spec-security-analysis
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze specifications and implementations to identify applicable security standards and generate compliance traceability documentation.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- agent-ix/quoinedited, first seen Jun 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- agent-ix/quoin★ 2093% same
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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- spec-app-reviewSkill
- spec-blueprintSkill
- spec-dependency-analysisSkill
- spec-evidence-analysisSkill
- spec-failure-domain-analysisSkill
- specifySkill
- spec-integrity-analysisSkill
- spec-matrixSkill
- spec-object-reviewSkill
- spec-reviewSkill
- spec-risk-complexity-analysisSkill
- spec-scope-boundary-analysisSkill
- spec-to-planSkill
- spec-us-to-frSkill
- spec-write-frSkill
- spec-write-itSkill
- spec-write-nfrSkill
- spec-write-strSkill
- spec-write-usSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 25
Read spec/spec.md (if exists)
- Distinctive: line 30
Read references/standards-index.md for standard selection
- Distinctive: line 37
Use index decision guides to choose specific chapters to investigate
- Distinctive: line 39
[REQUIRED]: Verify identified controls against official FREE sources:
- Distinctive: line 50
Document requirement-to-control bidirectional traceability
- Distinctive: line 55
Document explicitly what is NOT covered and why
- Distinctive: line 58
Use template: assets/security-analysis-template.md
- Distinctive: line 64
19.1 Targeted Standards: All 5 mandatory standards with version and scope
- Very specific: line 73
Every control mapping MUST reference specific FR/NFR/StR identifiers
≈ “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
Security Compliance Analysis
Analyze a component's specification and implementation to generate comprehensive security compliance traceability. Apply ALL security standards for maximum coverage - overlapping controls strengthen rather than conflict.
Mandatory Standards
Apply ALL of these standards to EVERY analysis (scope varies by component function):
| Standard | Version | Scope |
| AICPA SOC 2 | 2017 TSC | Trust Services Criteria |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | 2022 | Annex A Controls |
| NIST SP 800-53 | Rev 5.2.0 | Security & Privacy Controls |
| OWASP ASVS | 5.0.0 | Application Security Verification |
| EU GDPR | 2016/679 | Data Protection Articles |
Process
- Gather Context
- Read
spec/spec.md(if exists) - Scan implementation for security-relevant patterns (auth, data, API, logging)
- Identify component type and function
- Read
- Identify Applicable Controls
- Read references/standards-index.md for standard selection
- Select relevant chapters from each standard's index:
- soc2/index.md → CC1-CC9 categories
- iso27001/index.md → A5-A8 themes
- nist-800-53/index.md → Control families
- owasp-asvs/index.md → V1-V14 areas
- gdpr/index.md → Chapters II-V
- Use index decision guides to choose specific chapters to investigate
- Reference component-type-mapping.md for scope guidance
- [REQUIRED] Verify identified controls against official FREE sources:
- NIST 800-53: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final (US Gov - fully open)
- OWASP ASVS: https://github.com/OWASP/ASVS (CC BY-SA 4.0 - fully open)
- GDPR: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (EU Law - fully open)
- SOC 2 TSC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOC_2 (reference summary - no login)
- ISO 27001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_27001 (control list - no login)
- Local references are summaries; use web search for specific control details
- Map Controls to Requirements
- Link each applicable control to existing FR/NFR/StR requirements
- Identify gaps where controls lack requirement coverage
- Document requirement-to-control bidirectional traceability
- Define Scope Boundaries
- Identify controls outside component scope
- Assign responsible component for out-of-scope controls
- Document explicitly what is NOT covered and why
- Generate Output
- Use template: assets/security-analysis-template.md
- Output as Section 19 "Compliance Standards Traceability" in
spec/spec.md - Example: assets/security-analysis-example.md
Output Sections
- 19.1 Targeted Standards: All 5 mandatory standards with version and scope
- 19.2 Control Mapping: Control ID → Standard → Name → Component Requirement
- 19.3 GDPR Compliance: Specific GDPR article coverage
- 19.4 Audit Support Controls: Cross-standard audit and logging controls
- 19.5 Out of Scope: Controls outside component boundary with responsible component
Rules
- Apply ALL standards - comprehensive coverage trumps minimal compliance
- Every control mapping MUST reference specific FR/NFR/StR identifiers
- Overlapping controls from multiple standards reinforce coverage
- Out-of-scope controls MUST identify the responsible component
- Gap identification is required - missing control coverage is a finding
References
- Template: assets/security-analysis-template.md
- Example: assets/security-analysis-example.md
- Standards Index: references/standards-index.md
- Component Mapping: references/component-type-mapping.md
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.