Compliance Gap Analyzer

When an auditor provides findings from an audit — each tagged to a framework control with a compliance status — aggregate them into a structured gap report. Identify what is failing, what was never tested, and what to fix first.

When NOT to use

Do NOT activate this skill — respond normally — when:

• The user is asking about a single vulnerability or finding (use finding-writer or cvss-scorer instead)
• The user wants exploit information or attack methodology (use check-exploit instead)
• The user is asking what a specific control means or requires (use control-lookup instead)
• The user is asking a general compliance question without providing actual audit findings
• No findings list has been provided — ask for findings before producing any gap report

Step 1 — Gather Inputs

Before analyzing, confirm you have:

• Framework(s) in scope — ISO 27001, NIST CSF, PCI-DSS, OWASP Top 10, OWASP ASVS, or a custom framework
• Findings list — for each finding:
  • Control reference (e.g., ISO 27001 A.9.1.1, NIST CSF PR.AC-1, PCI-DSS Req 6.3, OWASP A03:2021, OWASP ASVS V2.1.1)
  • Compliance status: Compliant, Partially Compliant, Non-Compliant, or Not Tested
  • Severity of the finding: Critical, High, Medium, Low, or Informational
• Audit scope — which parts of the organization, systems, or processes were in scope
• Previous audit gap state (optional) — a prior gap report to enable delta analysis

If findings are provided as raw notes or a table, normalize them before proceeding. If the framework is not specified, infer it from the control references used.

Multi-framework findings: a single finding may map to controls in multiple frameworks simultaneously. Include it in the gap analysis for each framework it references — do not drop cross-mapped findings.

Step 2 — Normalize and Group

1. Group findings by framework, then by control reference within each framework.
2. Normalize control IDs to their canonical notation (e.g., "Access Control 9.1" → "ISO 27001 A.9.1").
3. For each control, collect all findings assigned to it and their compliance statuses.

Step 3 — Classify Each Control

Apply the weakest-link rule: one non-compliant finding is enough to classify the entire control as non-compliant.

A control rated Partially Compliant must be treated as a gap — partial compliance is not compliance.

Step 4 — Prioritize Gaps

Assign a gap priority to each non-compliant or partially compliant control based on two factors:

Finding severity (worst finding assigned to that control):

Control criticality within the framework:

Gap Priority Score = Finding Severity Weight + Control Criticality Weight

Blind spots (Not Tested controls) are always flagged separately — they carry unknown risk and must be acknowledged regardless of priority score.

Step 5 — Delta Analysis (only if previous audit state is provided)

Compare the current gap state against the previous audit:

Regressions must always be called out prominently — a control that passed before and now fails indicates a process breakdown, not just a gap.

Output Format

Produce exactly this structure. Do not omit any section. If a section has no entries, state "None."

Audit: [Audit name or identifier, if provided] Framework(s): [List all frameworks analyzed] Scope: [Systems, processes, or organizational units in scope] Findings analyzed: [Total count] Controls assessed: [Count of controls with at least one finding] Analysis date: [Today's date]

Coverage Summary

Overall compliance rate: [Compliant ÷ Tested controls, expressed as %] Gap rate: [(Partially Compliant + Non-Compliant) ÷ Tested controls, expressed as %] Coverage rate: [Tested ÷ Total controls in scope, expressed as %]

Prioritized Gap List

(Non-Compliant and Partially Compliant controls only, ordered by Gap Priority Score descending)

For each gap, include a one-line summary:

• Gap: [What is failing or insufficiently addressed]
• Evidence: [Finding title(s) that triggered this classification]
• Recommended action: [One specific, actionable remediation step]

Blind Spots (Not Tested Controls)

Controls that were in scope for the framework but received no findings — their compliance status is unknown.

Recommendation: Extend the next audit's scope to cover these controls. Foundational blind spots should be prioritized in scope planning.

Compliant Controls

(Summary only — do not list individual findings)

Delta Analysis (omit this section entirely if no previous audit state was provided)

Previous audit date: [Date] Comparison summary:

Regressions — immediate attention required: For each regressed control, state:

• Control: [ID + name]
• Previous status: Compliant
• Current status: [Non-Compliant / Partially Compliant]
• Likely cause: [What changed — new finding, scope expansion, process breakdown]
• Action required: [Specific step to investigate and remediate]

Key Observations

3–5 concise observations that an auditor or security lead needs to know — patterns across gaps, systemic issues, highest-risk area, or scope concerns. These should not repeat what is already in the tables; they should synthesize it.

Recommended Next Steps

Ordered list of actions, highest priority first:

1. [Specific action — who does what, by when]
2. ...

Rules

• Apply the weakest-link rule consistently — a control with one failing finding is Non-Compliant, not Partially Compliant
• Partially Compliant is a gap — never treat it as passing
• Not Tested controls must always appear in the Blind Spots section — omitting them understates risk
• Never calculate the compliance rate over total controls in scope — only over tested controls; use the coverage rate separately to surface the blind spot risk
• Regressions must always be flagged explicitly and separately from new gaps — they signal process breakdown, not just missing work
• Cross-framework findings must appear in every framework they reference — do not deduplicate across frameworks
• The output must be complete and self-contained — a reader who did not attend the audit must be able to understand the full compliance posture from this report alone
• If the findings list is empty or no controls are mapped, do not produce a gap report — ask the auditor to provide the findings with control mappings before proceeding
• If the framework is not one of ISO 27001, NIST CSF, PCI-DSS, OWASP Top 10, or OWASP ASVS, apply the same methodology using the control references provided — the framework-agnostic structure is always valid
• For OWASP Top 10: treat each risk category (A01–A10) as a control; findings map to whichever category the vulnerability falls under
• For OWASP ASVS: treat each verification requirement (VX.Y.Z) as a control; use the ASVS level (L1/L2/L3) as a proxy for control criticality when computing gap priority