Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Governance, risk, and compliance — risk assessment and scoring, control mapping across NIST CSF 2.0 / ISO 27001:2022 / SOC 2 / CIS Controls v8, gap analysis, audit evidence preparation, and security policy generation
.claude/skills/masriyan-grc-compliance/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 78% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 66% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 17% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 69% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 135% | 0% |
Enable Claude to operate as a governance, risk, and compliance partner: quantify and prioritize risk, map controls across the major frameworks, run gap analyses, prepare audit evidence, and draft clear, tailored security policies. Claude turns scattered control requirements into a single cross-framework view so one piece of evidence can satisfy many obligations.
> Advisory scope: This skill produces risk analysis, control mappings, and policy drafts to support a security/compliance program. It is decision-support, not legal advice or a certification. A qualified auditor or counsel should validate before formal attestation.
This skill activates when the user asks about:
bashpip install pyyaml
No external tools required — this skill is primarily analytical and document-generation focused. Claude reads existing policies, configs, and evidence directly.
When asked to assess risk, run a structured, repeatable method:
Use scripts/risk_register.py to score and rank a YAML/CSV risk list and emit a heat-map summary.
Maintain one control statement mapped to many frameworks so evidence is reused, not duplicated. Anchor on NIST CSF 2.0 functions (GOVERN, IDENTIFY, PROTECT, DETECT, RESPOND, RECOVER) and crosswalk outward:
| Need | Framework | Anchor | |------|-----------|--------| | Program governance | NIST CSF 2.0 | GV / ID / PR / DE / RS / RC | | Certifiable ISMS | ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Annex A (93 controls, 4 themes) | | Service-org attestation | SOC 2 | Trust Services Criteria (CC1–CC9, A/C/PI/P) | | Federal / detailed controls | NIST SP 800-53 Rev.5 | 20 control families | | Cardholder data | PCI DSS 4.0 | 12 requirements | | Prioritized baseline | CIS Controls v8 | 18 controls / IG1–IG3 |
Use scripts/control_mapper.py to crosswalk a control or to show, for a chosen framework, which related-framework requirements a single control satisfies.
When asked for a gap analysis:
Draft tailored, plain-language policy documents with a consistent structure (Purpose, Scope, Policy Statements, Roles & Responsibilities, Enforcement, Exceptions, Review cadence, Mapped controls). Common set: Information Security Policy, Access Control, Acceptable Use, Data Classification & Handling, Incident Response, Business Continuity/DR, Change Management, Vendor/Third-Party Risk, Cryptography, Secure SDLC, and an AI Use policy. Map each policy back to the controls it satisfies.
Tier vendors by data access and criticality; drive assessment via SIG/CAIQ-style questionnaires or review of the vendor's SOC 2 / ISO cert; track findings, residual risk, and re-assessment cadence in the register.
Risk register row:
ID | Risk | Asset | Threat | Likelihood(1-5) | Impact(1-5) | Inherent | Controls | Residual | Treatment | Owner | Due
R-001 | Ransomware encrypts file servers | File svc | Crime group | 4 | 5 | 20 (Critical) | Backups, EDR, MFA | 8 (Medium) | Mitigate | IT Ops | 2026-09-30Gap analysis / SoA:
markdown# [Framework] Gap Analysis — [Org] Date: [Date] | Scope: [...] | Overall coverage: 72% ## By Domain | Domain | Implemented | Partial | Not Impl | N/A | Coverage | | Access Control | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 80% | ## Gaps & Remediation | Control | Status | Gap | Action | Owner | Effort | Target |
Compliance posture (leadership):
markdown# Compliance Posture — [Period] Overall: [score] | Trend: [▲/▼] | Frameworks: [...] Top risks: [3] | Overdue remediations: [n] | Upcoming audits: [...]
risk_register.pybash# Score & rank a risk list (YAML or CSV), emit ranked register + heat-map summary python scripts/risk_register.py --input risks.yaml --output risk_register.json # Quantitative ALE view where SLE/ARO provided python scripts/risk_register.py --input risks.csv --quant --output register.json
control_mapper.pybash# Crosswalk a control concept across frameworks python scripts/control_mapper.py --control "access control" --frameworks all # Show NIST CSF 2.0 -> ISO 27001 / SOC 2 mapping for a function python scripts/control_mapper.py --csf PR.AA --output crosswalk.json
| Next Step | Condition | Target Skill | |-----------|-----------|--------------| | Technical validation of a control | Need to prove a control works | → Skill 02 / 09 / 10 | | Cloud compliance scanning | Cloud controls in scope | → Skill 10 | | Detection coverage evidence | DE function controls | → Skill 12 / 15 | | IR plan testing evidence | RESPOND/RECOVER controls | → Skill 07 | | AI governance controls | AI systems in scope | → Skill 16 |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 17,601 | 33,841 | +92% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,178 | 5,960 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 17,678 | 17,258 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,120 | 5,243 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 17,763 | 21,804 | +23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,216 | 5,841 | +82% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 12,118 | 9,157 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,286 | 3,584 | +57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 9,676 | 3,385 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,472 | 2,617 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 15,795 | 2,930 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,536 | 2,555 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 10,677 | 1,938 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,009 | 2,349 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 8,484 | 1,891 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,382 | 2,337 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 14,134 | 6,228 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,376 | 3,105 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 14,941 | 11,993 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,433 | 4,020 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 15,584 | 16,215 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,577 | 4,755 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 17,316 | 16,613 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,673 | 4,976 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 13,822 | 14,015 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,145 | 4,303 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 7,784 | 5,353 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,219 | 2,862 | +135% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 8,850 | 1,268 | -86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,522 | 2,204 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 16,193 | 13,731 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,398 | 4,262 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 6,197 | 7,679 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,028 | 3,174 | +209% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 7,258 | 8,512 | +17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,368 | 3,713 | +171% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 6,016 | 12,544 | +109% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,040 | 2,651 | +155% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 8,135 | 13,753 | +69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,248 | 4,089 | +228% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 5,558 | 9,563 | +72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 431 | 2,720 | +531% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 7,253 | 6,149 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,062 | 2,989 | +181% | 0 | 0 | — |
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 +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.