dora-readiness-reviewer

name	dora-readiness-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"}]

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.

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

1. Identify the relevant DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as risk acceptance record, test protocol, incident timeline, contract inventory, management approval, evidence package.
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: ICT risk framework, resilience test plan, incident procedure, third-party register, role matrix, policy set.