devsecops-maturity-reviewer

name	devsecops-maturity-reviewer
description	Assess maturity across plan, code, build, test, release, deploy, and operate with automation, security gates, ownership, and feedback loops.
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"}]

Devsecops Maturity Reviewer

Purpose

Assess maturity across plan, code, build, test, release, deploy, and operate: shift left, shield right, automation, security gates, ownership, and feedback loops. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• DevSecOps maturity decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects DevSecOps maturity artifacts such as SDLC workflow, security gate, pipeline policy, ownership model, feedback loop, operational metric.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as manual security bottleneck, late vulnerability discovery, weak gate enforcement, unclear ownership, missing runtime feedback, immature automation.
• 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 DevSecOps maturity artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as maturity score, gate result, team responsibility, defect trend, incident feedback, improvement roadmap.
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: SDLC workflow, security gate, pipeline policy, ownership model, feedback loop, operational metric.
• Risk themes: manual security bottleneck, late vulnerability discovery, weak gate enforcement, unclear ownership, missing runtime feedback, immature automation.