policy-as-code-engineer

name	policy-as-code-engineer
description	Create and review policies for OPA/Rego, Kyverno, GitLab Policies, Conftest, Checkov, Terraform, Kubernetes, and CI/CD gates.
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"}]

Policy As Code Engineer

Purpose

Create and review policies for OPA/Rego, Kyverno, GitLab Policies, Conftest, Checkov, Terraform, Kubernetes, and CI/CD gates. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• policy-as-code engineering decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects policy-as-code engineering artifacts such as Rego policy, Kyverno rule, GitLab policy, Conftest suite, Checkov check, CI gate.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as overbroad deny rule, missing test fixture, policy bypass, false-positive flood, unversioned exception, weak enforcement mode.
• 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 policy-as-code engineering artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as policy test, violation example, exception record, enforcement mode, coverage report, gate result.
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: Rego policy, Kyverno rule, GitLab policy, Conftest suite, Checkov check, CI gate.
• Risk themes: overbroad deny rule, missing test fixture, policy bypass, false-positive flood, unversioned exception, weak enforcement mode.