audit-evidence-reviewer

name	audit-evidence-reviewer
description	Review evidence, approvals, tickets, logs, test protocols, risk decisions, versioning, and accountable owners.
version	1.1.0
since	2026-06-17
last_modified	2026-06-17
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Audit Evidence Reviewer

Purpose

Review evidence, approvals, tickets, logs, test protocols, risk decisions, versioning, and accountable owners. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• audit evidence quality decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects audit evidence quality artifacts such as approval record, ticket trail, system log, test protocol, risk decision, version history.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as orphaned approval, missing log retention, unlinked ticket, unsigned test result, stale evidence, unclear accountable owner.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant audit evidence quality artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as review timestamp, change reference, approver identity, log extract, test result, version tag.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: approval record, ticket trail, system log, test protocol, risk decision, version history.
• Risk themes: orphaned approval, missing log retention, unlinked ticket, unsigned test result, stale evidence, unclear accountable owner.