Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Information Security Management System (ISMS) audit expert for ISO 27001 compliance verification, security control assessment, and certification support. Use when the user mentions ISO 27001, ISMS audit, Annex A controls, Statement of Applicability (SOA), gap analysis, nonconformity management, internal audit, surveillance audit, or security certification preparation. Helps review control implementation evidence, document audit findings, classify nonconformities, generate risk-based audit plans,
.claude/skills/isms-audit-expert/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Internal and external ISMS audit management for ISO 27001 compliance verification, security control assessment, and certification support.
| Risk Level | Audit Frequency | Examples | |------------|-----------------|----------| | Critical | Quarterly | Privileged access, vulnerability management, logging | | High | Semi-annual | Access control, incident response, encryption | | Medium | Annual | Policies, awareness training, physical security | | Low | Annual | Documentation, asset inventory |
For detailed technical verification procedures by Annex A control, see security-control-testing.md.
| Severity | Definition | Response Time | |----------|------------|---------------| | Major Nonconformity | Control failure creating significant risk | 30 days | | Minor Nonconformity | Isolated deviation with limited impact | 90 days | | Observation | Improvement opportunity | Next audit cycle |
Finding ID: ISMS-[YEAR]-[NUMBER]
Control Reference: A.X.X - [Control Name]
Severity: [Major/Minor/Observation]
Evidence:
- [Specific evidence observed]
- [Records reviewed]
- [Interview statements]
Risk Impact:
- [Potential consequences if not addressed]
Root Cause:
- [Why the nonconformity occurred]
Recommendation:
- [Specific corrective action steps]Ensure documentation is complete:
Verify operational readiness:
| Period | Focus | |--------|-------| | Year 1, Q2 | High-risk controls, Stage 2 findings follow-up | | Year 1, Q4 | Continual improvement, control sample | | Year 2, Q2 | Full surveillance | | Year 2, Q4 | Re-certification preparation |
Validation: No major nonconformities at surveillance audits.
| Script | Purpose | Usage | |--------|---------|-------| | isms_audit_scheduler.py | Generate risk-based audit plans | python scripts/isms_audit_scheduler.py --year 2025 --format markdown |
bash# Generate annual audit plan python scripts/isms_audit_scheduler.py --year 2025 --output audit_plan.json # With custom control risk ratings python scripts/isms_audit_scheduler.py --controls controls.csv --format markdown
| File | Content | |------|---------| | iso27001-audit-methodology.md | Audit program structure, pre-audit phase, certification support | | security-control-testing.md | Technical verification procedures for ISO 27002 controls | | cloud-security-audit.md | Cloud provider assessment, configuration security, IAM review |
| KPI | Target | Measurement | |-----|--------|-------------| | Audit plan completion | 100% | Audits completed vs. planned | | Finding closure rate | >90% within SLA | Closed on time vs. total | | Major nonconformities | 0 at certification | Count per certification cycle | | Audit effectiveness | Incidents prevented | Security improvements implemented |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | 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. The headline lift of +50 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.