assess

name	assess
description	Run a 5-domain CAF security posture assessment for an AWS service. Produces (1) assessment-summary.md — CAF-structured findings with GAPS tables, (2) sar-facts.json — extracted SAR data, (3) checkpoint-results.json — factual checkpoint verification. These feed into the research, validate, and generate phases.
disable-model-invocation	false
argument-hint	[./input-folder] [--service=<name>] [--questions=<file>]

Service Approval — Assessor

Perform a comprehensive security posture assessment for an AWS service across the 5 AWS Cloud Adoption Framework (CAF) Security Perspective domains. Produces structured output that feeds into the Researcher, Validator, and Generator agents.

This skill bridges the gap between "What does this service support?" (assessment) and "What controls should we apply?" (controls generation). GAPS identified here become controls requirements. SAR facts become condition key verification data. Checkpoint results become SCP/RCP feasibility inputs.

---

Outputs

File	Purpose	Consumed By
.service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-summary.md	CAF-structured findings with GAPS tables per domain	Researcher (gap-driven controls), Summarizer
.service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/sar-facts.json	Extracted SAR data (actions, condition keys, resource types, permission-only actions)	Validator (condition key verification), Researcher (IAM controls)
.service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/checkpoint-results.json	Factual checkpoint verification results (RCP, declarative policies, FIPS, RAM, etc.)	Validator (SCP/RCP expressibility), Generator (skip inapplicable controls)
.service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-questionnaire.md	SITCO Bar questionnaire answers (if --questions provided)	Summarizer (evidence)
.service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/domains/{DOMAIN}-research.md	Intermediate domain research files	Researcher (reuse findings)

---

Inputs

Parse arguments:

• ./input-folder (optional) — read .md, .json, .xlsx, .pdf, .docx files for context
• --service=<name> — AWS service name (e.g., "Amazon Bedrock AgentCore", "AWS Lambda", "Amazon S3")
• --questions=<file> — Path to SITCO Bar Questions file (.docx or .txt). If provided, also produce questionnaire answers.

If no --service and no input folder, ask the user for a service name.

---

Prerequisites

Per-service slug and phase directories are created after slug derivation in Step 0b. No hardcoded prerequisites — paths are derived dynamically.

---

MCP call logging

Required: emit canonical mcp:<server>:call events to pipeline.log after EVERY MCP tool invocation. The Stop hook's P1 check (tools/validate/validate_pipeline_integrity.py — see _MCP_CALL_TOKEN_RE) anchors on the [mcp:<server>:call] token. The _hook_log auto-mirror copies canonical events into mcp-calls.log for free.

After each MCP call, run:

python3 -m tools.validate.log \
    --slug <slug> \
    --phase 01-assess \
    --source mcp:<server> \
    --verdict call \
    --message "<tool-name>: <one-line description>"

Substitute <server> with the MCP server name (awsknowledge, aws-documentation, kb-search, etc.).

---

Step 0: SAR Pre-Read

The Service Authorization Reference page is the definitive source for IAM actions, resource types, and condition keys.

1. Look up the SAR slug from input/sar-slugs.json (regenerate with python3 scripts/regenerate-sar-slugs.py if the service is missing).
2. Read the SAR page: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/service-authorization/latest/reference/list_{slug}.html
3. SAR pages are large — if truncated (contains start_index=N), keep reading with increasing start_index. Safety cap: 50 reads.
4. Extract these 4 categories:

   • permission_only_actions — Actions marked "[permission only]" with no API call

   • condition_keys — Service-specific keys (format: prefix:keyname), excluding aws:* globals. Emit as an array of OBJECTS {"key": "prefix:keyname", "type": "String", "applies_to_actions": ["CreateX", "UpdateX"]}, NOT as bare strings. Populate applies_to_actions from the SAR page's "Condition keys" column joined to the Actions table — this is what downstream phases use for semantic SAR matching (compute_gateable_by.py) and for capabilities.iam.condition_keys[] in research-capabilities. Without applies_to_actions, validator CHECK-S7 fails in Phase 1 and every cold-start run has to back-fill the field.

     Type field (REQUIRED). Every condition_keys entry MUST include a type field extracted verbatim from the SAR page's Condition Keys table "Type" column. Valid values include: String, Bool, Date, Numeric, ARN, IPAddress, ArrayOfString, ArrayOfARN (and a few others — copy verbatim from the SAR row, don't normalize or abbreviate). The type enables downstream generate-preventive to detect multi-value keys (ArrayOf*) that require ForAnyValue:/ForAllValues: qualifiers in IAM conditions — without qualifier, IAM AccessAnalyzer rejects the policy at deploy time with "The request context key X has multiple values." The schema at schemas/sar-facts.schema.json already permits type (optional field on conditionKey $defs) — this extraction is the upstream half of that contract.

     Placeholder form. The SAR Actions table renders object-tag placeholders as literals (e.g., , ). Normalize to form during extraction because the condition-key pattern rejects / characters but accepts , and downstream Phase 1 consumers expect the placeholder form. Deterministic substitution: replace with in key names before emission.

DO NOT write sar-facts.json yet — Step 0b (below) derives the canonical slug first.

{
  "service": "{service-name}",
  "sar_url": "https://docs.aws.amazon.com/...",
  "total_actions": 42,
  "permission_only_actions": ["action1", "action2"],
  "condition_keys": [
    {"key": "prefix:key1", "applies_to_actions": ["CreateX", "UpdateX"]},
    {"key": "prefix:key2", "applies_to_actions": ["DeleteX"]}
  ],
  "resource_types": [
    {"name": "resource", "arn_pattern": "arn:aws:service:*:*:resource/*"}
  ],
  "wildcard_only_actions": ["action3"],
  "service_linked_roles": [
    {"role_name": "AWSServiceRoleFor*", "service_principal": "*.amazonaws.com", "permissions": ["action1"]}
  ],
  "cfn_prefix": "{CfnPrefix}",
  "service_prefix": "{iam-prefix}"
}

---

Step 0b: Derive Canonical Slug and Promote Staging

NEW: After SAR facts are extracted (Step 0), derive the canonical service slug and atomically promote the intake staging directory to the per-service tree.

1. Read intake manifest from staging:

   import json
   from pathlib import Path
   
   # Find the latest staging directory
   staging_base = Path(".service-approval/_staging")
   if staging_base.exists():
       staging_dirs = sorted(staging_base.iterdir(), key=lambda p: p.name, reverse=True)
       if staging_dirs:
           latest_staging = staging_dirs[0]
           manifest_path = latest_staging / "00-intake" / "intake-manifest.json"
           with open(manifest_path) as f:
               intake_manifest = json.load(f)
   

2. Derive canonical slug using tools/slug.py:

   from tools.slug import derive_canonical_slug
   
   # From Step 0 SAR extraction
   service_name = sar_facts["service"]          # e.g., "AWS Lambda"
   service_prefix = sar_facts["service_prefix"] # e.g., "lambda"
   user_candidate = intake_manifest["service"].get("candidate_slug", service_prefix)
   
   slug = derive_canonical_slug(service_name, service_prefix, user_candidate)
   # Result: "awslambda" for Lambda, "bedrock-agentcore" for AgentCore, "s3" for S3
   

3. Create service root and promote staging:

   # Using tools/paths.py
   from tools.paths import service_root, phase_dir
   
   service_dir = service_root(slug)  # .service-approval/<slug>/
   assess_dir = phase_dir(slug, "assess")  # .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/
   
   # Create directory structure
   assess_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
   (assess_dir / "domains").mkdir(exist_ok=True)
   
   # Atomic promotion: move staging intake to canonical location
   import shutil
   staging_intake = latest_staging / "00-intake"
   target_intake = service_dir / "00-intake"
   if target_intake.exists():
       shutil.rmtree(target_intake)  # Clean mode or re-run
   shutil.move(str(staging_intake), str(target_intake))
   
   # Optionally remove staging parent if empty
   if not any(latest_staging.iterdir()):
       latest_staging.rmdir()
   

4. Write sar-facts.json to the canonical path:

   Write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/sar-facts.json using the JSON structure from Step 0.

5. Record slug in intake manifest (update in place):

   intake_manifest["service"]["canonical_slug"] = slug
   intake_path = service_dir / "00-intake" / "intake-manifest.json"
   with open(intake_path, "w") as f:
       json.dump(intake_manifest, f, indent=2)
   

All downstream steps (checkpoints, domain research, assessment summary) write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/ per the per-slug layout.

---

Step 1: Parallel Domain Research

For EACH of the 5 CAF Security Perspective domains, use subagents for parallel research.

Each domain has mandatory reads, mandatory searches, and KB queries defined in CLAUDE.md. Substitute {service} with the actual service name, {service_slug} with the GR page slug, and {cfn_prefix} with the CloudFormation prefix from SAR facts.

Spawn 5 agents in parallel:
  Agent("IAM research for {service}")
  Agent("LOGGING research for {service}")
  Agent("INFRA research for {service}")
  Agent("DATA research for {service}")
  Agent("INCIDENT research for {service}")

Each research agent MUST:

1. Execute ALL mandatory reads for its domain (from CLAUDE.md)
2. Execute ALL mandatory searches (substituting {service})
3. Query relevant Knowledge Bases using mcp__kb-search__search_* tools
4. Include the SAR facts for IAM/LOGGING/DATA domains
5. Write findings to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/domains/{DOMAIN}-research.md
6. Include source URLs for every finding

CRITICAL RESEARCH RULES:

• Do NOT search the same URL or query twice
• Limit to ~40 MCP tool calls per domain
• TOOL FAILURE GUARD: If a tool call returns an error, treat the data as ABSENT

Assessment Depth Requirements

Each domain research agent MUST produce these depth markers to achieve parity with the hosted solution (~140K char output vs the current ~29K):

IAM domain depth:

• Enumerate ALL permission-only actions (from SAR page [permission only] annotations)
• Build condition key → applicable actions reverse index (which actions each CK applies to)
• List ABAC support per resource type (not just "partial" — name each type + support level)
• List ALL AWS managed policies with their purpose

LOGGING domain depth:

• Enumerate ALL CloudWatch metric names per namespace (not just "30+ metrics")
• Document CloudTrail data event pagination (keep reading if truncated)
• List ALL AWS Config resource types with their relationship details

INFRA domain depth:

• Enumerate ALL CloudFormation resource types from the CFN template reference
• List ALL service quotas with numerical values + default vs adjustable
• Document Console Private Access support

DATA domain depth:

• Per-resource encryption breakdown (not "supports KMS" — specify which resources + which key types)
• FIPS endpoint URLs (actual URLs, not just "supported")
• Compliance program list with in-scope/not-in-scope distinction

Research Quality Enforcement

These rules ensure research completeness and prevent wasted tool calls:

1. Deduplication: Never read the same URL or search the same query twice within a single domain. Before each MCP call, check if the URL or query has already been used. If a URL was read in a prior domain and the data is still in context, reuse it instead of re-reading.

2. Tool call safety cap: Maximum 50 MCP tool calls per domain (hard cap). If a domain approaches 50 calls, prioritize mandatory reads/searches over exploratory queries. Stop exploratory research at 40 calls and reserve remaining budget for mandatory items.

3. Mandatory coverage enforcement: Before concluding research for ANY domain, verify that ALL mandatory reads and ALL mandatory searches from CLAUDE.md for that domain have been completed. If any mandatory item is missing, execute it before moving to synthesis. A domain with incomplete mandatory coverage is a research failure — do not proceed to synthesis until all mandatory items are attempted.

Output Quality Self-Check

Before finalizing any output (assessment-summary.md or assessment-questionnaire.md), run these checks. Fix any issues found before writing the file.

1. Terminology leak scan: Check every line against the terminology replacement table in CLAUDE.md. If any leaked term is found (e.g., gateway_aws-documentation-mcp___, mcp__aws-documentation__, pre-researched findings, TOOL FAILURE GUARD), replace it with the corresponding user-facing term. This is a hard gate — do not write output containing any leaked term.

2. Meta-commentary removal: Scan for and remove any lines containing: "As a synthesizer", "Direction should be", "Note to reviewer", "Editorial note:", "Internal note:", "Tool unavailable", "MCP session error", or similar pipeline self-references.

3. SAR count verification: If sar-facts.json was produced, verify that IAM domain findings reference at least the same number of condition keys and resource types as extracted from the SAR page. If the assessment mentions fewer items than sar-facts.json contains, the synthesis is incomplete — add the missing items.

4. Answer direction normalization (questionnaire mode): Every [A#] answer MUST start with exactly one of: Yes / No / Not found / Yes, partially / This is. Apply the direction normalization table from CLAUDE.md. Common fixes:

   • "No, partially" or "No with a nuance" -> "No."
   • "Partially" or "Partial." -> "Yes, partially."
   • Stuttered directions ("partially, partially" or "partially. partially") -> single "Yes, partially."

Verification Quality

When running Step 6 (Cross-Domain Consistency Check) or any verification pass:

1. Correction specificity: Every correction MUST include: (a) the specific answer number or section being corrected, (b) what is currently wrong, and (c) what the correct value should be with the authoritative source.

2. No contradictory corrections: Never propose two corrections for the same answer that contradict each other. If two sources disagree, use the more authoritative source (checkpoint pages > SAR page > documentation pages > KB results) and discard the other.

3. Source evidence requirement: If corrections conflict, keep only the correction backed by the most authoritative source. Checkpoint results are the highest authority, followed by SAR page data, then primary documentation, then KB results.

---

Step 2: Factual Checkpoint Verification

Read the 9 factual checkpoint pages and record results. These are authoritative — they override any findings from Step 1 if they contradict.

Domain	Checkpoint	URL	Question	Definitive?
LOGGING	VPCE network events	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/awscloudtrail/latest/userguide/logging-network-events-with-cloudtrail.html#logging-network-events	Is {service}.amazonaws.com listed as eventSource?	No
LOGGING	CloudTrail data events	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/awscloudtrail/latest/userguide/logging-data-events-with-cloudtrail.html	Are there AWS::{CfnPrefix}:: data event types?	No
LOGGING	AWS Config types	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/config/latest/developerguide/resource-config-reference.html	Are there AWS::{CfnPrefix}:: Config types?	No
INFRA	RCP support	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_rcps.html	Is the service listed?	Yes
INFRA	Declarative policies	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/organizations/latest/userguide/orgs_manage_policies_declarative.html	Is the service listed?	Yes
INFRA	RAM shareable	https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ram/latest/userguide/shareable.html	Has shareable resource types?	Yes
DATA	FIPS endpoints	https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/fips/	Is the service listed?	Yes
DATA	Compliance in scope	https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/services-in-scope/	Which programs?

Definitive checkpoints (marked Yes): These are exhaustive lists. If the service is NOT listed, the answer is definitively "No" / "Not supported."

Write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/checkpoint-results.json:

{
  "service": "{service-name}",
  "checkpoints": {
    "vpce_network_events": {"supported": true, "detail": "listed as eventSource", "url": "..."},
    "cloudtrail_data_events": {"supported": true, "resource_types": ["AWS::S3::Object"], "url": "..."},
    "config_resource_types": {"supported": true, "resource_types": ["AWS::S3::Bucket"], "url": "..."},
    "rcp_support": {"supported": false, "definitive": true, "detail": "not in RCP list", "url": "..."},
    "declarative_policies": {"supported": false, "definitive": true, "detail": "not listed", "url": "..."},
    "ram_shareable": {"supported": false, "definitive": true, "detail": "no shareable types", "url": "..."},
    "fips_endpoints": {"supported": true, "definitive": true, "detail": "listed with FIPS URLs", "url": "..."},
    "compliance_in_scope": {"supported": true, "programs": ["SOC 1", "SOC 2", "HIPAA", "PCI DSS", "ISO 27001"], "not_in_scope": ["FedRAMP High"], "detail": "service-specific notes", "url": "..."},
    "scp_support": {"supported": true, "detail": "not excluded from SCP enforcement", "url": "..."}
  }
}

---

Step 2b: IaC Provider Discovery

After checkpoint verification, discover which IaC providers support this service. This determines what output formats Phase 4 (Generate) will produce. The user does NOT choose formats — the pipeline discovers what's available and informs them.

Check 1: CloudFormation Support

Use aws-documentation MCP to read the CloudFormation Template Reference page:

URL: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/TemplateReference/AWS_{CfnPrefix}.html

Record:

• Number of AWS::{CfnPrefix}::* resource types
• List of resource type names
• If the page doesn't exist or returns 404 → CloudFormation NOT supported

Check 2: Terraform Provider Support

Search for Terraform resources:

Search: "aws_{service_prefix}" OR "awscc_{cfn_prefix}" terraform provider

Determine:

• Does hashicorp/aws have native resources (aws_{prefix}_*)?
• Does hashicorp/awscc (Cloud Control) have resources (awscc_{prefix}_*)?
• If CloudFormation is supported, awscc is always available as a fallback

Check 3: CDK Construct Support

Search for CDK module:

Search: aws-cdk-lib aws_{service_prefix} OR aws-cdk-lib/aws-{service}

Determine:

• L2 constructs available? (high-level, opinionated)
• L1 only? (CfnResource — direct CloudFormation mapping)
• Alpha module? (@aws-cdk/aws-{service}-alpha)
• If CloudFormation is supported, L1 constructs always exist

Check 4: CDKTF Support

CDKTF derives from Terraform providers:

• If hashicorp/aws has resources → CDKTF supported via aws provider
• If only hashicorp/awscc → CDKTF supported via awscc provider
• If neither → CDKTF NOT supported

Present Findings to User

After discovery, present the results clearly:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  IaC Provider Support: {service_friendly_name}                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  CloudFormation  ✓ {N} resource types (AWS::{Prefix}::*)        │
│  Terraform       ✓ awscc provider / ✓ native aws / ✗ None      │
│  CDK TypeScript  ✓ L2 constructs / △ L1 only / ✗ None          │
│  CDKTF           ✓ via {provider} / ✗ Not available             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Formats that will be generated:                                │
│    {list of supported formats}                                  │
│                                                                 │
│  Formats NOT available:                                         │
│    {list with reason}                                           │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Override: enter formats to skip, or press Enter to accept all  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If the user wants to skip a supported format (e.g., "skip CDKTF"), record that override. If a format is NOT supported, it cannot be forced — the generator has no resources to work with.

Write Results

Write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/iac-support.json:

{
  "schema_version": "1.0.0",
  "service": "{service-name}",
  "discovered_at": "{ISO-8601 timestamp}",
  "cloudformation": {
    "supported": true,
    "resource_type_count": 15,
    "resource_types": ["AWS::Service::Resource1", "..."],
    "template_reference_url": "https://docs.aws.amazon.com/...",
    "notes": ""
  },
  "terraform": {
    "supported": true,
    "provider": "awscc|aws|both",
    "native_resource_count": 0,
    "cloud_control_available": true,
    "notes": ""
  },
  "cdk": {
    "supported": true,
    "construct_level": "L1|L2|L2-alpha",
    "module_name": "aws-cdk-lib/aws-{service}",
    "notes": ""
  },
  "cdktf": {
    "supported": true,
    "derives_from": "aws|awscc",
    "notes": ""
  },
  "generate_formats": {
    "cloudformation": true,
    "terraform": true,
    "cdk_typescript": true,
    "cdktf": true
  },
  "user_overrides": [],
  "warnings": []
}

Phase 4 (Generate) reads state/iac-support.json to determine which formats to produce. If the file is missing (e.g., assess was skipped), Generate defaults to CloudFormation only.

---

Step 3: Synthesize CAF Assessment

After all research completes, read the domain research files from .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/domains/.

For EACH domain, produce a CAF section using this format:

## [DOMAIN] {Domain Label}

### {N}. {Topic}
{Detailed findings with inline source citations}

**Sources**: [source URLs]

### [DOMAIN_GAPS] Compliance Matrix

| # | Requirement | Status | Details |
|---|-------------|--------|---------|
| 1 | {requirement} | FULLY SUPPORTED | {details} |
| 2 | {requirement} | REQUIREMENT GAP | {details} |
| 3 | {requirement} | CUSTOMER ACTION REQUIRED | {details} |

Status values (EXACTLY these strings):

• FULLY SUPPORTED — AWS provides this natively
• PARTIALLY SUPPORTED — Available with configuration or limitations
• REQUIREMENT GAP — Not available in the service
• CUSTOMER ACTION REQUIRED — Available but requires customer setup

Apply SAR facts as a minimum floor for IAM/LOGGING/DATA domains. Apply checkpoint results — override any synthesis that contradicts a checkpoint.

Follow ALL precision rules and synthesis rules from CLAUDE.md for each domain. Follow ALL terminology rules — never leak internal tool names.

Domain-Specific Synthesis Addendums

These rules supplement the CLAUDE.md domain synthesis rules with additional precision requirements derived from common accuracy failures:

IAM domain synthesis:

• ABAC support level: Explicitly state "full", "partial", or "none". Full = service supports all 4 tag condition keys (RequestTag, ResourceTag, TagKeys, aws:TagKeys). Partial = some but not all. None = no tag-based condition keys.
• SLR enumeration: Every service-linked role MUST include the full permission list (all IAM actions the SLR is allowed to perform). A role name without permissions is incomplete.
• Permission-only actions: List ALL from the SAR page. These are actions with "[permission only]" annotation — they have no API call and no CloudTrail event. Do not confuse with "actions not evaluated by IAM" (which is the opposite).
• Declarative policies distinction: "Declarative policies" refers ONLY to the AWS Organizations policy type (ec2/vpc-related controls). Do not conflate with Cedar policies, resource-based policies, or any other policy mechanism.

LOGGING domain synthesis:

• VPCE network events: These are CloudTrail NetworkActivity events (eventCategory=NetworkActivity), a separate category from management/data events. Do not merge with general CloudTrail support.
• Data events: ONLY use the CloudTrail data events authoritative page as the source. Do not rely on service-specific documentation pages for data event resource types.
• CloudWatch namespace consistency: AWS vended metrics use AWS/{ServiceName}. If the service uses a different prefix or has subsystem-specific namespaces, list each one explicitly. AWS/Usage is a legitimate cross-service namespace, not an error.

INFRA domain synthesis:

• RCPs != resource-based policies. RCPs are an AWS Organizations policy type. Resource-based policies are JSON policies attached to individual resources. Never conflate the two.
• Declarative policies for INFRA = VPC block public access, EBS encryption defaults, and similar account-level declarative settings. Not SCPs, not IAM policies.
• Quota verification: Every numerical quota claimed MUST have a documentation URL. Do not estimate or infer quotas.

DATA domain synthesis:

• FIPS endpoints: These are specific service URLs (e.g., fips.us-east-1.service.amazonaws.com), NOT references to FIPS 140-3 validated crypto modules. The FIPS endpoints page is the authoritative source.
• Cross-region replication: Means data is physically copied to another region. Inference routing (sending requests to models in other regions) is NOT replication.
• Per-resource encryption tiers: Each resource type may support different encryption options (AWS-owned, AWS-managed, CMK). Do NOT merge them into a single statement like "supports KMS". Break down by resource type.

INCIDENT domain synthesis:

• Only cite capabilities specific to this service. GuardDuty, Detective, and Security Hub are generic AWS capabilities — do not list them unless the service has a specific integration.
• "Supports tagging" (has TagResource API) is NOT the same as TBAC (tag-based access control) or ABAC. Tagging for incident tracking is about operational tagging, not IAM authorization.

Domain-Specific Validation Addendums

These checks run during Step 6 (Cross-Domain Consistency Check) and supplement the general consistency check with domain-specific accuracy verification:

IAM validation:

• Verify condition key count: The number of condition keys mentioned in the IAM section must be >= the count in sar-facts.json. If fewer, the synthesis missed keys.
• Verify SLR completeness: Every SLR in sar-facts.json must appear in the IAM section with its full permission list. Missing SLRs or partial permission lists are validation failures.
• Verify ABAC level: If the service has all 4 tag condition keys in SAR, ABAC must be "full". If fewer, it must be "partial". If none, "none".

LOGGING validation:

• Verify VPCE network events: Cross-check the LOGGING section's claim against checkpoint-results.json vpce_network_events. If the checkpoint says unsupported but the synthesis claims support, fix the synthesis.
• Verify data event resource types: Cross-check against the checkpoint. The synthesis must not claim data event types that are absent from the authoritative page.
• Verify namespace consistency: If the synthesis mentions AWS/{X} and AWS/{Y} for the same service, confirm both are real namespaces from documentation.

INFRA validation:

• Verify VPC endpoint service names: Every VPC endpoint service name mentioned must follow the format com.amazonaws.{region}.{service} (or variant). Fabricated service names are a validation failure.
• Verify CloudFormation resource type count: The number of CFN resource types listed should match the CFN template reference page for the service's prefix.

DATA validation:

• Verify FIPS endpoint: Cross-check the DATA section's FIPS claim against checkpoint-results.json fips_endpoints. If the definitive checkpoint says unsupported but the synthesis claims FIPS support, fix the synthesis.
• Verify per-resource encryption tiers: Each resource type should have its own encryption statement. A single "supports KMS encryption" for a multi-resource service is insufficient.

---

Step 4: Questionnaire (if --questions provided)

If --questions was provided:

1. Load the questions file (use python3 -c "from docx import Document; ..." for .docx)
2. Number each as [Q1], [Q2], etc.
3. Detect section headers (short, no question mark, no question verbs) — give canned answers
4. Classify each question into the 5 domains
5. Synthesize answers from domain research:

   [A{number}] {Direction}. {Detailed answer with citations}
   

   Directions: Yes / No / Yes, partially / Not found in available AWS documentation
6. Verify against checkpoints — override contradicted answers
7. Write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-questionnaire.md
8. Run post-processing: python3 tools/post-process/fix_output.py .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-questionnaire.md

---

Step 5: Assemble Summary and GAPS

Combine all domain sections in order: IAM, LOGGING, INFRA, DATA, INCIDENT.

Add a GAPS SUMMARY at the end. This table consolidates ALL non-FULLY SUPPORTED items from ALL domain compliance matrices into a single table.

Inclusion rules:

• Include every row from every domain matrix that is NOT FULLY SUPPORTED
• Include: REQUIREMENT GAP, CUSTOMER ACTION REQUIRED, and PARTIALLY SUPPORTED rows
• Each item appears ONCE. If the same requirement appears in multiple domain matrices (e.g., RAM sharing in both IAM and INFRA), include it only in the most relevant domain and remove the duplicate from the other domain's matrix before assembling the summary.

Counting rules:

• {N} = count of rows with status REQUIREMENT GAP in the GAPS Summary table
• {M} = count of rows with status CUSTOMER ACTION REQUIRED in the GAPS Summary table
• {P} = count of rows with status PARTIALLY SUPPORTED in the GAPS Summary table
• PARTIALLY SUPPORTED rows are included in the table but NOT counted in either N or M
• COUNT THE ACTUAL TABLE ROWS AFTER WRITING. Do not estimate or pre-compute.
• Arithmetic verification: After writing the GAPS Summary, re-count the table rows by status and verify: N + M + P = total rows in the table. Also verify that the banner line "Total gaps: {N} | Total customer actions: {M}" matches the actual row counts. If they don't match, recount and fix before finalizing. This is a common error source.

Consistency rule:

• Each item's status in the GAPS Summary table MUST exactly match its status in the originating domain compliance matrix. If they differ, the domain matrix is authoritative.

## GAPS Summary

**Total gaps: {N} | Total customer actions: {M}**

| # | Domain | Requirement | Status | Details |
|---|--------|-------------|--------|---------|

Write to .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-summary.md:

# Security Posture Assessment: {Service Name}

**Generated**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**SAR Page**: {URL}

---

## [IAM] Identity and Access Management
{sections + compliance matrix}

## [LOGGING] Logging & Monitoring
{sections + compliance matrix}

## [INFRA] Infrastructure Protection
{sections + compliance matrix}

## [DATA] Data Protection
{sections + compliance matrix}

## [INCIDENT] Incident Response
{sections + compliance matrix}

## GAPS Summary
**Total gaps: {N} | Total customer actions: {M}**
{consolidated gaps table}

Run post-processing: python3 tools/post-process/fix_output.py .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-summary.md

---

Step 6: Cross-Domain Consistency Check

Review the full output for contradictions:

• Does IAM say "supports CMK" while DATA says "only AWS-managed keys"?
• Are encryption tiers consistent between DATA and other domains?
• Are VPC/network claims consistent between INFRA and LOGGING?
• Do INFRA and DATA agree on regional availability? The service-specific regions page (e.g., docs.aws.amazon.com/{service}/latest/devguide/*-regions.html) is authoritative. FAQ pages may list a subset. Use the higher count with the specific regions page as source.
• Are compliance program claims in DATA consistent with checkpoint-results.json? The checkpoint is authoritative.
• Does the same requirement appear in multiple domain matrices? Deduplicate — keep it in the most relevant domain only.

Flag contradictions: > **CROSS-CHECK**: {description}

---

Output Verification

After all steps complete, verify:

• .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/sar-facts.json exists and is valid JSON
• .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/checkpoint-results.json exists and is valid JSON
• .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/iac-support.json exists and is valid JSON
• .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-summary.md exists with all 5 domain sections
• GAPS counts match actual table rows
• No leaked terminology (check CLAUDE.md terminology rules)
• No meta-commentary (check CLAUDE.md meta-commentary rules)
• If --questions provided: .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/assessment-questionnaire.md exists

Print Summary

Assessment complete:
  Service: {service-name}
  SAR: {total_actions} actions, {condition_keys} keys, {resource_types} resource types
  Checkpoints: {passed}/{total} verified
  IaC support: CFN {✓/✗} | TF {✓/✗} | CDK {L1/L2/✗} | CDKTF {✓/✗}
  Domains: IAM, LOGGING, INFRA, DATA, INCIDENT
  GAPS: {N} requirement gaps, {M} customer actions required
  Artifacts:
    - sar-facts.json
    - checkpoint-results.json
    - iac-support.json
    - assessment-summary.md
    [- assessment-questionnaire.md (if --questions)]
  Output: .service-approval/<slug>/01-assess/