control-mapper
Skill8 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub
Map security controls between different compliance frameworks including NIST 800-53, ISO 27001, CIS Controls, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC 2, and CMMC. Use this skill for gap analysis, multi-framework compliance, and control rationalization.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- advanced-oscal-validatorSkill
- compliance-report-generatorSkill
- component-definition-builderSkill
- control-implementation-generatorSkill
- controls-extractorSkill
- evidence-collectorSkill
- oscal-catalog-providerSkill
- oscal-control-mapperSkill
- oscal-parserSkill
- oscal-ssp-validatorSkill
- oscal-text-converterSkill
- oscal-validatorSkill
- oscal-visualizerSkill
- risk-assessorSkill
- workflow-orchestratorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
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 12
Use this skill when you need to:
- Distinctive: line 44
Framework mappings require authoritative source documents: Do NOT use training knowledge to map controls between frameworks.
- Distinctive: line 125
If no mapping exists:
- Distinctive: line 162
When organization needs multiple frameworks:
- Distinctive: line 168
Create mappings from primary to each required framework.
- Distinctive: line 183
When mapping controls, provide:
- Distinctive: line 208
When asked "Map our NIST 800-53 controls to ISO 27001":
- Distinctive: line 211
If NO: Request user provide the authoritative mapping document
- Distinctive: line 212
If YES: Get list of implemented NIST controls from user's SSP
≈ “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
Control Mapper Skill
Map security controls between compliance frameworks to support multi-framework compliance programs and gap analysis.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when you need to:
- Map controls from one framework to another
- Perform gap analysis across frameworks
- Rationalize controls for multiple compliance requirements
- Identify equivalent controls across standards
- Build unified control frameworks
Supported Frameworks
| Framework | Code | Description |
| NIST 800-53 | NIST-800-53 | Federal security controls |
| NIST CSF | NIST-CSF | Cybersecurity Framework |
| ISO 27001 | ISO-27001 | International security standard |
| CIS Controls | CIS-Controls | Critical security controls |
| PCI-DSS | PCI-DSS | Payment card security |
| HIPAA | HIPAA | Healthcare security |
| SOC 2 | SOC2 | Service organization controls |
| CMMC | CMMC | DoD cybersecurity maturity |
Mapping Types
| Type | Confidence | Description |
| Exact | 90-100% | Direct 1:1 mapping |
| Partial | 70-89% | Covers most requirements |
| Related | 50-69% | Conceptually similar |
⛔ CRITICAL: Authoritative Data Requirement
Framework mappings require authoritative source documents. Do NOT use training knowledge to map controls between frameworks.
Why This Matters
- Incorrect mappings cause audit failures
- Framework versions change (ISO 27001:2022 differs from 2013)
- Mappings have nuances that training data cannot capture accurately
- Compliance decisions based on bad mappings create legal liability
Required Documents for Mapping
| Mapping Task | Required Source |
| NIST → ISO 27001 | NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 mapping publication |
| NIST → CIS | CIS Controls mapping to NIST |
| NIST → PCI-DSS | PCI SSC mapping documentation |
| NIST → HIPAA | NIST crosswalk publications |
| Any framework mapping | Official mapping document from authoritative source |
Authoritative Mapping Sources
- NIST Publications —
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications - CIS Controls Mapping —
https://www.cisecurity.org/controls - PCI SSC —
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/ - CSA Cloud Controls Matrix —
https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/cloud-controls-matrix
Decision Tree
Need to map controls between frameworks?
│
▼
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Do you have the official │
│ mapping document? │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ │
▼ ▼
┌───────┐ ┌───────┐
│ Yes │ │ No │
└───┬───┘ └───┬───┘
│ │
▼ ▼
Use the document ⛔ STOP
to create mappings Request user provide
official mapping documentExample Mapping Format
The tables below show the output format only — not authoritative mappings. Actual mappings must come from official sources.
NIST 800-53 → ISO 27001 (Example Format)
| NIST Control | ISO Control | Type | Source Document |
| AC-1 | A.5.1 | Partial | Requires mapping doc |
| AC-2 | A.5.16 | Exact | Requires mapping doc |
⚠️ Note: ISO 27001:2022 uses different control numbering than 2013. Always confirm framework version.
How to Map Controls
Step 1: Identify Source Framework
Determine the framework you're mapping FROM.
Step 2: Identify Target Framework
Determine the framework you're mapping TO.
Step 3: Look Up Mappings
For each source control:
- Find known mappings in mapping database
- Identify target control(s)
- Note mapping type and confidence
Step 4: Handle Gaps
If no mapping exists:
- Analyze control requirements
- Find conceptually similar controls
- Mark as "related" with lower confidence
- Note as potential gap
Gap Analysis Process
Step 1: List Source Controls
Get all controls from source framework that apply.
Step 2: Map to Target
For each source control, find target mappings.
Step 3: Identify Gaps
Controls without mappings or with only "related" mappings are gaps.
Step 4: Report Findings
GAP ANALYSIS REPORT
==================
Source: NIST 800-53 (Moderate Baseline)
Target: ISO 27001
Fully Mapped: 180 controls (85%)
Partially Mapped: 25 controls (12%)
Gaps: 7 controls (3%)
GAPS REQUIRING ATTENTION:
- SI-4(5): No ISO equivalent for automated alerts
- CA-7: Continuous monitoring not explicitly covered
...Multi-Framework Mapping
When organization needs multiple frameworks:
Step 1: Choose Primary Framework
Usually the most comprehensive (often NIST 800-53).
Step 2: Map to All Targets
Create mappings from primary to each required framework.
Step 3: Build Control Matrix
| Control ID | NIST | ISO | CIS | PCI |
| CTRL-001 | AC-1 | A.9.1 | 5.1 | 7.1 |
| CTRL-002 | AC-2 | A.9.2 | 5.2 | 7.2 |
| ... |
Step 4: Identify Rationalization Opportunities
Find controls that satisfy multiple frameworks with one implementation.
Output Format
When mapping controls, provide:
CONTROL MAPPING
===============
Source: AC-2 (Account Management) [NIST 800-53]
Target Mappings:
1. ISO 27001 A.9.2.1 - User registration and de-registration
Type: Exact | Confidence: 95%
Notes: Direct mapping for account lifecycle
2. CIS Controls 5.1 - Establish and Maintain Inventory of Accounts
Type: Partial | Confidence: 80%
Notes: Covers account inventory aspect
Source: CIS Controls v8 Mapping to NIST 800-53
3. PCI-DSS 7.1 - Limit access to system components
Type: Related | Confidence: 70%
Notes: Access limitation focus differs
Source: PCI SSC NIST Mapping DocumentExample Usage
When asked "Map our NIST 800-53 controls to ISO 27001":
- Check for mapping document — Do you have the official NIST-to-ISO mapping?
- If NO: Request user provide the authoritative mapping document
- If YES: Get list of implemented NIST controls from user's SSP
- For each control, look up ISO mappings from the authoritative document
- Group by mapping type (exact/partial/related)
- Identify gaps (no mapping)
- Provide mapping matrix with confidence levels and source citations
If No Mapping Document Available
I cannot create accurate control mappings without an authoritative mapping document.
To map NIST 800-53 to ISO 27001, I need:
• NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 to ISO 27001:2022 mapping document
• Or: CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (contains cross-framework mappings)
Please provide one of these documents, or I can help you locate official sources.
I will not create mappings from training data because:
• Compliance work requires authoritative, auditable sources
• Framework versions change and training data may be outdated
• Incorrect mappings create audit failures and security gapsDoes 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.

