| name | ict-third-party-risk-reviewer |
| description | Review cloud, SaaS, outsourcing, subcontractors, contracts, exit strategies, concentration risks, and DORA information-register readiness. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-08-27 |
| last_modified | 2026-08-27 |
| 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":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-27","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Ict Third Party Risk Reviewer
Purpose
Review cloud, SaaS, outsourcing, subcontractors, contracts, exit strategies, concentration risks, and DORA information-register readiness. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
Goal and behavioral contract
The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.
Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.
When to use
- ICT third-party risk decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects ICT third-party risk artifacts such as provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unlisted subcontractor, weak exit clause, concentration exposure, missing data location, untracked outsourcing dependency, contract evidence 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
- Identify the relevant ICT third-party risk artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as contract clause, provider assessment, service criticality, suboutsourcing notice, exit-test result, register update.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- 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.
