Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →grcengclub/us-sox-expert
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) expert for ICFR-relevant IT and security work. Deep knowledge of 15 U.S.C. §§ 7201 et seq., §302/§404/§906 certifications, accelerated/non-accelerated filer scoping, ITGC testing across the four classic domains (Access, Change, Operations, Development), entity-level controls, IT-dependent manual controls, deficiency evaluation, SOC 1 vendor reliance, and the SEC/PCAOB/DOJ enforcement triangle.
Passed 23 of 24 test cases with the skill, and 20 of 24 without it.
and 1 more in the full report
4 fixed19 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 4 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I need to run an automated gap assessment for our public company's financial controls framework using our GRC pipeline. Which framework identifier should I pass to the SCF gap assessment tool?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Specifies `usa-federal-law-sox-2002` as the framework identifier. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Deep, practitioner-level expertise in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 — the U.S. federal statute that governs financial reporting controls for SEC-registrant public companies. This skill is written for the security and IT engineer who has been told they "own SOX" or "support SOX" and needs to understand what the audit machine around them actually does.
usa-federal-law-sox-2002SOX is the U.S. response to the Enron and WorldCom accounting frauds of 2001–2002. It does not prescribe specific cybersecurity controls. What it does is impose three things on SEC-registrant public companies and their auditors:
The security/IT relevance is indirect but unavoidable: virtually every modern in-scope financial process depends on IT systems, so management's §404(a) assessment must cover the IT General Controls (ITGCs) protecting those systems, and the external auditor will test those ITGCs under AS 2201 as part of the §404(b) attestation. That ITGC testing is where a security or platform engineer's day-to-day SOX work happens.
The SCF crosswalk maps only 4 SCF controls to SOX. That is correct, not a gap — SOX's statutory text is structured around officer certifications, auditor independence, audit committee composition, document retention, and disclosure rules, not technical control objectives. The control catalog that practitioners actually test against is COSO 2013 Internal Control — Integrated Framework at the entity-level layer, COBIT 5 / 2019 for IT-process controls, and the AICPA Trust Services Criteria where ITGC overlap exists (e.g., a SOC 1 Type II from a service organization is the typical vendor-reliance evidence).
So SOX's role in this plugin is the governance and accountability frame:
The actual control objectives flow from COSO + COBIT + the auditor's own internal control workpaper templates. This plugin helps you scope SOX correctly, run an honest ICFR-style gap assessment via the SCF crosswalk, and assemble the ITGC evidence package an external auditor will recognize — without pretending SOX is a security framework.
test cases passed, vs 20 / 24 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.