nist-800-53

name	nist-800-53
description	Map a cloud system against NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 + FedRAMP baselines to produce the documentation an authorization needs — System Security Plan (SSP), Control Implementation Summary (CIS), Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M), Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) Plan. Aware of 2026 FedRAMP CR26 changes (Certification Classes A/B/C/D replacing Pilot/Ready/Low/Li-SaaS/Moderate/High; JAB authorization model deprecated). Walks the 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR, PM) — for each control + control enhancement applicable to the chosen class, generates an implementation statement template referencing your actual stack (AWS/Azure/GCP/Kubernetes/Terraform/CI/CD), customer/provider responsibility mapping, inheritance from underlying CSP (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCC High), evidence collection mapping (screenshots, configs, scan reports), and 30/90/180-day remediation timelines per finding severity. TRIGGER on "NIST 800-53", "FedRAMP", "ATO", "SSP", "POA&M", "ConMon", "continuous monitoring", "FISMA", "RMF", "DoD CC SRG", "IL2/IL4/IL5/IL6", "STIG", "control inheritance", "3PAO", "FedRAMP authorization".
version	1.0.0
category	analysis
platforms	["CLAUDE_CODE"]

NIST 800-53 / FedRAMP Authorization Engine

You map a cloud system to NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 controls and produce the documentation an authorization needs. FedRAMP demands SSP documentation often over 300 pages, plus CIS, POA&M, and ConMon plan — and 3PAO + PMO will reject anything boilerplate.

2026 landscape (CR26):

• Certification Classes replace Impact Levels: A (Pilot/Ready), B (Li-SaaS/Low), C (Moderate), D (High).
• JAB authorization model is gone — Agency authorization is the path.
• Monthly ConMon required across all classes — vulnerability scans, POA&M updates, inventory changes, executive summary.
• Remediation timelines enforced: 30 days (high), 90 days (moderate), 180 days (low).

============================================================ === PRE-FLIGHT ===

• System boundary defined: what's in scope? Components, data flows, interconnections, customer data, customer responsibility.
• Certification Class target: A / B / C / D — drives # of controls (~325 for C, ~421 for D).
• Underlying CSP: AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCC High, on-prem. Drives inheritable controls (the CSP carries some PE/SC/SI/AC controls).
• 3PAO selected: required for assessment. Pick from FedRAMP marketplace.
• Agency sponsor: required since JAB is gone. Agency PMO sponsors authorization.
• Existing posture: SOC 2 Type II completed? StateRAMP? ISO 27001? Substantial uplift if any.

Recovery:

• If system boundary is ambiguous, force the user to draft a system architecture diagram + data flow diagram before continuing. Without boundary, controls don't have scope.
• For "FedRAMP Tailored" / Li-SaaS path: scope is narrower (Class A or B) — 130-160 controls.

============================================================ === PHASE 1: BOUNDARY + INVENTORY ===

Generate system_boundary.md with:

1. Authorization Boundary Diagram (ABD) — every component, interface, external connection.
2. Data Flow Diagram (DFD) — how customer data enters, processes, stores, leaves.
3. Inventory — hosts, containers, databases, queues, secrets stores, identity providers. Linked to a CMDB (Datadog, AWS Config, ServiceNow).
4. Interconnections — every external API, every shared boundary with another system. ICA (Interconnection Security Agreement) required for shared boundaries.

VALIDATION: Boundary diagram + DFD + inventory all consistent — every box in the ABD appears in the DFD and inventory.

============================================================ === PHASE 2: CONTROL APPLICABILITY MATRIX ===

For your Certification Class, enumerate the applicable controls + enhancements from 800-53 Rev. 5:

Family	Controls Class C count	Sample controls
AC (Access Control)	25+	AC-2, AC-3, AC-4, AC-5, AC-6, AC-7, AC-11, AC-17, AC-22
AT (Awareness & Training)	4	AT-1, AT-2, AT-3, AT-4
AU (Audit & Accountability)	14+	AU-2, AU-3, AU-6, AU-9, AU-12
CA (Assessment, Authorization)	9	CA-2, CA-3, CA-5, CA-7, CA-9
CM (Configuration Management)	12	CM-2, CM-3, CM-6, CM-7, CM-8, CM-10
CP (Contingency Planning)	13	CP-2, CP-3, CP-4, CP-9, CP-10
IA (Identification & Authentication)	11	IA-2 (incl. MFA enhancements), IA-5, IA-8
IR (Incident Response)	10	IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-7, IR-8
MA (Maintenance)	6	MA-2, MA-3, MA-4
MP (Media Protection)	8	MP-2, MP-4, MP-5, MP-6
PE (Physical & Environmental)	17	PE-2, PE-6, PE-12, PE-14 (usually inherited from CSP)
PL (Planning)	11	PL-2, PL-4, PL-8
PS (Personnel Security)	9	PS-3, PS-4, PS-7
PT (PII Processing & Transparency)	new in Rev 5	PT-1, PT-2, PT-3
RA (Risk Assessment)	10	RA-3, RA-5, RA-9
SA (System & Services Acquisition)	22	SA-4, SA-8, SA-11, SA-22
SC (System & Communications)	30+	SC-7, SC-8, SC-12, SC-13, SC-17, SC-23
SI (System & Information Integrity)	17	SI-2, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7, SI-10
SR (Supply Chain Risk Mgmt)	new in Rev 5	SR-3, SR-5, SR-6, SR-11
PM (Program Management)	enterprise-level	PM-1, PM-2, PM-7

Mark each control as:

• Customer Responsibility (you implement)
• Provider Responsibility (CSP — inherited; reference CSP's FedRAMP package)
• Shared (both — split the implementation)
• Hybrid (system & customer)

VALIDATION: Every applicable control assigned an owner.

============================================================ === PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENTS (SSP CORE) ===

For each Customer Responsibility / Shared / Hybrid control, draft an implementation statement. FedRAMP rejects boilerplate — be specific.

Template per control:

### AC-2: Account Management

#### Implementation Status

- [x] Implemented
- [ ] Partially Implemented
- [ ] Planned
- [ ] Alternative Implementation
- [ ] Not Applicable

#### Implementation Description

{Tenant accounts are managed via {Identity Provider, e.g., AWS IAM Identity Center / Okta}
with the following lifecycle:

a. Account types: ...
b. Provisioning: SCIM-based push from HRIS (Workday) on hire.
c. Authorization workflow: tickets in JIRA Service Management with approval from manager + security.
d. Deprovisioning: automated on termination event from HRIS within {N} minutes; manual review at {cadence}.
e. Quarterly access review: documented in Confluence; failed reviews opened as POA&M items.

Evidence:

- Screenshot of Identity Provider console
- Sample provisioning ticket
- Sample quarterly review report
- Automated test in security CI: `tests/AC-2.test.ts`}

#### Customer Responsibility

{If shared/hybrid — explicit statement of what the customer agency must do.}

#### Control Enhancements Implemented

- AC-2(1) Automated System Account Management: ...
- AC-2(2) Removal of Temporary / Emergency Accounts: ...
- ...

Generate one per applicable control. Output ssp/controls/{family}-{number}.md.

VALIDATION: Each implementation statement references SPECIFIC tools, processes, evidence locations. No "documented elsewhere" placeholders.

============================================================ === PHASE 4: POA&M GENERATION ===

Plan of Action & Milestones tracks every control NOT fully implemented + every finding from scans / assessments.

Schema:

{
  "poam_id": "POAM-2026-0042",
  "weakness": "AC-2(11): Account Use Conditions — circumstances and usage restrictions not documented for service accounts.",
  "control": "AC-2(11)",
  "severity": "Moderate",
  "discovered_date": "2026-05-01",
  "discovered_by": "Internal review",
  "current_status": "Ongoing",
  "scheduled_completion": "2026-08-01",
  "remediation_plan": "Document service-account usage conditions in Confluence runbook; automate enforcement via IAM policy.",
  "milestones": [
    { "date": "2026-06-01", "milestone": "Runbook drafted, peer reviewed" },
    { "date":    
    
       
       
    
  
   
   

Timelines (enforced per FedRAMP):

• High severity: 30 days
• Moderate: 90 days
• Low: 180 days

VALIDATION: Every POA&M item has milestones + deadline + owner.

============================================================ === PHASE 5: CONTINUOUS MONITORING (CONMON) PLAN ===

Monthly ConMon deliverables required across all classes:

1. Vulnerability Scans — authenticated scans of all in-boundary hosts (Tenable, Qualys, Nessus). Web app scans (OWASP ZAP, Burp Pro). Container scans (Snyk, Aqua). All scan results uploaded to FedRAMP repository.
2. POA&M Updates — status changes, new findings, closures.
3. Inventory Changes — added/removed/changed components.
4. Configuration Drift — compare current state to baselines (CIS, DISA STIGs).
5. Executive Summary — 2-3 page agency-facing summary.

Generate conmon_plan.md with monthly cadence, tooling, evidence retention rules (1-year minimum per FedRAMP).

Plus Annual Assessment by 3PAO (Class C/D), Significant Change notifications.

VALIDATION: Plan covers all 5 monthly artifacts + annual assessment cadence.

============================================================ === PHASE 6: 3PAO READINESS ===

Pre-assessment checklist before 3PAO engagement:

• SSP complete (Phase 3)
• CIS (Control Implementation Summary) — 1-line per control of who owns what
• POA&M current
• Recent vulnerability scans (within 30 days)
• ConMon plan documented
• Incident Response Plan tested (tabletop exercise within 12 months)
• Contingency Plan tested (DR exercise within 12 months)
• Penetration test scheduled with 3PAO (required for Class C/D)
• Privacy Impact Assessment (if PII processed)
• Supply Chain Risk Management plan (SR family)
• FIPS 140-3 validated crypto modules in use (where required)

VALIDATION: All checklist items have evidence pointers.

============================================================ === PHASE 7: PACKAGE & SUBMISSION ===

fedramp-package/
├── README.md
├── ssp/
│   ├── core.md                   # exec summary + boundary
│   ├── controls/                 # one MD per control
│   └── attachments/
│       ├── ABD.png
│       ├── DFD.png
│       ├── ICA-{partner}.pdf
│       └── ...
├── cis/
│   └── control_implementation_summary.xlsx
├── poam/
│   └── poam_2026Q2.xlsx
├── conmon/
│   └── conmon_plan.md
├── policies/                     # 20+ org policies (AC-1, AT-1, AU-1, etc.)
└── evidence/                     # screenshots, scan results, test outputs
    └── 2026-05/

Submit to FedRAMP via OMB Max + agency sponsor.

VALIDATION: Package structure matches FedRAMP template. All required attachments present.

============================================================ === SELF-REVIEW ===

• Complete: Boundary + control matrix + SSP + POA&M + ConMon + 3PAO checklist?
• Robust: Inheritance correctly mapped to underlying CSP? Class-appropriate control set?
• Clean: Each implementation statement references specific tools / evidence (no boilerplate)?
• FedRAMP-credible: Would a 3PAO or PMO reviewer accept the SSP as substantive?

Common gap: claiming "implemented" without evidence pointer. Every control needs traceable evidence.

============================================================ === LEARNINGS CAPTURE ===

~/.claude/skills/nist-800-53/LEARNINGS.md.

============================================================ === STRICT RULES ===

• Never use boilerplate implementation statements. 3PAO + PMO will reject.
• Never claim an inherited control without referencing the CSP's authorization package + Customer Responsibility Matrix.
• Never miss a ConMon month. Lapses jeopardize authorization.
• Never miss POA&M remediation deadlines (30/90/180 days). Late POA&Ms trigger agency conditional authorization or revocation.
• Always reference CR26 Certification Classes (A/B/C/D), not legacy Low/Mod/High. The labels changed in 2026.
• Always confirm FIPS 140-3 (not 140-2) crypto module validation — 140-2 sunset 2026.