Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Vulnerability remediation SLAs define mandatory timeframes for patching or mitigating identified vulnerabilities based on severity, asset criticality, and exploit availability. Effective SLA programs
.claude/skills/implementing-vulnerability-remediation-sla/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Vulnerability remediation SLAs define mandatory timeframes for patching or mitigating identified vulnerabilities based on severity, asset criticality, and exploit availability. Effective SLA programs drive accountability, ensure consistent remediation timelines, and provide measurable KPIs for vulnerability management maturity.
| Severity | Tier 1 (Critical) | Tier 2 (Important) | Tier 3 (Standard) | |----------|-------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | Critical (CVSS 9.0-10.0) | 24-48 hours | 72 hours | 7 days | | High (CVSS 7.0-8.9) | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | | Medium (CVSS 4.0-6.9) | 30 days | 45 days | 60 days | | Low (CVSS 0.1-3.9) | 90 days | 90 days | 90 days | | CISA KEV Listed | 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days |
Tier 1 (Critical Assets):
- Customer-facing production systems
- Payment processing infrastructure
- Domain controllers and identity systems
- Core network infrastructure (firewalls, routers)
- Databases containing PII/PHI/PCI data
Tier 2 (Important Assets):
- Internal production applications
- Email and collaboration systems
- Development/staging environments with production data
- Backup and recovery infrastructure
- VPN and remote access gateways
Tier 3 (Standard Assets):
- End-user workstations
- Development/test environments
- Print servers and peripheral management
- Non-critical internal toolsKey sections to include:
python# ServiceNow / Jira integration for automatic ticket creation # See process.py for full implementation # Key fields for remediation tickets: # - Vulnerability ID (CVE/Plugin ID) # - Affected host(s) # - Severity (CVSS + contextual factors) # - Asset tier # - SLA deadline (calculated from discovery date) # - Assignment group # - Remediation instructions # - Verification criteria
SLA Status Action Notify
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
75% elapsed Warning email Asset owner
100% elapsed SLA breach notification Manager + CISO
100% + 7 days Executive escalation VP/CTO
100% + 30 days Risk acceptance required CISO approval
100% + 90 days Compensating controls mandatory Board reportValid exception reasons:
Exception requirements:
| KPI | Definition | Target | |-----|-----------|--------| | SLA Compliance Rate | % of vulns remediated within SLA | >90% | | Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) | Average days from discovery to fix | Critical: <3d, High: <10d | | Vulnerability Backlog | Open vulnerabilities past SLA | <5% of total | | Exception Rate | % of findings with active exceptions | <10% | | Recurrence Rate | % of vulns that reappear after remediation | <5% |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 21 counted toward the lift figure. The other 1 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 21 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.