agentleFS
nisarthnisarth/claude-skills-store/skills/operations/compliance-tracking/SKILL.md

compliance-tracking

Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Track compliance requirements and audit readiness across SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and other regulatory frameworks. Use when preparing for an audit, tracking control evidence, monitoring compliance posture, or reporting on regulatory readiness. Trigger with "compliance tracking", "audit prep", "SOC 2 status", "ISO 27001", "GDPR readiness", or "control evidence".

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Start evidence collection at least 90 days before the audit.

    line 83

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Compliance Tracking

Track control implementation, evidence collection, and audit readiness across regulatory frameworks. Provide a consolidated compliance posture view with gap remediation.

Workflow

Step 1: Define Scope

Establish frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS), scope boundaries (systems, processes, data), audit timeline, prior findings, and control owners.

Step 2: Map Controls

Map requirements to specific controls. Identify shared controls across frameworks (e.g., access management satisfies SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO A.9, and GDPR Art. 32). Document type (preventive/detective/corrective), frequency, and manual vs. automated.

Step 3: Assess Status

For each control: Implemented, Partially implemented, Not implemented, or N/A. For implemented controls assess effectiveness: Effective, Partially effective, or Ineffective.

Step 4: Track Evidence

For each control: evidence type (policy, config, logs, reports), collection status (collected/in-progress/not-started/blocked), owner, period covered, and quality check.

Step 5: Generate Readiness Report

Output Format

## Compliance Tracking Report
**Framework**: [SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / etc.] | **Audit Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Status**: [ON TRACK / AT RISK / NOT READY]

### Readiness Summary
| Domain | Controls | Implemented | Evidence Ready | Gaps |
|--------|----------|-------------|----------------|------|
| Access Mgmt | 8 | 8 | 6 | 2 |
| Change Mgmt | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 |
| **Total** | **26** | **24** | **18** | **8** |

### Overall Readiness: 69% evidence collected

### Gap Analysis
| # | Control | Requirement | Status | Gap | Owner | Due |
|---|---------|-------------|--------|-----|-------|-----|
| 1 | CC6.3 | Quarterly access review | Partial | Q3 not documented | [Name] | [Date] |

### Action Items
1. [Action] -- Owner: [Name] -- Due: [Date] -- Priority: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

Examples

User: "Where are we on SOC 2 readiness? Audit is in 6 weeks." Action: Assess evidence collection for each control, identify gaps, produce readiness report with prioritized remediation for the 6-week window.

User: "Track GDPR compliance for our new EU data processing" Action: Map GDPR requirements to existing controls, identify gaps (DPIA, DPO, transfer mechanism), create tracker with remediation timeline.

Best Practices

  • Start evidence collection at least 90 days before the audit.
  • Map controls across frameworks to avoid duplicate work.
  • Automate evidence collection wherever possible -- manual screenshots are fragile.
  • SOC 2 Type II requires evidence of consistent operation over the entire period.
  • Address prior audit findings before the next audit -- repeat findings are viewed negatively.
  • Assign a single owner to each control. Shared ownership leads to gaps.
  • Review evidence quality, not just existence.

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.