| name | compliance-readiness |
| description | /cs:compliance-readiness <program> — Multi-framework compliance officer 6-question forcing interrogation of any compliance program. Use before starting a new framework, planning the annual audit calendar, or preparing for certification stage 1. |
| compatibility | opencode |
/cs:compliance-readiness — Compliance Officer Forcing Questions
Command: /cs:compliance-readiness <program>
The multi-framework compliance officer pressure-tests any compliance program. Six questions before any new-framework commitment, audit cycle planning, or certification readiness sign-off.
When to Run
- Before adopting a new compliance framework
- Before annual audit calendar finalization
- Before certification stage 1 readiness sign-off
- Before management review (Clause 9.3 across frameworks)
- When evidence-collection effort has grown 50%+ year-over-year (a smell)
- When an audit produced > 15% critical findings
The Six Compliance Officer Questions
1. Have you named every applicable framework?
No framework selector run, no defensible scope.
- Run
framework_selector.py with company profile
- Forgetting a framework means rebuilding the audit program later
- Pay attention to industry-specific overlays (financial: NYDFS, FINMA; healthcare: HIPAA, ISO 13485; AI: ISO 42001 + EU AI Act)
2. Where do the frameworks overlap, and what's the reuse leverage?
Single evidence -> N controls = the cornerstone of multi-framework efficiency.
- Run
cross_framework_mapper.py with enabled frameworks
- HIGH-confidence mappings: same evidence; MEDIUM: existing + overlay; LOW: new artefact
- Without overlap analysis, you'll collect the same access-review records 3 times
3. Who owns each artefact, and what's the reuse-leverage score?
Joint ownership without accountability is the most common cause of stale evidence.
- Run
evidence_pool_generator.py for the artefact inventory
- HIGH-leverage artefacts (≥ 5 mappings) get built first
- Each artefact needs one accountable owner
- Stale evidence is an effective gap — even if the artefact existed historically
4. What's the audit calendar, and is auditor independence respected?
Surveillance audits stacking in the same week is a smell.
- Use per-framework audit-plan tools (aims_audit_scheduler, isms_audit_scheduler, audit_schedule_optimizer)
- Auditor cannot audit their own work (Clause 9.2 across all ISO standards)
- For small teams: rotate auditors + occasional external auditor
5. What does a mock audit produce, and is the severity distribution healthy?
No mock audit, no readiness signal.
- Run
audit_simulator.py with framework + scope
- Healthy distribution: ≥ 40% observation, ≤ 15% critical
- All-critical findings = destructive audit OR genuinely failing program
- All-observation findings = audit too superficial
6. What's the management review cadence across frameworks?
Each framework wants its own management review; an integrated review (per Annex SL) saves 5x exec time.
- Schedule one quarterly cross-framework review covering all enabled frameworks' Clause 9.3 inputs
- Inputs: risk register changes, open nonconformities, audit findings, incidents, drift, KPIs
- Outputs: action items, resource decisions, scope adjustments
Workflow
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/framework_selector.py profile.json
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/evidence_pool_generator.py program.json
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py scope.json
Output Format
# Compliance Readiness: <program>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## The Decision Being Made
[framework-set | audit-calendar | certification-readiness | evidence-consolidation]
## Framework Set
- Applicable: <list>
- Binding (regulations): <count>
- Certifiable: <count>
- Missing dependencies: <list>
## Cross-Framework Overlap
- Total merged controls in scope: N
- High-leverage artefacts (≥ 5 mappings): M
- Top reuse opportunities: <top 5 artefacts>
## Evidence Pool
- Artefacts in catalog: N
- High-leverage count: M
- Stale evidence rate: X%
- Unowned artefacts: K
## Audit Calendar
- Frameworks scheduled this year: <list>
- Auditor independence respected: Y/N
- Conflicts: <list>
## Mock Audit Results (per framework)
- <framework>: total findings N, critical X%, observation Y%, healthy distribution: Y/N
## Verdict
🟢 READY | 🟡 STAGE-2-CANDIDATE | 🔴 NOT-READY
[3 concrete next steps with owners + dates]
Routing
/cs:aims-audit — for ISO 42001-specific forcing questions/cs:ai-act-readiness — for EU AI Act-specific forcing questions/cs:ciso-review — for cybersecurity strategy/cs:caio-review — for executive AI strategy/cs:gc-review — for novel-case legal review/cs:decide — to log the verdict/cs:freeze 30 — on certification commitments (multi-year financial impact)
Related
- Agent:
cs-compliance-officer
- Skill:
compliance-os
- Adjacent:
../../ra-qm-team/skills/iso42001-specialist/, ../../ra-qm-team/skills/eu-ai-act-specialist/, ../../ra-qm-team/skills/information-security-manager-iso27001/, ../../ra-qm-team/skills/soc2-compliance/, ../../ra-qm-team/skills/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/
Version: 1.0.0
