agentleFS
Sign inStart free
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/cat-agent-skills/submissions/audit-readiness/skills/gap-check/SKILL.md

gap-check

Skill95 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Validates the evidence register against clause requirements and flags gaps with severity - the explicit Govern step and the core work of this plugin, via the deterministic gap_check engine. Use when the user says "are we ready for the audit", "check for gaps", "will we pass", or after evidence-gather in a readiness run.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    After evidence-gather in every run.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    Run scripts/gap_check.py --mapped mapped.json --evidence evidence.json --out gaps.json

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Every gap cites its clause-table row and rule section.

    line 21

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Gap Check (Govern)

Purpose

Deterministic conformity check: recency (#1), coverage (#2), severity (#3), readiness verdict (#4). Compliance determination IS the work here.

When to use

After evidence-gather in every run; on any "are we ready" question.

Inputs

mapped.json + evidence.json.

Steps

  1. Validate against the contract.
  2. Run scripts/gap_check.py --mapped mapped.json --evidence evidence.json --out gaps.json
  3. Quote statuses and the verdict verbatim. A 13-month-old management review is STALE however complete the folder looks - a full folder is not a current folder (#1.1).

Output

gaps.json - the {gaps, readiness} hop.

Grounding requirements

Every gap cites its clause-table row and rule section.

Constraints

  • Verdicts are engine-only; the model never rounds not_ready up to "should be fine".
  • Gaps close by producing evidence, never by rewording (#5).

Escalation / uncertainty

Major gaps escalate to the quality director with owner + action attached.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free