| name | ict-risk-management-reviewer |
| description | Review ICT risks, protection needs, criticality, controls, residual risks, treatment, and recurring reassessment. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-07-28 |
| last_modified | 2026-07-28 |
| 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":"1.0.0","date":"2026-07-28","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Ict Risk Management Reviewer
Purpose
Review ICT risks, protection needs, criticality, controls, residual risks, risk treatment, and recurring reassessment. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- ICT risk management decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects ICT risk management artifacts such as asset inventory, protection needs analysis, criticality rating, control catalogue, risk register, reassessment schedule.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unrated critical asset, weak residual risk rationale, stale risk treatment, missing control owner, unsupported protection level, outdated reassessment.
- 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 ICT risk management artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as asset classification, control test, risk decision, treatment task, owner approval, review cadence.
- 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: asset inventory, protection needs analysis, criticality rating, control catalogue, risk register, reassessment schedule.
- Risk themes: unrated critical asset, weak residual risk rationale, stale risk treatment, missing control owner, unsupported protection level, outdated reassessment.
