policy-as-code-reviewer

name	policy-as-code-reviewer
description	Review GitLab Security Policies, OPA/Rego, Kyverno, Conftest, Sentinel, admission policies, compliance pipelines, and central guardrails.
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"}]

Policy As Code Reviewer

Purpose

Review GitLab Security Policies, OPA/Rego, Kyverno, Conftest, Sentinel, admission policies, compliance pipelines, and central guardrails. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• policy-as-code review decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects policy-as-code review artifacts such as GitLab security policy, OPA/Rego rule, Kyverno policy, Sentinel policy, admission policy, compliance pipeline.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as policy bypass, untested deny path, central guardrail drift, weak exception process, pipeline enforcement gap, noisy violation.
• 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 policy-as-code review artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as policy test result, violation fixture, exception approval, enforcement mode, pipeline evidence, audit event.
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: GitLab security policy, OPA/Rego rule, Kyverno policy, Sentinel policy, admission policy, compliance pipeline.
• Risk themes: policy bypass, untested deny path, central guardrail drift, weak exception process, pipeline enforcement gap, noisy violation.