compliance-checklist-generation
Build evidence-oriented readiness checklists for frameworks such as SOC 2, HIPAA, PCI DSS, and GDPR, with gaps and remediation priorities. Use when the user needs an internal readiness assessment or control-mapping plan; do not use it to certify compliance or replace an auditor or counsel.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills /tmp/compliance-checklist-generation && cp -r /tmp/compliance-checklist-generation/legal-and-compliance/compliance-checklist-generation ~/.claude/skills/compliance-checklist-generationSKILL.md
# Compliance Checklist Generation Create structured, actionable compliance checklists for major regulatory frameworks including SOC2, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and GDPR. This skill maps controls to requirements, assesses readiness against each control, identifies gaps, and produces prioritized remediation plans. Output includes status tracking, evidence requirements, and effort estimates for each control item. ## Workflow 1. **Identify Applicable Frameworks** — Determine which compliance frameworks apply based on the business type, data handled, customer requirements, and geographic reach. A healthcare SaaS needs HIPAA. A company processing credit cards needs PCI-DSS. Enterprise B2B SaaS customers almost universally request SOC2. Serving EU users triggers GDPR. Multiple frameworks often overlap — identify shared controls to reduce duplicate effort. 2. **Map Controls to Requirements** — Break each framework into its constituent control categories and individual requirements. For SOC2, map across the five Trust Services Criteria (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy). For HIPAA, cover Administrative, Physical, and Technical Safeguards. For PCI-DSS, address all 12 requirement families. For GDPR, map to Articles 5-49 covering principles, rights, and obligations. 3. **Assess Current State** — For each control, evaluate the current implementation status: Implemented (evidence exists), Partially Implemented (control exists but has gaps), Not Implemented (no control in place), or Not Applicable (with documented justification). Where possible, reference existing documentation, tool configurations, or process artifacts as evidence. 4. **Generate Checklist with Status and Gaps** — Produce a structured checklist organized by control category, with each item showing: the requirement description, current status, evidence needed, gap description (if any), and remediation effort estimate (hours/days). Include a summary dashboard showing overall readiness percentage per category. 5. **Prioritize Remediation** — Rank gaps by a combination of risk severity, audit impact, implementation effort, and shared coverage across frameworks. Quick wins (high impact, low effort) should be prioritized first. Group related remediation items that can be addressed together, such as implementing a single logging solution that satisfies SOC2, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS log requirements simultaneously. ## Usage Specify which framework(s) you need, your business type, current security posture, and any upcoming audit deadlines. The more context about existing controls, the more accurate the gap analysis. **Example prompt:** ``` Generate a SOC2 Type II readiness checklist for our Series A startup. We're a B2B SaaS running on AWS. We use GitHub for code, Datadog for monitoring, and have about 20 employees. We need to be audit-ready in 6 months. ``` ## Examples ### Example 1: SOC2 Type II Readiness for a Startup **Input:** 20-person B2B SaaS startup on AWS. Uses GitHub, Datadog, Google Workspace, Slack. No formal security program yet. SOC2 audit in 6 months. **Output:** **Readiness Summary:** 34% ready (estimated) | Category | Controls | Implemented | Partial | Missing | Readiness | |----------|----------|-------------|---------|---------|-----------| | Access Control | 12 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 28% | | Change Management | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 63% | | Incident Response | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 8% | | Risk Assessment | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0% | | Monitoring & Logging | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 57% | | Vendor Management | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 13% | | HR & Security Awareness | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17% | **Sample Controls (Access Control category):** | # | Requirement | Status | Evidence Needed | Gap / Action | Effort | |---|------------|--------|-----------------|--------------|--------| | AC-1 | MFA enforced for all production systems | Partial | AWS IAM policy screenshots, IdP config | MFA enabled for AWS console but not for SSH access to EC2 instances. Enable MFA for all access paths. | 2 days | | AC-2 | Role-based access control with least privilege | Missing | IAM role definitions, access matrix | No formal RBAC model. Define roles, map to AWS IAM policies, GitHub teams, and Google Workspace groups. | 5 days | | AC-3 | Quarterly access reviews | Missing | Access review records, approval logs | No process exists. Implement quarterly reviews of all system access with manager sign-off. Tool recommendation: Vanta or Drata for automated tracking. | 3 days | | AC-4 | Offboarding removes access within 24 hours | Partial | Offboarding checklist, deprovisioning logs | Ad hoc process exists but not documented. Formalize checklist covering all systems, automate via identity provider where possible. | 2 days | **Priority Remediation (Month 1):** Risk assessment (required foundation for all other controls), MFA enforcement across all systems, formal access control policy document, incident response plan draft. ### Example 2: GDPR Compliance for E-Commerce **Input:** EU-based e-commerce site selling consumer electronics. Collects name, address, email, payment data, browsing behavior. Uses Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, Mailchimp for email marketing. Ships to all EU countries. **Output:** **Readiness Summary:** 42% ready (estimated) | GDPR Area | Requirements | Met | Gaps | Readiness | |-----------|-------------|-----|------|-----------| | Lawful Basis & Consent | 8 | 3 | 5 | 38% | | Data Subject Rights | 7 | 2 | 5 | 29% | | Data Processing Records | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25% | | International Transfers | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | | Security Measures | 6 | 4 | 2 | 67% | | Breach Notification | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | | DPO & Governance | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50% | **Sample Controls (Data Subject Rights):** | # | Requirement | Status | Gap / Action | Effort | |---|------------|--------|--------------|--------| | DSR-1 | Right of access (Art. 15) — respond within 30 days | Missing | No automated process to compile all data held about a user. Implement data export from database,
Design reproducible evaluations for AI agents with representative task sets, explicit rubrics, appropriate graders, baselines, regression gates, and failure analysis. Use when defining agent quality, comparing prompts or models, validating a release, measuring tool-use reliability, investigating regressions, or deciding whether an agent is ready for production.
Design privacy-aware observability for AI agents using traces, spans, structured events, metrics, cost attribution, dashboards, alerts, and investigation workflows. Use when instrumenting an agent, debugging intermittent tool or model failures, defining service-level objectives, analyzing latency or spend, auditing agent decisions, or preparing production monitoring.
Design and verify auditable human oversight, approval gates, escalation paths, and safe state transitions for AI agent workflows. Use when deciding which agent actions require review, adding approve/reject or dual-control flows, preventing unauthorized autonomous effects, creating decision records, reducing rubber-stamping, or recovering safely from rejected, expired, or failed actions.
Design, implement, harden, and verify Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers with precise tool contracts, least-privilege authorization, safe transports, structured errors, and interoperability tests. Use when creating a new MCP server, exposing an API or data source through MCP, reviewing an MCP server design, adding or revising MCP tools, or preparing an MCP server for production.
Design and operate bounded multi-agent workflows with task decomposition, dependency graphs, ownership, handoff contracts, shared-state controls, approvals, recovery, and synthesis. Use when a task contains genuinely independent workstreams, specialized roles, parallel research or implementation, reviewer-worker loops, or coordination problems that one agent should not execute sequentially.
Design and validate model-facing tool definitions with clear names, action-oriented descriptions, bounded JSON Schema parameters, explicit side effects, safe defaults, idempotency, errors, and realistic tests. Use when creating function-calling tools, MCP tools, agent actions, structured tool inputs, or when a model selects the wrong tool, invents arguments, or causes unsafe side effects.
Plan, execute, document, and retest authorized security assessments of AI agents and multi-agent workflows using safe adversarial cases, synthetic identities, canaries, and evidence-based findings. Use when defining red-team rules of engagement, assessing prompt injection or excessive agency, testing tool and identity boundaries, evaluating memory or cross-agent attacks, scoring a campaign, or verifying remediation in an approved environment.
Threat-model and harden AI agents, RAG systems, assistants, and tool-using workflows against direct, indirect, stored, cross-agent, and multimodal prompt injection. Use when reviewing an agent architecture, isolating untrusted content, constraining tools and egress, protecting secrets, adding injection-focused tests, investigating a suspected injection incident, or documenting residual prompt-injection risk.