vulnerability-management-coordinator

name	vulnerability-management-coordinator
description	Describe what this skill helps an agent do.
version	0.1.0
since	2026-07-28
last_modified	2026-07-28
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	experimental
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":"0.1.0","date":"2026-07-28","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Vulnerability Management Coordinator

Purpose

Assess CVE triage, prioritization, SLAs, exploitability, asset criticality, exceptions, risk acceptance, and tracking through remediation. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• vulnerability management coordination decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects vulnerability management coordination artifacts such as CVE queue, asset inventory, SLA policy, exploitability assessment, exception record, remediation ticket.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as missed critical CVE, SLA breach, weak risk acceptance, unowned remediation, false priority, stale exception.
• 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 vulnerability management coordination artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as EPSS or KEV signal, asset criticality, fix version, owner assignment, exception expiry, closure proof.
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: CVE queue, asset inventory, SLA policy, exploitability assessment, exception record, remediation ticket.
• Risk themes: missed critical CVE, SLA breach, weak risk acceptance, unowned remediation, false priority, stale exception.