ict-third-party-risk-reviewer

name	ict-third-party-risk-reviewer
description	Review cloud, SaaS, outsourcing, subcontractors, contracts, exit strategies, concentration risks, and DORA information-register readiness.
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"}]

Ict Third Party Risk Reviewer

Purpose

Review cloud, SaaS, outsourcing, subcontractors, contracts, exit strategies, concentration risks, and DORA information-register readiness. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• ICT third-party risk decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects ICT third-party risk artifacts such as provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unlisted subcontractor, weak exit clause, concentration exposure, missing data location, untracked outsourcing dependency, contract evidence 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 ICT third-party risk artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as contract clause, provider assessment, service criticality, suboutsourcing notice, exit-test result, register update.
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: provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.