I | Jumping to Type II without foundational readiness | Start with Type I to validate control design before observation |
| Over-scoping TSC | Including all 5 categories when only Security is needed | Select categories based on actual customer/business requirements |
| Treating audit as a project | Compliance degrades after the report is issued | Build compliance into daily operations and engineering culture |
Generates a SOC 2 control matrix from selected TSC categories.
# Generate full security matrix in markdown
python scripts/control_matrix_builder.py --categories security --format md
# Generate matrix for multiple categories as JSON
python scripts/control_matrix_builder.py --categories security,availability,confidentiality --format json
# All categories, CSV output
python scripts/control_matrix_builder.py --categories security,availability,confidentiality,processing-integrity,privacy --format csv
Tracks evidence collection status per control.
# Check evidence status from a control matrix
python scripts/evidence_tracker.py --matrix controls.json --status
# JSON output for integration
python scripts/evidence_tracker.py --matrix controls.json --status --json
Analyzes current controls against SOC 2 requirements and identifies gaps.
# Type I gap analysis
python scripts/gap_analyzer.py --controls current_controls.json --type type1
# Type II gap analysis (includes operating effectiveness)
python scripts/gap_analyzer.py --controls current_controls.json --type type2 --json
Frequently asked questions
SOC 2 Type I and Type II compliance preparation for SaaS companies. Covers Trust Service Criteria mapping, control matrix generation, evidence collection, gap analysis, and audit readiness assessment.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill "ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Static rules flagged exec-script in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.
Alternatives
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
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
Use it for operations and research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.
prowler-cloud/prowler
PostgreSQL indexing best practices for Prowler: index design, partial indexes, partitioned table indexing, EXPLAIN ANALYZE validation, concurrent operations, monitoring, and maintenance. Trigger: When creating or modifying PostgreSQL indexes, analyzing query performance with EXPLAIN, debugging slow queries, reviewing index usage statistics, reindexing, dropping indexes, or working with partitioned table indexes. Also trigger when discussing index strategies, partial indexes, or index maintenance
brucesongs/kali-claw
Insecure Design (OWASP A06:2025) focuses on security flaws in system architecture and design phases, rather than code implementation-level bugs.