Use this skill when the user mentions a named industry standard (BIAN, ISO 20022, FHIR, ACORD, TM Forum, etc.), when modelling a recognised industry domain (banking, payments, insurance, healthcare, telecoms, retail), or when populating the Reference column of any MD-DDL summary table. Also use when the user asks whether a concept already exists in a standard, or when two modelled concepts might map to the same standard object.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
File Explorer
18 files
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
standards-alignment
description
Use this skill when the user mentions a named industry standard (BIAN, ISO 20022, FHIR, ACORD, TM Forum, etc.), when modelling a recognised industry domain (banking, payments, insurance, healthcare, telecoms, retail), or when populating the Reference column of any MD-DDL summary table. Also use when the user asks whether a concept already exists in a standard, or when two modelled concepts might map to the same standard object.
Skill: Standards Alignment
Covers how to find, evaluate, and reference external industry standards within
MD-DDL models. No additional spec section is required — standards are referenced
in the Reference column of domain summary tables and in entity YAML.
Standards by Domain
Industry
Primary Standards
Use for
Banking / Financial Services
BIAN BOM, FIBO
Entity and relationship semantics
Payments
ISO 20022, SWIFT MX, PCI DSS
Message schemas, party roles, transaction types
Risk & Compliance
Basel III / BCBS, FATF
Risk entities, regulatory metadata
Local Compliance
APRA (AU), FCA (UK), OCC (US)
Retention, classification, regulatory_scope
Cross-jurisdiction Privacy
GDPR, CCPA, PDPA
PII metadata, retention, consent events
Insurance
ACORD, IAIS
Policy, claim, underwriting entities
Healthcare
HL7 FHIR, SNOMED CT, ICD-10
Clinical entities, terminology
Telecoms
TM Forum SID, eTOM
Party, product, service entities
Retail / Supply Chain
GS1, eCl@ss
Product, location, shipment entities
Cross-industry
ISO 8601 (dates), ISO 4217 (currency), ISO 3166 (country)
Attribute types and enum values
How to Apply a Standard Reference
Step 1 — Confirm the mapping exists
Do not silently map a concept to a standard if the fit is approximate. Check that
the standard actually defines a counterpart to the entity or attribute being modelled.
For BIAN BOM, use the dedicated guidance in BIAN standard guidance.
It defines the deterministic lookup sequence, local reference files for name matching
and attribute inspection, candidate disambiguation rules, version parameters,
and no-guess policy.
Default to BIAN v13 until v14 snapshots are available — see the version selection rules in BIAN standard guidance.
For TM Forum SID, use the dedicated guidance in TM Forum standard guidance.
It defines the deterministic lookup sequence, local reference files for entity
name matching and property inspection, SID domain taxonomy, the Party/PartyRole
pattern, and the Customer vs Subscriber distinction critical for telecoms modelling.
For ACORD, use the curated guidance in ACORD standard guidance.
It covers core insurance entities (Policy, Coverage, Claim), party role patterns
(PolicyHolder, Insured, Claimant, Beneficiary), ACORD naming conventions, and
code lists. Note that ACORD schemas are membership-gated — mappings should note
confidence level explicitly.
For ISO 20022, consult the message definition catalogue for the relevant message type.
For HL7 FHIR, use the dedicated guidance in FHIR standard guidance.
It defines a deterministic lookup sequence using local cache files for resource
and terminology mapping before falling back to live FHIR pages.
Step 2 — Note material differences
If the standard's definition differs from the user's intent, say so explicitly:
"In BIAN BOM, 'Party' is defined as [standard definition]. Your usage adds [X].
This is close enough to reference BIAN, but we should note the extension in the
entity description."
Step 3 — Format the reference link
Use the Reference column in summary tables and in entity descriptions:
| `Customer` (`entities/customer.md#customer`) | `Party Role` (`entities/party_role.md#party-role`) | A Party with an active product relationship. | `BIAN BOM - Party Role` (`https://bian-modelapi-v4.azurewebsites.net/BOClassByName/PartyRole`) |
For multiple applicable standards, list the most specific first.
Step 4 — Carry references into metadata
When a regulatory standard applies to the domain, add it to regulatory_scope
in the domain YAML — not just to the Reference column:
regulatory_scope:-GDPR-BCBS239-APRACPS234
Approximate vs. Exact Mapping
Signal
Action
Concept name and definition match the standard closely
Reference directly; no note needed
Concept is a specialisation of a standard object
Reference the parent; note the specialisation in the entity description
Concept partially overlaps a standard object
Reference with a qualification: "Partial alignment — [difference]"
No standard counterpart exists
Do not force a reference; leave the Reference column empty
Never fabricate a reference URL to make the model look more aligned than it is.
A missing reference is honest; a wrong one is harmful.
For BIAN specifics (including local reference files, lookup order and exact-name resolution), follow BIAN standard guidance.
For TM Forum SID specifics (including SID domain taxonomy and Party/Customer/Subscriber patterns), follow TM Forum standard guidance.
For ACORD specifics (including insurance entity hierarchies and party role patterns), follow ACORD standard guidance.
For FHIR specifics (including resource and terminology cache files and healthcare mapping patterns), follow FHIR standard guidance.
Standard Reconciliation Protocol
Use this protocol when the user's model decomposition and the standard's
decomposition genuinely differ — not just in naming, but in how concepts are
split, merged, or specialised. This is common when an organisation has evolved
its own terminology or when the standard is more abstract than the user's model.
When to Trigger
Trigger reconciliation when any of these occur:
User's single concept maps to multiple standard objects (split)
Multiple user concepts map to a single standard object (merge)
User concept and standard object overlap partially with distinct extensions
User asks "how does our model relate to [standard]?" in structural terms
Step 1 — Build the Comparison Table
Present a structured side-by-side to the user:
Your Model | Standard | Overlap | Gap | Options
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Customer | BIAN Party Role | Both represent a business relationship to the organisation | Your Customer includes identity (name, DOB); BIAN separates identity into Party | (a) Split into Party + Customer Role (b) Keep Customer, reference BIAN Party Role with note
Account Holder | BIAN Party Role | Both represent a party acting in a capacity | Your Account Holder is a specialisation of Customer; BIAN treats both as Party Role subtypes | (a) Model as separate entity specialising Party Role (b) Treat as Customer attribute
Step 2 — Evaluate Each Option
For each row, apply these decision criteria:
Criterion
What to check
Ownership
Does each concept have a distinct owning team?
Lifecycle
Does each concept have an independent lifecycle?
Attributes
Does each concept carry meaningfully different attributes?
Governance
Do different regulatory requirements apply?
Standard alignment value
Does aligning more closely improve interoperability or auditability?
Cost of divergence
What breaks if we don't align? (reporting, integration, audit trails)
User's split reflects real operational boundaries; reference with qualification note
Hybrid
Adopt standard's abstract parent, keep user's specialisations as subtypes
No alignment
Concepts are superficially similar but semantically different; forced alignment would mislead
Step 4 — Document the Decision
For each resolved concept, produce an annotation in the entity description that
records the reconciliation:
### Customer
The party with an active product or service relationship.
**Standards reconciliation:**- BIAN equivalent: Party Role (partial alignment — BIAN separates identity
into Party; our Customer carries identity attributes directly)
- Decision: Kept as single entity; reference BIAN Party Role with qualification
- Rationale: Customer team owns both identity and relationship data; splitting
would fragment operational ownership
This makes the alignment decision auditable and prevents future contributors
from re-asking the same question.
Worked Example: BIAN Alignment for Financial Crime
This example demonstrates the standards alignment process applied to core entities
from the examples/Financial Crime/ domain, mapping against the BIAN Business
Object Model (v13 — current production baseline; v14 pending snapshot availability).
Step 1 — Identify candidate mappings
MD-DDL Entity
BIAN BOM Candidate
Confidence
Party
Party
High — both represent an individual or organisation
Person
IndividualEntity
High — BIAN separates natural persons from legal entities
Company
Organisation
High — BIAN equivalent of legal entity
Party Role
PartyRole
High — BIAN uses the same abstraction
Customer
CustomerRole
High — BIAN models Customer as a PartyRole subtype
Account
Account
High — direct match on definition and semantics
Transaction
AccountEntry
Medium — BIAN uses AccountEntry for ledger movements; financial transaction is broader
Step 2 — Evaluate differences
MD-DDL Entity
BIAN Difference
Impact
Party
BIAN's Party is abstract with IndividualEntity and Organisation subtypes. MD-DDL models Person and Company as subtypes of Party.
Structural match — inheritance hierarchy is aligned
Party Role
BIAN's PartyRole is abstract. MD-DDL matches this pattern.
No difference
Customer
BIAN's CustomerRole inherits from PartyRole. MD-DDL's Customer inherits from Party Role.
Aligned
Transaction
BIAN's AccountEntry is narrowly scoped to account postings. MD-DDL's Transaction covers the full payment event including payer, payee, and payment initiator roles.
Material difference — Transaction is broader than AccountEntry
Entity | Reference
--- | ---
Party | BIAN BOM - Party
Person | BIAN BOM - IndividualEntity
Company | BIAN BOM - Organisation
Party Role | BIAN BOM - PartyRole
Customer | BIAN BOM - CustomerRole
Transaction | BIAN BOM - AccountEntry (partial — Transaction extends beyond ledger movements to include payment roles and initiator context)
Key takeaway
Not every entity maps 1:1 to a standard. Transaction → AccountEntry is a legitimate
partial alignment. The reconciliation note ensures future contributors understand
why the mapping is qualified rather than exact.
Regulatory Metadata Prompt
When a domain's regulatory_scope is being populated, prompt the user with this
checklist. Many teams underspecify this because they assume "someone else handles
compliance."
Does this domain hold personal data about individuals? → GDPR / CCPA / PDPA
Does this domain support financial reporting? → SOX / BCBS 239
Does this domain hold transaction or payment data? → PCI DSS / AML / FATF
Does this domain support credit risk assessment? → Basel III
Does this domain hold health information? → HIPAA / HL7
Is the institution regulated in Australia? → APRA CPS 234 / CPG 235
Is the institution regulated in the EU? → DORA / EU 5AMLD / 6AMLD
Is the institution regulated in the UK? → FCA COBS / SYSC
For each applicable framework, confirm with the user whether it affects:
The classification or pii flags
The default_retention value
Any specific attribute-level governance (e.g., credit scores under ECOA)
