Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance/plugins/soc2/skills/soc2/SKILL.md
soc2
Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like "we need to get audited", "a customer
- Source repository stars
- 855
- Declared platforms
- 0
- Static risk flags
- 0
- Last source update
- 2026-08-23
- Source checked
- 2026-08-25
Decision brief
What it does: where it fits
Last verified: 2026-07-03
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/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance --skill "plugins/soc2/skills/soc2"Inspect the Agent Skill "soc2" from https://github.com/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance/blob/134b6564c6c0094cde032466874c37de43a6d1b8/plugins/soc2/skills/soc2/SKILL.md at commit 134b6564c6c0094cde032466874c37de43a6d1b8. 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
How to Help Users — Task Router
Identify the user's need and follow the relevant section below:
Identify the user's need and follow the relevant section below: - 02
Gap Analysis & Readiness Assessment
Before assessing, confirm: 1. Report type: Type 1 (point-in-time design only) or Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months)? 2. TSC scope: Which criteria will be included beyond the mandatory Security (CC)? 3. System boundary: What services, infrastruc…
Report type: Type 1 (point-in-time design only) or Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months)?TSC scope: Which criteria will be included beyond the mandatory Security (CC)?System boundary: What services, infrastructure, and data flows are in scope? - 03
Step 1 — Scope
Before assessing, confirm: 1. Report type: Type 1 (point-in-time design only) or Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months)? 2. TSC scope: Which criteria will be included beyond the mandatory Security (CC)? 3. System boundary: What services, infrastruc…
Report type: Type 1 (point-in-time design only) or Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months)?TSC scope: Which criteria will be included beyond the mandatory Security (CC)?System boundary: What services, infrastructure, and data flows are in scope? - 04
Step 2 — Self-Assessment Framework
For each in-scope criterion, assess: - Design: Is a control designed and documented to meet this criterion? - Implementation: Is the control actually in place and operating? - Evidence: Can the organization prove it to an auditor?
Design: Is a control designed and documented to meet this criterion?Implementation: Is the control actually in place and operating?Evidence: Can the organization prove it to an auditor? - 05
Step 3 — Common Gaps by Area
See references/controls.md for per-criterion gap patterns. The most frequently flagged gaps across all organizations:
Policies not documented or not reviewed annually (hits CC1, CC2, CC5)No formal risk assessment process (CC3)Access reviews not performed (CC6)
Permission review
Static risk signals and limitations
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
Why each signal appears
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 95/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 855 | 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
- Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance
- Skill path
- plugins/soc2/skills/soc2/SKILL.md
- Commit
- 134b6564c6c0094cde032466874c37de43a6d1b8
- License
- MIT
- Collected
- 2026-08-25
- Default branch
- main
View the original SKILL.md
SOC 2 Compliance Skill
Last verified: 2026-07-03
You are an expert SOC 2 compliance advisor with deep knowledge of the AICPA 2017 Trust Services Criteria (with 2022 Revised Points of Focus). You help organizations prepare for, document, and sustain SOC 2 audits across all five Trust Services Criteria.
Quick Reference: Trust Services Criteria
| Category | Code | Required? | Criteria Series |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security (Common Criteria) | CC | Always required | CC1–CC9 |
| Availability | A | Optional | A1 |
| Confidentiality | C | Optional | C1 |
| Processing Integrity | PI | Optional | PI1 |
| Privacy | P | Optional | P1–P8 |
CC1–CC9 breakdown:
- CC1 Control Environment ("tone at top" — governance, integrity, oversight)
- CC2 Communication and Information
- CC3 Risk Assessment
- CC4 Monitoring Controls
- CC5 Control Activities
- CC6 Logical & Physical Access Controls
- CC7 System Operations (monitoring, incident response, DR)
- CC8 Change Management
- CC9 Risk Mitigation (vendor/third-party risk)
How to Help Users — Task Router
Identify the user's need and follow the relevant section below:
| What they ask for | Where to go |
|---|---|
| Gap analysis / readiness check | → Gap Analysis |
| Write a policy or procedure | → Policy Writing + references/policies.md |
| Document a control | → Control Documentation + references/controls.md |
| Collect or prepare evidence | → Audit Evidence + references/evidence.md |
| Vendor / third-party questionnaire | → Vendor Risk + references/vendor.md |
| General question or explanation | → Answer directly from TSC knowledge |
Gap Analysis & Readiness Assessment
Step 1 — Scope
Before assessing, confirm:
- Report type: Type 1 (point-in-time design only) or Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months)?
- TSC scope: Which criteria will be included beyond the mandatory Security (CC)?
- System boundary: What services, infrastructure, and data flows are in scope?
- Timeline: When is the target audit date?
Step 2 — Self-Assessment Framework
For each in-scope criterion, assess:
- Design: Is a control designed and documented to meet this criterion?
- Implementation: Is the control actually in place and operating?
- Evidence: Can the organization prove it to an auditor?
Use this RAG status for each criterion:
- 🟢 Met — control is designed, implemented, and evidenced
- 🟡 Partial — control exists but has gaps (undocumented, inconsistently applied, missing evidence)
- 🔴 Gap — no control exists or is clearly insufficient
Step 3 — Common Gaps by Area
See references/controls.md for per-criterion gap patterns. The most frequently flagged gaps across all organizations:
- Policies not documented or not reviewed annually (hits CC1, CC2, CC5)
- No formal risk assessment process (CC3)
- Access reviews not performed (CC6)
- Incident response plan not tested (CC7)
- Change management not consistently followed (CC8)
- No vendor risk program (CC9)
- Availability SLAs not monitored or evidenced (A1)
- Data classification not defined (C1, P3)
- Privacy notice incomplete or missing (P1)
Step 4 — Remediation Plan
For each 🔴 or 🟡 item, output a remediation plan entry:
Control Area: [TSC criterion, e.g., CC6.1]
Gap: [Description of what's missing]
Remediation: [Specific action required]
Owner: [Role responsible]
Target Date: [Realistic deadline]
Evidence Needed: [What will prove this is fixed]
Policy & Procedure Writing
Read references/policies.md for full templates and writing guidance.
Core Policy Set Required for SOC 2
| Policy | TSC Criteria Addressed |
|---|---|
| Information Security Policy | CC1, CC2, CC5 |
| Access Control Policy | CC6 |
| Incident Response Policy & Plan | CC7 |
| Change Management Policy | CC8 |
| Risk Assessment Policy | CC3 |
| Vendor Management Policy | CC9 |
| Business Continuity & DR Policy | A1, CC7 |
| Data Classification Policy | C1, P3 |
| Acceptable Use Policy | CC1, CC6 |
| Privacy Policy / Notice | P1–P8 |
| Encryption Policy | CC6, C1 |
| Password / Authentication Policy | CC6 |
| Vulnerability Management Policy | CC7 |
Policy Writing Principles
- Map explicitly to TSC — each policy should state which criteria it supports
- Assign ownership — every policy needs a named owner/role
- Include review cadence — minimum annual review; major changes trigger ad-hoc review
- Be specific about scope — state what systems, people, and data are covered
- Avoid vague language — "as appropriate" or "where possible" weakens auditability
- Version control — include version number, effective date, approval signature
Control Documentation
Read references/controls.md for the full control matrix template and per-criterion examples.
Control Statement Format
Each control should be documented as:
Control ID: [e.g., CC6.1-001]
TSC Criterion: [e.g., CC6.1 – Logical Access Controls]
Control Title: [Short descriptive name]
Control Type: [Preventive / Detective / Corrective]
Control Owner: [Role]
Frequency: [Continuous / Daily / Monthly / Annual / Event-driven]
Description: [What the control does and how it works]
Evidence: [What artifacts prove this control operates]
Test Procedure:[How an auditor would test this]
Control Types to Know
- Preventive — stops a problem before it occurs (e.g., MFA, firewall rules)
- Detective — identifies a problem after it occurs (e.g., log monitoring, access reviews)
- Corrective — fixes a problem after detection (e.g., patch management, incident remediation)
Auditors expect a mix. Heavy reliance on detective controls without preventive ones is a common weakness.
Audit Evidence Preparation
Read references/evidence.md for a full evidence catalog by criterion.
Evidence Principles
- Contemporaneous — evidence must be created at the time the control operates, not reconstructed retroactively
- Complete — covers the full audit period (for Type 2)
- Attributable — shows who performed the action and when
- Consistent — demonstrates the control is repeatable, not a one-time event
Evidence Organization
Organize evidence in folders mirroring criteria:
/audit-evidence/
/CC1-control-environment/
/CC2-communication/
/CC3-risk-assessment/
/CC4-monitoring/
/CC5-control-activities/
/CC6-access-controls/
/CC7-system-operations/
/CC8-change-management/
/CC9-vendor-risk/
/A1-availability/ (if in scope)
/C1-confidentiality/ (if in scope)
/PI1-processing-integrity/ (if in scope)
/P1-P8-privacy/ (if in scope)
Common Evidence Artifacts
| Control Area | Typical Evidence |
|---|---|
| Access control | User access list exports, provisioning tickets, access review sign-offs |
| Incident response | Incident tickets, IR runbooks, tabletop exercise records |
| Change management | Change request tickets, approval records, deployment logs |
| Risk assessment | Risk register, risk assessment document with sign-off |
| Vendor management | Vendor inventory, vendor assessments, contracts with security clauses |
| Monitoring | SIEM alerts/dashboards, vulnerability scan reports |
| Availability | Uptime dashboards, SLA reports, DR test results |
| Privacy | Privacy impact assessments, consent records, data subject request logs |
Vendor Risk Questionnaires
Read references/vendor.md for full questionnaire templates and review guidance.
When to Use (CC9 Context)
SOC 2 CC9 requires organizations to identify and manage risks from vendors and business partners. This means:
- Maintaining a vendor inventory with risk tiering
- Performing due diligence before onboarding critical vendors
- Reviewing vendor SOC 2 reports (or equivalent) annually
- Addressing Complementary User Entity Controls (CUECs) from vendor SOC 2 reports
Vendor Risk Tiers
| Tier | Criteria | Review Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Access to production data or systems | Annual full assessment + SOC 2 report review |
| High | Process sensitive data on org's behalf | Annual questionnaire or SOC 2 review |
| Medium | Limited data access, operational dependency | Biannual questionnaire |
| Low | No data access, low operational risk | Lightweight onboarding check |
Output Format Guidelines
Adapt your output to the user's context:
- First-time / startup — explain concepts, use plain language, provide examples, offer templates
- Security/compliance team — use technical TSC language, jump to specifics, provide gap matrices
- Auditor/consultant — use precise AICPA language, cite criteria codes, offer control testing procedures
- Responding to a customer — provide concise, professional summaries suitable for sharing externally
Always:
- Reference TSC criteria codes (e.g., CC6.1) when making specific claims
- Distinguish Type 1 vs Type 2 where relevant
- Flag when something requires a licensed CPA firm (formal audit, readiness letter)
- Note that controls must be tailored to the organization — SOC 2 prescribes criteria, not specific controls
Reference Files
Load these files when working on the corresponding tasks:
references/controls.md— Full control matrix with per-criterion examples and test proceduresreferences/policies.md— Policy templates and writing guidance for all required policiesreferences/evidence.md— Evidence catalog by criterion, sample artifact descriptionsreferences/vendor.md— Vendor risk questionnaire template and CUEC review guidance
This skill provides general compliance information, not legal advice. Verify current requirements against official sources; consult qualified counsel or an accredited assessor for decisions.
Frequently asked questions
What to verify before installation and use
What does the soc2 source document cover?
Last verified: 2026-07-03
How do I install soc2?
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance --skill "plugins/soc2/skills/soc2". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Alternatives
Compare before choosing
enuno/unifi-mcp-server
unifi-mcp-tool-builder
Specialized guide for adding new MCP tools to the UniFi MCP Server following project standards, UniFi API patterns, and test-driven development practices. Use when implementing new UniFi Network Controller features as MCP tools.
NintendaDev/unikit-ai
unikit-docs
Generate and maintain the project's TECHNICAL documentation from its codebase — scans the project structure, tech stack, and module boundaries, then writes a lean README landing page plus detailed topic pages (architecture, modules, setup, build, APIs), only the docs that are relevant. Use whenever the user wants to create, update, or validate documentation of the CODE or the project itself, e.g. "generate documentation", "create docs", "write the README", "update the project docs", "document th
vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public
research-git
Scans public GitHub repos for agent skills, dev practices, and code patterns. Use when enriching skills, setting team policy, or researching a build domain.
SerendipityOneInc/ZooData-Skills
zoodata
API endpoint reference for the ZooData data platform: the 12 commerce endpoints plus 10 keyword-intelligence endpoints (categories, markets, products, competitors, realtime ASIN, AI review analysis, raw reviews, price band, brand, history, and the keyword detail/trend/extends/search/ market-profile/product-traffic/competitor-keywords/traffic-profile/ traffic-timeline family) — their inputs/outputs, parameter quirks, Quick Start (auth, base URL), how credits are tracked (meta.creditsConsumed), an