soc2-gap-analysis

name	soc2-gap-analysis
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "prepare for SOC 2", "run a SOC 2 gap analysis", "check our audit readiness", "map our controls", "what controls are missing", "review us for SOC 2 Type I", "review us for SOC 2 Type II", or mentions SOC 2, trust service criteria, control gaps, auditor prep, trust center readiness, or remediation planning.
version	0.1.0

SOC 2 Gap Analysis

Use this skill to run a structured SOC 2 readiness review. Keep the skill behavioral: inspect current controls, sort findings by evidence quality and control quality, and produce a remediation-oriented report.

This skill is for readiness analysis, not legal advice and not an attestation. Never claim a company is "SOC 2 compliant" or "audit ready" unless the user explicitly provides current evidence that supports that statement.

Core Rules

1. Separate control gaps from evidence gaps.
2. Mark unknowns clearly instead of smoothing them over.
3. Scope the review before evaluating controls.
4. Prefer concrete artifacts over narrative claims.
5. Route policy drafting to soc2-policy-drafting and evidence chasing to soc2-evidence-collection when the task becomes document-heavy.

Workflow

1. Confirm scope

Capture:

• Product or service in scope
• Environments in scope
• Audit target: Type I, Type II, or readiness only
• Trust Services Criteria in scope
• Review period, if any

If the user does not specify Trust Services Criteria, assume Security only and say so.

2. Build the review frame

Load references/control-areas.md.

Use the control areas there to build a working checklist. Only pull in areas relevant to the scoped criteria. Do not force every control family into every review.

3. Review artifacts and implementation signals

For each control area:

• Identify what exists today
• Identify what evidence exists today
• Mark one of: pass, gap, partial, unknown, not-applicable
• Note whether the weakness is design, implementation, or evidence quality

4. Rank gaps

Use this priority model:

• high: likely audit blocker or material control weakness
• medium: important but can be remediated inside the audit prep window
• low: polish, hardening, or documentation cleanup

5. Produce a remediation plan

For every non-pass finding:

• State the missing control or evidence
• State the likely owner role
• State the next concrete action
• State what artifact would close the gap

Output Contract

Always return:

1. Scope Summary

Include:

• Audit target
• Criteria in scope
• Systems or products in scope
• Assumptions

2. Gap Matrix

Use this table:

Control Area	What Was Reviewed	Status	Gap Type	Priority	Evidence Seen	Next Action	Suggested Owner

3. Top Blockers

List the 3-5 issues most likely to block audit progress.

4. Open Questions

List the missing facts that prevent a firmer answer.

Escalation Rules

• If the user needs actual evidence gathering, load soc2-evidence-collection.
• If the user needs policy or narrative docs, load soc2-policy-drafting.
• If the review becomes code- or config-heavy, hand technical validation to the security agent.

Reference Files

• references/control-areas.md - Control families, review questions, acceptable evidence, common failure modes

Examples

• examples/startup-readiness-report.md - Example of a concise readiness report