nist-sp
Skill1 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write a NIST Special Publication (SP 800-series style) standards/guidance document — authority statement, purpose & scope, audience, abstract, keywords, numbered normative sections with shall/should/may force, a required definitions/glossary, numbered bracketed references, and lettered appendices with control-mapping crosswalks. Use when the deliverable is standing standards or guidance issued under NIST's mandate. Anti-trigger; for a one-time client engagement report that applies a standard use security-pentest or compliance-audit, not this genre.
In this repository46 other files it gives its agents.
- academicSkill
- adrSkill
- ai-architecture-docSkill
- arc42-arch-docSkill
- audit-docsSkill
- briefingSkill
- business-planSkill
- c4-model-diagramSkill
- changelogSkill
- clinical-submissionSkill
- competitive-quadrantSkill
- compliance-auditSkill
- computing-paperSkill
- diataxis-explanationSkill
- diataxis-how-toSkill
- diataxis-referenceSkill
- diataxis-tutorialSkill
- doc-set-plannerSkill
- ears-acceptance-criteriaSkill
- engineeringSkill
- exec-summarySkill
- feature-specSkill
- google-design-docSkill
- humanities-chicagoSkill
- humanities-mlaSkill
- kiro-designSkill
- kiro-requirementsSkill
- kiro-tasksSkill
- legal-memoSkill
- market-research-reportSkill
- mif-corpusSkill
- mif-frontmatterSkill
- mif-provenanceSkill
- mif-to-pdfSkill
- mif-validateSkill
- playbookSkill
- prdSkill
- python-pepSkill
- regulatory-disclosureSkill
- rust-rfcSkill
- security-pentestSkill
- sre-runbookSkill
- sustainability-reportSkill
- svg-chartsSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- trend-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 86
Every normative requirement and defined term traces to a cited finding.
- Distinctive: line 91
Do not bake a standard's edition or version number into the text as settled fact unless a surviving finding establishes it.
≈ “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
nist-sp
Produces a NIST Special Publication (SP 800-series style) standards/guidance
document: an authoritative, standards-track deliverable that states normative
requirements, defines terms of art, and maps to external control frameworks —
for standards authors, control owners, security/privacy program leads,
auditors, and implementers who must apply it as binding guidance, not read it
as narrative. Its center of gravity is the numbered normative section:
every requirement is stated with explicit normative force (shall / should /
may) and traces to cited evidence. This genre follows the NIST SP 800-series
convention — front-matter authority statement, numbered sections, definitions,
references, appendices — at altitude authoritative: normative precision over
narrative, with uncertainty recorded as an explicit verdict annotation, never
as hedged phrasing in a requirement.
Target Audience
Standards authors, control owners, security and privacy program leads, auditors, and implementers who must read the document as authoritative guidance — understand its authority and scope, apply its numbered normative requirements, and trace defined terms and control mappings into their own programs.
Pattern (industry: NIST SP 800-series)
Front matter, in this order, ahead of the first numbered section:
- Authority — the front-matter statement of the publication's standing: the mandate under which it is issued and the standing of its guidance.
- Purpose & Scope — what the publication establishes and the boundary of its applicability; what is in and out of scope.
- Audience — the intended readers and the roles expected to apply the guidance.
- Abstract — a self-contained summary of the problem, the guidance, and the principal conclusions.
- Keywords — a short controlled list of index terms (cap at ten).
Body and back matter (continuing the same numbered sequence, items 6-9):
- Numbered normative sections — the body, numbered sequentially with up
to four heading levels (
1.,1.1.,1.1.1.,1.1.1.1.). Each normative requirement traces to a cited finding; state normative force explicitly (shall / should / may). - Definitions / Glossary — every term of art used normatively, defined once. Required.
- References — the numbered reference list (see Citation Style).
- Appendices — supporting matter such as control mappings, control catalogs, and crosswalks. Lettered (Appendix A, B, …).
Citation Style
Numbered references in square brackets — [1], [2] — resolving to a
numbered References list at the back. Each reference entry renders as a
human-readable citation (author, title, source/URL, and the DOI as a complete
URL when available — NIST reference format). An internal MIF finding @id
(urn:mif:) is traceability only: it links the rendered entry back to its
finding and is never printed in the output. Every normative requirement and
defined term cites the finding it rests on; no orphan normative claims.
Required Figures & Matter
- Front matter: Authority statement, Purpose & Scope, Audience, Abstract, and Keywords (≤ 10), in that order, before the first numbered section.
- Definitions / Glossary: required — every normatively-used term of art is defined.
- Back matter: a numbered References list is required; appendices carry the mappings and control catalogs (e.g. a crosswalk table mapping requirements to an external control framework, or a catalog of the controls the publication defines).
- Figures / tables: a control-mapping or crosswalk table is expected
whenever the findings support a mapping to an external framework. Any
figure, chart, or diagram is rendered as a fenced Mermaid code block (a
mermaidinfo-string fence) — a control or data-flow figure as aflowchart— never ASCII art, an image link, or Graphviz/DOT; a required figure is never silently omitted — if the data cannot support it, say so in prose. Plain tabular matter stays a Markdown table.
Rules
- Every normative requirement and defined term traces to a cited finding; no orphan facts and no uncited normative claims.
- Report verification verdicts: annotate findings whose verdict is
weakenedorinconclusiverather than hiding them, and exclude onlyfalsifiedunits from normative guidance. - Do not bake a standard's edition or version number into the text as settled fact unless a surviving finding establishes it; anchor edition references to their cited finding and verify currency at authoring time.
- Exhaustive coverage: build the publication from the full surviving findings corpus — every surviving finding is treated with its own evidence (claim, citations, entities), never condensed to a cherry-picked subset. A silently dropped finding is a defect.
- No
urn:mif:identifier leaks into reader-facing prose; identifiers resolve to numbered[N]references.
Anti-triggers — do not use this genre for
- A one-time client or internal engagement deliverable that applies a
standard rather than issuing one — that is
security-pentest(a penetration-test engagement report) orcompliance-audit(an audit-of-record engagement report): each performs and reports against a standard's controls; neither states normative requirements, defines terms of art, or carries the standing of an issuing authority. - A single immutable decision with its drivers — that is
adr. - An internal system architecture description with no standards-track
authority — that is
arc42-arch-docorai-architecture-doc.
MIF frontmatter
type: semantic — a NIST SP is declarative normative/standards knowledge, not
a time-bound event or a step sequence. Climb to L2 with namespace
(nist-sp/<area>), modified, title, and tags when the drafting context
supplies them. Gate every output with mif-validate at its target level; the
floor is --level 1. Rendered through the report channel at MIF Level 3
(authoritative concept frontmatter + falsification verdict); any published
projection (blog/book) is at least MIF Level 1 — never bare, frontmatter-less
prose.
Why machine-readable — the point of MIF here
| Question an agent asks | Answered by (frontmatter) |
| Is this requirement still current, or has it been superseded? | temporal.validFrom / ttl |
| Where did the normative claim come from; can I trust it? | provenance (W3C-PROV) + citations[] |
| What control framework, crosswalk, or engagement report relates to it? | typed relationships[] (relates-to, realized-by) |
| Which requirements were tested/verified vs. asserted? | citations[] tied to each normative requirement |
The same document still reads as a human standards publication and projects losslessly to JSON-LD and back — one artifact, two readers.
The L1 -> L3 climb (two exemplars)
templates/good-l1.md— L1 floor:id,type,created+ body. A complete, valid publication, but opaque to a machine consumer.templates/good.md— L3 (highest this genre supports): addsnamespace,modified,temporalvalidity, W3C-PROVprovenance,citations[]tied to each normative requirement, and a typedrelationships[]graph (e.g.relates-toa compliance-audit engagement that assesses conformance against it). Validate withmif-validate --level 3.
Author at the highest level the drafting context supports (grade down
rather than fabricate). templates/bad.md shows the antipattern: a document
titled and numbered like an SP but whose normative sections state guidance in
hedged narrative prose with no cited evidence — the single most load-bearing
rule this genre exists to enforce (every normative requirement traces to a
cited finding; no orphan normative claims) simply broken.
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.

