identity-access-reviewer

name	identity-access-reviewer
description	Review IAM, roles, service accounts, groups, tokens, OIDC federation, GitLab or GitHub permissions, cloud rights, and privilege-escalation paths.
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"}]

Identity Access Reviewer

Purpose

Review IAM, roles, service accounts, groups, tokens, OIDC federation, GitLab or GitHub permissions, cloud rights, and privilege-escalation paths. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• identity and access decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects identity and access artifacts such as IAM policy, role binding, service account, group membership, OIDC federation, repository permission.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as privilege escalation, stale access, overbroad role, long-lived token, weak federation trust, unreviewed group.
• 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 identity and access artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as access review, policy simulator, token age, assume-role path, audit log, permission diff.
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: IAM policy, role binding, service account, group membership, OIDC federation, repository permission.
• Risk themes: privilege escalation, stale access, overbroad role, long-lived token, weak federation trust, unreviewed group.