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
- anthropics/knowledge-work-pluginstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- edu6565/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- JustineDevs/premortemtheir own version, first seen Jun 9, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 36ksame name
- JustineDevs/premortem★ 2same name
- edu6565/claude-skills★ 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 repository164 other files it gives its agents.
- instrument-data-to-allotropeSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- nextflow-developmentSkill
- scientific-problem-selectionSkill
- scvi-toolsSkill
- single-cell-rna-qcSkill
- discover-brandSkill
- enforce-voiceSkill
- generate-guidelinesSkill
- csat-reportSkill
- customer-escalationSkill
- customer-researchSkill
- draft-responseSkill
- kb-articleSkill
- sentiment-analysisSkill
- ticket-triageSkill
- analyzeSkill
- build-dashboardSkill
- create-vizSkill
- data-context-extractorSkill
- data-modelingSkill
- data-pipelineSkill
- etl-designSkill
- explore-dataSkill
- sql-queriesSkill
- statistical-analysisSkill
- validate-dataSkill
- write-querySkill
- accessibility-reviewSkill
- component-librarySkill
- design-critiqueSkill
- design-handoffSkill
- design-systemSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- user-researchSkill
- ux-copySkill
- wireframingSkill
- Agent DevelopmentSkill
- CLAUDE.md ManagementSkill
- MCP Server BuilderSkill
- Plugin DevelopmentSkill
- Prompt EngineeringSkill
- Skill CreatorSkill
- curriculum-designSkill
- lesson-planningSkill
- quiz-generatorSkill
- study-guideSkill
- tutoringSkill
- api-designSkill
- architectureSkill
- ci-cd-pipelineSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- database-migrationSkill
- debugSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- deploy-checklistSkill
- documentationSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 83
Start evidence collection at least 90 days before the audit.
“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.
Files
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.
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.

