compliance-mapper
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Maps security findings to compliance frameworks (OWASP Top 10, CWE, NIST SP 800-53, PCI DSS, SANS/CWE Top 25, ISO 27001) and generates audit-ready compliance reports
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- swap-cameroon/kuro-antigravity-configword for word, first seen Nov 15, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- swap-cameroon/kuro-antigravity-config★ 2100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- API Contract TestingSkill
- DAST ScannerSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- llm-sast-scannerSkill
- remediation-validatorSkill
- secrets-scannerSkill
- security-auditSkill
- security-config-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 44
When ingesting from other skills:
- Distinctive: line 48
If no findings are available, prompt the user to run a security skill first or provide findings manually
- Distinctive: line 62
SANS/CWE Top 25: If the CWE is in the SANS/CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list, note the ranking.
- Distinctive: line 111
All findings in a table with columns: ID, Title, Severity, Source, OWASP, CWE, NIST, PCI DSS
- Distinctive: line 136
When no findings are provided, instruct the user to run security scanning skills first.
- Distinctive: line 137
Always cite the specific framework version (OWASP 2021, NIST Rev 5, PCI DSS v4.0).
≈ “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
Compliance Mapper Skill
This skill maps security findings to compliance frameworks and produces structured compliance reports. It is language-agnostic -- it operates on findings data, not source code.
Accepted Input
Findings can come from:
- Other skills: SAST scanner, DAST scanner, dependency audit, security config review, secrets scanner, API contract testing
- Manual input: user-provided finding descriptions
- JSON or structured data: imported finding lists
Each finding should have (at minimum): title, severity, description. Location, source skill, and evidence are optional but improve report quality.
Workflow
Step 1: Findings Ingestion
Parse and normalize all incoming findings into a consistent internal format:
- Finding ID: Sequential identifier (FINDING-001, FINDING-002, ...)
- Title: Short descriptive name
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info
- Source: Which skill or tool produced this finding (SAST, DAST, Dependency Audit, Config Review, Secrets Scanner, API Contract Testing, Manual)
- Location: File path and line number, URL endpoint, or configuration file
- Description: What the vulnerability is and why it matters
- Evidence: Code snippet, request/response pair, or configuration excerpt
When ingesting from other skills:
- Review the findings already present in the conversation context
- Parse severity from the skill's own severity ratings
- Preserve the original finding detail for the evidence field
- If no findings are available, prompt the user to run a security skill first or provide findings manually
Step 2: Framework Mapping
For each finding, use the Read tool to load the reference files and map to all applicable frameworks:
- OWASP Top 10 (2021): Assign the A01-A10 category. Use keyword matching against the finding title and description. Refer to
references/owasp_mapping.mdfor category definitions and keyword associations. - CWE: Assign specific CWE ID(s). Match based on vulnerability type. Refer to
references/cwe_catalog.mdfor the full catalog. A single finding may map to multiple CWEs. - NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5: Assign the control family and specific control(s). Refer to
references/nist_pci_mapping.mdfor the mapping from vulnerability types to NIST controls. - PCI DSS v4.0: Assign the requirement number. Refer to
references/nist_pci_mapping.mdfor the mapping from vulnerability types to PCI DSS requirements. - SANS/CWE Top 25: If the CWE is in the SANS/CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list, note the ranking.
- ISO 27001:2022: Assign the Annex A control reference based on the vulnerability domain (access control, cryptography, operations security, etc.).
Step 3: Coverage Analysis
For each framework, determine coverage status:
- Tested with findings: Categories/controls where vulnerabilities were found
- Tested clean: Categories/controls that were tested and no issues found (infer from which skills were run and what they cover)
- Not tested: Categories/controls with no coverage from any skill or input
Build a coverage matrix showing the intersection of skills run vs framework categories covered. Identify blind spots where no testing has been performed.
Step 4: Compliance Scorecard
Calculate posture metrics for each framework:
OWASP Top 10:
- X/10 categories with findings
- Severity breakdown per category (Critical/High/Medium/Low counts)
- Overall OWASP risk rating
CWE Top 25:
- X/25 weaknesses found
- List of found weaknesses with severity
NIST SP 800-53:
- Controls failing vs passing vs not tested
- Per-family status (AC, AU, CM, IA, SC, SI, etc.)
- Overall NIST posture rating
PCI DSS v4.0:
- Requirements met vs failing vs not applicable
- Per-requirement status with finding references
- SAQ eligibility impact notes
Step 5: Report Generation
Produce the full compliance report in markdown. Use the Read tool to load templates from references/report_templates.md:
- Executive Summary
- Overall risk level (Critical/High/Medium/Low) based on highest severity finding and finding volume
- Total findings count by severity
- Top 3 most critical findings with brief descriptions
- Per-framework compliance posture summary
- Key recommendations (top 3-5 actions)
- Findings Table
- All findings in a table with columns: ID, Title, Severity, Source, OWASP, CWE, NIST, PCI DSS
- Sorted by severity (Critical first)
- Framework-Specific Sections
- One section per framework with category/control details
- Show which findings map to each category
- Include pass/fail/not-tested status for each category
- Remediation Priority Matrix
- Score each finding on: severity, exploitability, compliance impact
- Group into priority tiers: Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term / Long-term
- Include effort estimates
- Gap Analysis
- What was not tested
- Which framework categories have no coverage
- Recommendations for additional testing
Output Format
The report MUST be output as structured markdown directly in the conversation. Do not create files unless the user explicitly requests a file be written.
Important Notes
- This skill does NOT scan code. It maps existing findings to frameworks.
- When no findings are provided, instruct the user to run security scanning skills first.
- Always cite the specific framework version (OWASP 2021, NIST Rev 5, PCI DSS v4.0).
- Be conservative in "pass" assessments -- if a category was not explicitly tested, mark it as "Not Tested" rather than "Pass".
- Multiple findings can map to the same framework category.
- A single finding can map to multiple frameworks and multiple categories within a framework.
Does 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.

