| name | cloud-governance-reviewer |
| description | Review cloud naming, tags, ownership, cost centers, allowed services, regions, data classification, policy enforcement, and audit evidence. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| since | 2026-06-17 |
| last_modified | 2026-06-17 |
| 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":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Cloud Governance Reviewer
Purpose
Review naming, tags, ownership, cost centers, allowed services, regions, data classification, policy enforcement, and audit evidence. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- cloud governance decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects cloud governance artifacts such as naming standard, tag policy, ownership register, cost center map, allowed-service list, region policy.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unowned resource, untagged cost, forbidden region, unapproved service, data classification gap, policy drift.
- 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 cloud governance artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as resource inventory, policy compliance report, tag coverage, budget owner, classification label, audit export.
- 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: naming standard, tag policy, ownership register, cost center map, allowed-service list, region policy.
- Risk themes: unowned resource, untagged cost, forbidden region, unapproved service, data classification gap, policy drift.
