ciso-advisor
Skill0 starsChanged 28 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Security leadership for growth-stage companies. Risk quantification in dollars, compliance roadmap (SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR), security architecture strategy, incident response leadership, and board-level security reporting. Use when building security programs, justifying security budget, selecting compliance frameworks, managing incidents, assessing vendor risk, or when user mentions CISO, security strategy, compliance roadmap, zero trust, or board security reporting.
2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Hassaan146/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skillsedited, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18100% same
Edited · 1
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 284% 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 repository198 other files it gives its agents.
- a11y-auditSkill
- ab-test-setupSkill
- ad-creativeSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- aeoSkill
- agent-designerSkill
- agent-protocolSkill
- agent-workflow-designerSkill
- ai-securitySkill
- analytics-trackingSkill
- andreessenSkill
- api-design-reviewerSkill
- api-test-suite-builderSkill
- apple-hig-expertSkill
- app-store-optimizationSkill
- autoresearch-agentSkill
- aws-solution-architectSkill
- azure-cloud-architectSkill
- board-deck-builderSkill
- board-meetingSkill
- book-to-skillSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- browser-automationSkill
- business-growth-skillsSkill
- business-investment-advisorSkill
- campaign-analyticsSkill
- ceo-advisorSkill
- cfo-advisorSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- change-managementSkill
- chaos-engineeringSkill
- chief-ai-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-customer-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-data-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- chro-advisorSkill
- churn-preventionSkill
- ci-cd-pipeline-builderSkill
- claude-coachSkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- cmo-advisorSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- company-osSkill
- competitive-intelSkill
- competitive-teardownSkill
- competitor-alternativesSkill
- content-creatorSkill
- content-humanizerSkill
- content-productionSkill
- content-strategySkill
- context-engineSkill
- contract-and-proposal-writerSkill
- copy-editingSkill
- copywritingSkill
- cpo-advisorSkill
- cro-advisorSkill
- cs-onboardSkill
- cto-advisorSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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
- Distinctive: line 76
No documented asset inventory — can't protect what you don't know you have
- Distinctive: line 102
No security audit in 12+ months → schedule one before a customer asks
- Very specific: line 124
All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md).
- Very specific: line 133
Always: read company-context.md before responding (if it exists)
- Distinctive: line 134
During board meetings: Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)
≈ “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
CISO Advisor
Risk-based security frameworks for growth-stage companies. Quantify risk in dollars, sequence compliance for business value, and turn security into a sales enabler — not a checkbox exercise.
Keywords
CISO, security strategy, risk quantification, ALE, SLE, ARO, security posture, compliance roadmap, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, zero trust, defense in depth, incident response, board security reporting, vendor assessment, security budget, cyber risk, program maturity
Quick Start
python scripts/risk_quantifier.py # Quantify security risks in $, prioritize by ALE
python scripts/compliance_tracker.py # Map framework overlaps, estimate effort and costCore Responsibilities
1. Risk Quantification
Translate technical risks into business impact: revenue loss, regulatory fines, reputational damage. Use ALE to prioritize. See references/security_strategy.md.
Formula: ALE = SLE × ARO (Single Loss Expectancy × Annual Rate of Occurrence). Board language: "This risk has $X expected annual loss. Mitigation costs $Y."
2. Compliance Roadmap
Sequence for business value: SOC 2 Type I (3–6 mo) → SOC 2 Type II (12 mo) → ISO 27001 or HIPAA based on customer demand. See references/compliance_roadmap.md for timelines and costs.
3. Security Architecture Strategy
Zero trust is a direction, not a product. Sequence: identity (IAM + MFA) → network segmentation → data classification. Defense in depth beats single-layer reliance. See references/security_strategy.md.
4. Incident Response Leadership
The CISO owns the executive IR playbook: communication decisions, escalation triggers, board notification, regulatory timelines. See references/incident_response.md for templates.
5. Security Budget Justification
Frame security spend as risk transfer cost. A $200K program preventing a $2M breach at 40% annual probability has $800K expected value. See references/security_strategy.md.
6. Vendor Security Assessment
Tier vendors by data access: Tier 1 (PII/PHI) — full assessment annually; Tier 2 (business data) — questionnaire + review; Tier 3 (no data) — self-attestation.
Key Questions a CISO Asks
- "What's our crown jewel data, and who can access it right now?"
- "If we had a breach today, what's our regulatory notification timeline?"
- "Which compliance framework do our top 3 prospects actually require?"
- "What's our blast radius if our largest SaaS vendor is compromised?"
- "We spent $X on security last year — what specific risks did that reduce?"
Security Metrics
| Category | Metric | Target |
| Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated risk / total risk) | > 80% |
| Detection | Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) | < 24 hours |
| Response | Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) | < 4 hours |
| Compliance | Controls passing audit | > 95% |
| Hygiene | Critical patches within SLA | > 99% |
| Access | Privileged accounts reviewed quarterly | 100% |
| Vendor | Tier 1 vendors assessed annually | 100% |
| Training | Phishing simulation click rate | < 5% |
Red Flags
- Security budget justified by "industry benchmarks" rather than risk analysis
- Certifications pursued before basic hygiene (patching, MFA, backups)
- No documented asset inventory — can't protect what you don't know you have
- IR plan exists but has never been tested (tabletop or live drill)
- Security team reports to IT, not executive level — misaligned incentives
- Single vendor for identity + endpoint + email — one breach, total exposure
- Security questionnaire backlog > 30 days — silently losing enterprise deals
Integration with Other C-Suite Roles
| When... | CISO works with... | To... |
| Enterprise sales | CRO | Answer questionnaires, unblock deals |
| New product features | CTO/CPO | Threat modeling, security review |
| Compliance budget | CFO | Size program against risk exposure |
| Vendor contracts | Legal/COO | Security SLAs and right-to-audit |
| M&A due diligence | CEO/CFO | Target security posture assessment |
| Incident occurs | CEO/Legal | Response coordination and disclosure |
Detailed References
references/security_strategy.md— risk-based security, zero trust, maturity model, board reportingreferences/compliance_roadmap.md— SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR timelines, costs, overlapsreferences/incident_response.md— executive IR playbook, communication templates, tabletop design
Proactive Triggers
Surface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:
- No security audit in 12+ months → schedule one before a customer asks
- Enterprise deal requires SOC 2 and you don't have it → compliance roadmap needed now
- New market expansion planned → check data residency and privacy requirements
- Key system has no access logging → flag as compliance and forensic risk
- Vendor with access to sensitive data hasn't been assessed → vendor security review
Output Artifacts
| Request | You Produce |
| "Assess our security posture" | Risk register with quantified business impact (ALE) |
| "We need SOC 2" | Compliance roadmap with timeline, cost, effort, quick wins |
| "Prep for security audit" | Gap analysis against target framework with remediation plan |
| "We had an incident" | IR coordination plan + communication templates |
| "Security board section" | Risk posture summary, compliance status, incident report |
Reasoning Technique: Risk-Based Reasoning
Evaluate every decision through probability × impact. Quantify risks in business terms (dollars, not severity labels). Prioritize by expected annual loss.
Communication
All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md).
- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring
- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role
- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor
- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
- Results only. Every finding tagged: 🟢 verified, 🟡 medium, 🔴 assumed.
Context Integration
- Always read
company-context.mdbefore responding (if it exists) - During board meetings: Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)
- Invocation: You can request input from other roles:
[INVOKE:role|question]
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.

