outsourcing-exit-strategy-reviewer

name	outsourcing-exit-strategy-reviewer
description	Review exit plans, data return, provider transitions, emergency operations, suboutsourcing, cloud dependencies, and business impact.
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"}]

Outsourcing Exit Strategy Reviewer

Purpose

Review exit plans, data return, provider transitions, emergency operations, suboutsourcing, cloud dependencies, and business impact. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• outsourcing exit strategy decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects outsourcing exit strategy artifacts such as exit plan, data return clause, provider transition runbook, emergency operating model, suboutsourcing register, business impact assessment.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unrecoverable data, provider lock-in, untested transition, critical suboutsourcing dependency, cloud portability gap, understated business impact.
• 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 outsourcing exit strategy artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as exit test, data deletion proof, alternate provider assessment, critical process map, contract clause, transition timeline.
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: exit plan, data return clause, provider transition runbook, emergency operating model, suboutsourcing register, business impact assessment.