saas-assessment-report
Skill274 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrates a comprehensive SaaS platform assessment against WAF, CAF, CIS, NIST, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC 2, FedRAMP, and SaaS maturity frameworks. Generates a print-ready HTML report (save as PDF from browser). Use when the user wants to assess a SaaS repo, generate a compliance report, or audit an Azure SaaS platform.
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- website/docs/authoring/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .github/skills/git-ape-onboarding/templates/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- aws-api-gatewaySkill
- aws-bedrockSkill
- aws-cloudformationSkill
- aws-cloudwatchSkill
- aws-cognitoSkill
- aws-cost-estimatorSkill
- aws-dynamodbSkill
- aws-ec2Skill
- aws-ecsSkill
- aws-eksSkill
- aws-eventbridgeSkill
- aws-iamSkill
- aws-lambdaSkill
- aws-naming-researchSkill
- aws-rdsSkill
- aws-s3Skill
- aws-secrets-managerSkill
- aws-security-analyzerSkill
- aws-snsSkill
- aws-sqsSkill
- aws-step-functionsSkill
- csd-assessment-reportSkill
- deployment-blueprintsSkill
- fulfillment-and-meteringSkill
- isv-landing-zone-foundationSkill
- marketplace-offer-typesSkill
- marketplace-onboardingSkill
- multi-tenant-saasSkill
- onboard-to-marketplaceSkill
- saas-accelerator-bootstrapSkill
- scale-and-sreSkill
- security-and-complianceSkill
- tenant-isolation-modelsSkill
- tenant-lifecycle-automationSkill
- azure-cost-estimatorSkill
- azure-deployment-preflightSkill
- azure-drift-detectorSkill
- azure-integration-testerSkill
- azure-naming-researchSkill
- azure-policy-advisorSkill
- azure-resource-availabilitySkill
- azure-resource-visualizerSkill
- azure-rest-api-referenceSkill
- azure-role-selectorSkill
- azure-security-analyzerSkill
- azure-stack-deploySkill
- azure-stack-destroySkill
- git-ape-onboardingSkill
- git-ape-skillsSkill
- prereq-checkSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 75
All Azure services discovered in the repo (App Service, Cosmos DB, Storage, Key Vault, OpenAI, Front Door, etc.)
- Very specific: line 138
If pandoc or headless Chrome is available, auto-convert:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
SaaS Assessment Report Skill
Purpose
Runs a full-spectrum assessment of a SaaS application repository and produces a single print-ready HTML report that can be saved as PDF. This skill orchestrates existing skills — it does not duplicate their logic.
When to Use
- User asks to "assess", "audit", "review", or "score" a SaaS repo
- User wants a compliance report (NIST, CIS, PCI, HIPAA, SOC 2, FedRAMP)
- User wants a WAF/CAF assessment of their SaaS platform
- User asks for a "readiness report" or "go-live checklist"
Workflow
Phase 1: Discovery (read-only)
Scan the repository to build an inventory:
- Infrastructure — Find IaC files (Bicep, ARM, Terraform) under
infra/,.azure/, or root - Application code — Identify language, framework, Dockerfile, package manifests
- Existing docs — Check for prior skill outputs in
docs/(tenant-isolation-model.md, security-and-compliance.md, scale-and-sre.md, etc.) - CI/CD — Check
.github/workflows/,azure-pipelines.yml, or similar - Config — Environment variables, Key Vault references, connection strings
Phase 2: Run Assessments
Invoke each skill/agent and collect structured results. Use existing doc artifacts if they exist — don't re-run a skill if its output is already in the repo and still current.
| # | Skill / Agent | Assessment Area | Output Key |
| 1 | azure-principal-architect | WAF 5-pillar review | waf |
| 2 | isv-landing-zone-foundation | CAF landing zone alignment | caf |
| 3 | tenant-isolation-models | Isolation model evaluation | isolation |
| 4 | multi-tenant_SaaS | SaaS architecture maturity | saas_maturity |
| 5 | security-and-compliance | Security controls & threat model | security |
| 6 | scale-and-sre | SRE readiness & observability | sre |
| 7 | tenant-lifecycle-automation | Lifecycle automation | lifecycle |
| 8 | fulfillment-and-metering | Marketplace billing | billing |
| 9 | deployment-blueprints | Deployment topology | topology |
| 10 | marketplace-onboarding | Marketplace readiness | marketplace |
| 11 | azure-security-analyzer | Per-resource IaC security | iac_security |
| 12 | azure-policy-advisor | Azure Policy compliance | policy |
| 13 | azure-compliance | CIS/NIST/FedRAMP controls | compliance |
| 14 | azure-cost-estimator | Cost estimate | cost |
Phase 3: Score & Classify
Score each area 1–5 using evidence from the repo. Classify every finding:
| Severity | Meaning | Timeline |
| 🔴 Critical | Blocks production, unacceptable risk | Fix before deploy |
| 🟠 High | Should fix before GA | 30 days |
| 🟡 Medium | Address post-launch | 60–90 days |
| 🟢 Low | Nice-to-have improvement | Backlog |
Phase 3.5: Generate Recommended Architecture Diagram
Based on assessment findings, generate a recommended reference architecture diagram (Mermaid) reflecting current state plus remediation recommendations.
Inputs: IaC templates, app code structure, existing docs (tenant-isolation-model.md, deployment-blueprints.md, security-and-compliance.md), discovered Azure services.
Diagram must include:
- All Azure services discovered in the repo (App Service, Cosmos DB, Storage, Key Vault, OpenAI, Front Door, etc.)
- Multi-tenant architecture boundaries (shared compute, isolated data)
- Network topology (VNet, subnets, private endpoints, Front Door/WAF)
- Identity and access flow (Entra ID B2C, managed identities, RBAC)
- Data flow direction arrows (ingestion → processing → storage → output)
- Observability stack (App Insights, Log Analytics)
- SaaS control plane vs. data plane separation
- Marketplace integration points (landing page, webhook, fulfillment API)
Annotate with assessment findings:
- 🟢 Components that passed assessment checks
- 🟡 Components with gaps (show what's missing)
- 🔴 Components with critical issues (highlight remediation needed)
Skills to invoke:
azure-resource-visualizer— if live Azure resources exist, generate from deployed statedeployment-blueprints— match to closest SaaS reference topology phaseazure-principal-architect— WAF-aligned review of the architecture
Output: Mermaid diagram embedded in the report + saved as standalone file at .azure/assessments/architecture-diagram-YYYY-MM-DD.md.
Phase 4: Generate Report
Build a self-contained HTML file using the web-artifacts-builder Clawpilot theme. The HTML must include @media print styles for clean PDF output.
Report Sections
- Cover Page — Repo name, assessment date, assessor, overall score
- Executive Summary — Composite score (1–100), top 5 critical gaps, top 5 strengths, 30/60/90 day priorities
- WAF Scorecard — Radar chart + per-pillar detail
- CAF Compliance — Naming, landing zone, governance, identity baseline
- Recommended Architecture Diagram — Mermaid diagram showing current Azure services, multi-tenant boundaries, network topology, identity flow, data flow, and SaaS control/data plane separation. Annotated with assessment findings (🟢/🟡/🔴).
- SaaS Maturity — Isolation, lifecycle, billing, marketplace, topology
- Regulatory Compliance Matrix — Cross-framework table:
| Control ID | Description | NIST | CIS | PCI | HIPAA | SOC2 | FedRAMP | Status | Evidence |- Security Deep-Dive — Controls matrix, threat model summary, isolation test coverage
- SRE Readiness — SLO/SLI, observability, autoscaling, DR, noisy-neighbor
- Cost Analysis — Per-resource estimate, optimization recommendations
- Action Plan — 30/60/90 day roadmap with owners and effort (S/M/L)
- Appendix — Full findings list, file references, methodology notes
Regulatory Frameworks to Map
| Framework | Focus | Key Controls |
| CIS Azure Foundations v2.1 | Azure-specific hardening | IAM, networking, storage, database, logging, VM |
| NIST 800-53 Rev 5 (Moderate) | Federal baseline | AC, AU, CM, IA, IR, SC, SI families |
| PCI DSS v4.0 | Payment card data | CDE scope, encryption, access, logging, pen testing |
| HIPAA / HITRUST | Health data (PHI) | Encryption, access controls, BAA, breach notification |
| SOC 2 Type II | Trust services | Security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy |
| FedRAMP (Moderate) | Government cloud | FIPS 140-2, continuous monitoring, POA&M |
| ISO 27001:2022 | InfoSec management | Annex A controls (organizational, people, physical, technological) |
| Azure Well-Architected | Cloud architecture | Security, reliability, performance, cost, ops |
| Azure CAF | Cloud adoption | Naming, governance, landing zones, identity |
Phase 5: Save & Convert
- Save HTML to
.azure/assessments/saas-assessment-YYYY-MM-DD.html - Tell user: Open the HTML in a browser → Print → Save as PDF
- If
pandocor headless Chrome is available, auto-convert:# Option A: Chrome headless (best fidelity) chrome --headless --print-to-pdf=report.pdf --no-margins report.html # Option B: Edge headless msedge --headless --print-to-pdf=report.pdf --no-margins report.html # Option C: pandoc (simpler, less styling) pandoc report.html -o report.pdf --pdf-engine=wkhtmltopdf
Print-Optimized CSS Requirements
The HTML report MUST include these print styles:
@media print {
body { font-size: 11pt; color: #000; background: #fff; }
.no-print { display: none; }
h1, h2, h3 { page-break-after: avoid; }
table, figure, .card { page-break-inside: avoid; }
.page-break { page-break-before: always; }
@page { margin: 0.75in; size: letter; }
@page :first { margin-top: 0; } /* Cover page */
}Scoring Methodology
Per-Framework Score (1–5)
| Score | Meaning |
| 1 | Not addressed — no evidence in repo |
| 2 | Minimal — some awareness, major gaps |
| 3 | Partial — key controls present, gaps remain |
| 4 | Strong — most controls in place, minor improvements needed |
| 5 | Exemplary — comprehensive implementation, tested |
Composite Score (1–100)
Weighted average across all frameworks:
| Category | Weight | Components |
| WAF | 25% | Average of 5 pillar scores × 4 |
| CAF | 10% | Naming + landing zone + governance |
| SaaS Maturity | 20% | Isolation + lifecycle + billing + marketplace |
| Regulatory | 25% | Average of applicable framework scores × 4 |
| SRE | 10% | SLO + observability + scaling + DR |
| Cost | 10% | Right-sizing + optimization |
Example Invocation
@git-ape /saas-assessment-report current
@git-ape /saas-assessment-report https://github.com/org/saas-app
@git-ape /saas-assessment-report . --frameworks waf,nist,cis,pciDoes it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

