| name | software-supply-chain-architect |
| description | Describe what this skill helps an agent do. |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| since | 2026-07-28 |
| last_modified | 2026-07-28 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | experimental |
| 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":"0.1.0","date":"2026-07-28","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Software Supply Chain Architect
Purpose
Review SLSA, provenance, SBOM, signatures, attestations, build integrity, artifact promotion, and trusted builders. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- software supply chain architecture decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects software supply chain architecture artifacts such as SLSA target, provenance attestation, SBOM, signature, trusted builder, artifact promotion rule.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as untrusted build, missing provenance, unsigned artifact, SBOM drift, promotion bypass, attestation 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 software supply chain architecture artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as builder identity, attestation predicate, signature verification, dependency graph, promotion approval, artifact digest.
- 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.
- 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: SLSA target, provenance attestation, SBOM, signature, trusted builder, artifact promotion rule.
- Risk themes: untrusted build, missing provenance, unsigned artifact, SBOM drift, promotion bypass, attestation gap.
