cloud-landing-zone-reviewer

name	cloud-landing-zone-reviewer
description	Review cloud accounts or subscriptions, networks, IAM, logging, policies, baselines, guardrails, encryption, tagging, and tenant separation.
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"}]

Cloud Landing Zone Reviewer

Purpose

Review accounts or subscriptions, networks, IAM, logging, policies, baselines, guardrails, encryption, tagging, and tenant separation. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• cloud landing zones decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects cloud landing zones artifacts such as account structure, network topology, IAM baseline, logging baseline, policy assignment, encryption standard.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as flat account model, network exposure, overprivileged IAM, missing central logs, unenforced policy, tenant isolation 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 cloud landing zones artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as organization policy, VPC or VNet design, KMS configuration, tag policy, guardrail result, audit log.
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: account structure, network topology, IAM baseline, logging baseline, policy assignment, encryption standard.
• Risk themes: flat account model, network exposure, overprivileged IAM, missing central logs, unenforced policy, tenant isolation gap.