--- name: "compliance-readiness" description: "/compliance-os:compliance-readiness [program] — Multi-framework compliance officer 6-question forcing interrogation of any compliance program. Use before starting a new framework, planning the annual audit calendar, or preparing for certification stage 1." --- # /compliance-os:compliance-readiness — Compliance Officer Forcing Questions **Command:** `/compliance-os:compliance-readiness ` The multi-framework compliance officer pressure-tests any compliance program. Six questions before any new-framework commitment, audit cycle planning, or certification readiness sign-off. ## When to Run - Before adopting a new compliance framework - Before annual audit calendar finalization - Before certification stage 1 readiness sign-off - Before management review (Clause 9.3 across frameworks) - When evidence-collection effort has grown 50%+ year-over-year (a smell) - When an audit produced > 15% critical findings ## The Six Compliance Officer Questions ### 1. Have you named every applicable framework? **No framework selector run, no defensible scope.** - Run `framework_selector.py` with company profile - Forgetting a framework means rebuilding the audit program later - Pay attention to industry-specific overlays (financial: NYDFS, FINMA; healthcare: HIPAA, ISO 13485; AI: ISO 42001 + EU AI Act) ### 2. Where do the frameworks overlap, and what's the reuse leverage? **Single evidence -> N controls = the cornerstone of multi-framework efficiency.** - Run `cross_framework_mapper.py` with enabled frameworks - HIGH-confidence mappings: same evidence; MEDIUM: existing + overlay; LOW: new artefact - Without overlap analysis, you'll collect the same access-review records 3 times ### 3. Who owns each artefact, and what's the reuse-leverage score? **Joint ownership without accountability is the most common cause of stale evidence.** - Run `evidence_pool_generator.py` for the artefact inventory - HIGH-leverage artefacts (≥ 5 mappings) get built first - Each artefact needs one accountable owner - Stale evidence is an effective gap — even if the artefact existed historically ### 4. What's the audit calendar, and is auditor independence respected? **Surveillance audits stacking in the same week is a smell.** - Use per-framework audit-plan tools (aims_audit_scheduler, isms_audit_scheduler, audit_schedule_optimizer) - Auditor cannot audit their own work (Clause 9.2 across all ISO standards) - For small teams: rotate auditors + occasional external auditor ### 5. What does a mock audit produce, and is the severity distribution healthy? **No mock audit, no readiness signal.** - Run `audit_simulator.py` with framework + scope - Healthy distribution: ≥ 40% observation, ≤ 15% critical - All-critical findings = destructive audit OR genuinely failing program - All-observation findings = audit too superficial ### 6. What's the management review cadence across frameworks? **Each framework wants its own management review; an integrated review (per Annex SL) saves 5x exec time.** - Schedule one quarterly cross-framework review covering all enabled frameworks' Clause 9.3 inputs - Inputs: risk register changes, open nonconformities, audit findings, incidents, drift, KPIs - Outputs: action items, resource decisions, scope adjustments ## Workflow ```bash # 1. Framework selection python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/framework_selector.py profile.json # 2. Cross-framework overlap python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json # 3. Evidence pool consolidation python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/evidence_pool_generator.py program.json # 4. Mock audit (per framework) python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py scope.json ``` ## Output Format ```markdown # Compliance Readiness: **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD ## The Decision Being Made [framework-set | audit-calendar | certification-readiness | evidence-consolidation] ## Framework Set - Applicable: - Binding (regulations): - Certifiable: - Missing dependencies: ## Cross-Framework Overlap - Total merged controls in scope: N - High-leverage artefacts (≥ 5 mappings): M - Top reuse opportunities: ## Evidence Pool - Artefacts in catalog: N - High-leverage count: M - Stale evidence rate: X% - Unowned artefacts: K ## Audit Calendar - Frameworks scheduled this year: - Auditor independence respected: Y/N - Conflicts: ## Mock Audit Results (per framework) - : total findings N, critical X%, observation Y%, healthy distribution: Y/N ## Verdict 🟢 READY | 🟡 STAGE-2-CANDIDATE | 🔴 NOT-READY ## Top 3 Actions [3 concrete next steps with owners + dates] ``` ## Routing - `/compliance-os:aims-audit` — for ISO 42001-specific forcing questions - `/compliance-os:ai-act-readiness` — for EU AI Act-specific forcing questions - `/c-level-agents:ciso-review` — for cybersecurity strategy - `/c-level-agents:caio-review` — for executive AI strategy - `/c-level-agents:gc-review` — for novel-case legal review - `/c-level-agents:decide` — to log the verdict - `/c-level-agents:freeze 30` — on certification commitments (multi-year financial impact) ## Related - Agent: [`cs-compliance-officer`](../../agents/cs-compliance-officer.md) - Skill: [`compliance-os`](../compliance-os/SKILL.md) - Adjacent: `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/iso42001-specialist/`, `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/eu-ai-act-specialist/`, `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/information-security-manager-iso27001/`, `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/soc2-compliance/`, `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/` --- **Version:** 1.0.0 --- Attribution added by YourAIKit. It is not part of the upstream file. - Source: https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/compliance-os/skills/compliance-readiness - Credit: Alireza Rezvani, claude-skills - Upstream copy: alirezarezvani/claude-skills at commit 6d2f02ea077eead1bee5411a31bcc6db5a11a70c, compliance-os/skills/compliance-readiness/SKILL.md - Copyright: Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani - License: MIT. Full text: https://youraikit.com/licenses/alirezarezvani-claude-skills-root/LICENSE - The full upstream license text (LICENSE) follows. License (LICENSE): ```text MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. ```