| name | dora-readiness-reviewer |
| description | Review DORA readiness for ICT risk management, resilience testing, incidents, third-party risk, roles, policies, evidence, and auditability. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-08-29 |
| last_modified | 2026-08-29 |
| 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":"2026-08-29","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Dora Readiness Reviewer
Purpose
Review DORA readiness for ICT risk management, resilience testing, ICT incidents, third-party risk, roles, policies, evidence, and auditability. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
Goal and behavioral contract
The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.
Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.
When to use
- DORA readiness and ICT auditability decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts such as ICT risk framework, resilience test plan, incident procedure, third-party register, role matrix, policy set.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unowned DORA capability, untested critical function, missing incident evidence, outsourcing blind spot, policy without approval, audit trail gap.
- 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as risk acceptance record, test protocol, incident timeline, contract inventory, management approval, evidence package.
- 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.
