evidence-collector
Skill8 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub
Plan and manage security evidence collection for compliance audits and assessments. Use this skill to identify required evidence, track collection status, and ensure audit readiness.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- poorvith-mp/skills-developertheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- poorvith-mp/skills-developer★ 0same name
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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- advanced-oscal-validatorSkill
- compliance-report-generatorSkill
- component-definition-builderSkill
- control-implementation-generatorSkill
- control-mapperSkill
- controls-extractorSkill
- 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
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 14
Create evidence collection plans
- Distinctive: line 84
Read the control statement
- Distinctive: line 239
When asked "What evidence do I need for FedRAMP audit?":
≈ “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
Evidence Collector Skill
Plan and manage the collection of security evidence for compliance audits, continuous monitoring, and assessment activities.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when you need to:
- Identify evidence requirements for controls
- Create evidence collection plans
- Track evidence collection status
- Validate evidence completeness
- Prepare for compliance audits
⛔ Authoritative Data Requirement
Evidence requirements are derived from user-provided control baselines and SSPs.
What Requires Source Documents
| Task | Required Source |
| Evidence requirements per control | Baseline or catalog showing what's required |
| Control-specific artifacts | Your SSP showing implementation approach |
| Assessment-specific evidence | Assessment plan (SAP) |
What You CAN Provide (Methodology)
- General evidence types and categories
- Collection best practices
- Evidence package structure templates
- Frequency recommendations
- Quality assessment frameworks
Example: Safe vs Unsafe
✅ Safe: "For access control policies, typical evidence includes policy documents, approval records, and review logs."
⛔ Unsafe: "AC-2 requires you to collect user account listings monthly and maintain them for 3 years." (← Specific requirements must come from your baseline/profile)
Evidence Types
| Type | Description | Examples |
| Configuration | System settings | Config exports, screenshots |
| Log File | Audit logs | SIEM exports, access logs |
| Document | Policies, procedures | PDF, Word documents |
| Screenshot | Visual proof | System UI captures |
| Scan Result | Security scans | Vulnerability reports |
| Certificate | Credentials | SSL certs, attestations |
| Test Result | Validation output | Pen test reports |
| Interview | Verbal confirmation | Meeting notes |
Evidence Sources
| Source | Automation | Reliability |
| Automated Scan | High | High |
| System Export | High | High |
| Manual Collection | Low | Variable |
| Third Party | Low | High |
| Interview | None | Variable |
Collection Status
| Status | Meaning |
| Pending | Not yet collected |
| Collected | Obtained but not verified |
| Verified | Reviewed and validated |
| Expired | Past retention period |
| Failed | Collection unsuccessful |
How to Plan Evidence Collection
Step 1: Identify Control Requirements
For each control:
- Read the control statement
- Identify what must be demonstrated
- List evidence that proves compliance
Step 2: Map Evidence to Controls
| Control | Evidence Required | Type | Source |
| AC-1 | Access control policy | Document | Manual |
| AC-2 | User account listing | Configuration | Automated |
| AU-2 | Audit log samples | Log File | System Export |
Step 3: Create Collection Plan
For each evidence item:
evidence_plan:
control_id: AC-2
evidence_type: configuration
title: Active Directory User Listing
description: Complete list of all user accounts
collection_method: PowerShell export
frequency: Monthly
retention: 1 year
responsible_party: IT Admin
automated: trueStep 4: Define Collection Frequency
| Control Type | Recommended Frequency |
| Configuration | Monthly |
| Access Reviews | Quarterly |
| Policies | Annually |
| Vulnerability Scans | Weekly |
| Penetration Tests | Annually |
Evidence Requirements by Control Family
Access Control (AC)
- User account listings
- Access approval documentation
- Privilege reviews
- Access control policy
Audit (AU)
- Audit log samples (30+ days)
- Log retention settings
- Alert configurations
- Log review procedures
Configuration Management (CM)
- Baseline configurations
- Change management records
- Configuration scan results
- Inventory listings
Incident Response (IR)
- IR policy and procedures
- Incident tickets/records
- Tabletop exercise results
- Communication plans
Evidence Package Structure
evidence/
├── AC-2/
│ ├── user_listing_2024-01.csv
│ ├── user_listing_2024-02.csv
│ └── access_review_Q1.pdf
├── AU-2/
│ ├── audit_logs_sample.json
│ └── siem_config.png
└── manifest.jsonEvidence Manifest
{
"package_id": "EVD-2024-001",
"control_id": "AC-2",
"collection_date": "2024-01-15",
"items": [
{
"id": "EVD-001",
"title": "User Account Listing",
"file": "user_listing_2024-01.csv",
"hash": "sha256:abc123...",
"collector": "IT Admin",
"status": "verified"
}
],
"completeness_score": 0.95,
"gaps": ["Missing service accounts"]
}Completeness Scoring
Calculate evidence completeness:
Completeness = (Verified Items / Required Items) × 100Scores:
- 100%: Fully documented
- 80-99%: Minor gaps
- 60-79%: Significant gaps
- <60%: Major deficiencies
Audit Preparation Checklist
30 Days Before Audit
- Identify all required evidence
- Verify evidence is current
- Fill collection gaps
- Review evidence quality
7 Days Before Audit
- Organize evidence by control
- Create evidence index
- Verify access for auditors
- Brief responsible parties
Day of Audit
- Evidence accessible
- SMEs available
- Backup copies ready
Output Format
EVIDENCE COLLECTION STATUS
==========================
Control: AC-2 (Account Management)
Required Evidence: 5 items
Collected: 4 items (80%)
Evidence Items:
✅ User account listing (collected 2024-01-15)
✅ Account approval workflow (collected 2024-01-10)
✅ Quarterly access review (collected 2024-01-05)
✅ Termination checklist (collected 2024-01-12)
❌ Service account inventory (MISSING)
Gaps:
- Service account inventory not collected
Recommendation: Export from AD, due by 2024-01-20Example Usage
When asked "What evidence do I need for FedRAMP audit?":
- Get baseline controls (Moderate = 325 controls)
- For each control family, list evidence requirements
- Identify automation opportunities
- Create collection schedule
- Assign responsible parties
- Generate collection plan document
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.

