| name | audit-traceability-maintainer |
| description | Link requirements, controls, implementation, tests, tickets, and evidence into an auditable trace. |
| 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 Traceability Maintainer
Purpose
Link requirements, controls, implementation, tests, tickets, and evidence into an auditable trace. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- audit traceability decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects audit traceability artifacts such as requirement, control, implementation change, test case, ticket, evidence item.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unlinked requirement, control without test, ticket without evidence, implementation drift, missing owner, trace break.
- 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
- Identify the relevant audit traceability artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as requirement ID, control ID, commit reference, test report, approval, evidence link.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- 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: requirement, control, implementation change, test case, ticket, evidence item.
- Risk themes: unlinked requirement, control without test, ticket without evidence, implementation drift, missing owner, trace break.
- Evidence signals: requirement ID, control ID, commit reference, test report, approval, evidence link.
