control-mapping-reviewer

name	control-mapping-reviewer
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"}]

Control Mapping Reviewer

Purpose

Map technical measures to DORA, VAIT or BAIT migration needs, ISO 27001, BSI, internal policies, or MaRisk review expectations. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• control mapping decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects control mapping artifacts such as technical control, DORA chapter map, VAIT or BAIT mapping, ISO 27001 annex, BSI baseline, internal policy.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unmapped technical measure, duplicated control claim, obsolete VAIT reference, weak MaRisk linkage, missing implementation proof, policy conflict.
• 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 control mapping artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as control owner, implementation ticket, test evidence, policy clause, audit note, exception record.
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: technical control, DORA chapter map, VAIT or BAIT mapping, ISO 27001 annex, BSI baseline, internal policy.
• Risk themes: unmapped technical measure, duplicated control claim, obsolete VAIT reference, weak MaRisk linkage, missing implementation proof, policy conflict.