Use when adding new error messages to React, or seeing "unknown error code" warnings.
npx skills add williamzujkowski/cognitive-toolworks --skill "NIST SP 800-53 Compliance Validator"
Install specific skill from multi-skill repository
# Description
Validate NIST SP 800-53 control implementation with evidence mapping, gap analysis, automated testing, and compliance reporting across 20 control families.
# SKILL.md
name: NIST SP 800-53 Compliance Validator
slug: compliance-nist-validator
description: Validate NIST SP 800-53 control implementation with evidence mapping, gap analysis, automated testing, and compliance reporting across 20 control families.
capabilities:
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 control validation (1,189 controls across 20 families)
- Evidence collection and mapping to controls
- Gap analysis with missing/partial control identification
- Automated compliance testing (60-80% effort reduction)
- Control family assessment (AC, SI, CM, IA, AU, etc.)
- OSCAL format integration (SSP, SAP, SAR, POA&M)
- Continuous monitoring configuration
- Remediation recommendations with prioritization
inputs:
- NIST baseline (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH, or custom control set)
- System documentation (architecture, data flows, configurations)
- Existing controls implementation (technical, operational, management)
- Evidence sources (logs, configs, policies, procedures, test results)
- Compliance scope (control families, specific controls, or full catalog)
- Assessment type (initial, periodic, continuous monitoring)
outputs:
- Control validation results (implemented, partial, not-implemented)
- Evidence mapping matrix (controls → evidence artifacts)
- Gap analysis report with missing controls and recommendations
- Compliance score by control family and overall
- OSCAL-formatted SAR (Security Assessment Report)
- Prioritized remediation plan with effort estimates
- Continuous monitoring configuration
keywords:
- nist
- sp-800-53
- compliance
- security-controls
- privacy-controls
- evidence
- gap-analysis
- oscal
- automation
- assessment
- nist-800-53a
version: 1.0.0
owner: cognitive-toolworks
license: MIT
security: public
links:
- title: "NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0 (August 2025)"
url: "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/r5/upd1/final"
accessed: "2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400"
- title: "NIST SP 800-53A Rev 5.2.0 Assessment Procedures"
url: "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/53/a/r5/final"
accessed: "2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400"
- title: "NIST SP 800-53 Release 5.2.0 Announcement (August 27, 2025)"
url: "https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2025/nist-releases-revision-to-sp-800-53-controls"
accessed: "2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400"
- title: "Automated Security Testing for NIST 800-53"
url: "https://satinetech.com/2025/05/28/automated-security-testing-for-nist-800-53-controls-a-practical-guide/"
accessed: "2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400"
Purpose & When-To-Use
Invoke this skill when validating NIST SP 800-53 control implementation, conducting compliance assessments, identifying gaps, or generating evidence-based compliance reports for federal systems, contractors, or organizations adopting NIST frameworks.
Trigger Conditions:
- "Validate NIST SP 800-53 compliance for [system]"
- "Generate gap analysis for MODERATE baseline"
- "Map evidence to NIST controls for [control family]"
- "Assess [control family] implementation (e.g., AC, SI, CM)"
- "Create OSCAL SAR for NIST compliance assessment"
- "Automate NIST 800-53 control testing"
- "Continuous monitoring for NIST controls"
Out of Scope:
- FedRAMP-specific requirements (use compliance-fedramp-validator)
- OSCAL format conversion without validation (use compliance-oscal-validator)
- General compliance automation (use compliance-automation-engine)
Pre-Checks
- Time Normalization: Compute
NOW_ETusing NIST/time.gov semantics (America/New_York, ISO-8601). - Input Validation:
- NIST baseline specified (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH, or custom)
- System boundaries defined (scope of assessment)
- Control families or specific controls identified
- Documentation Availability: Verify access to system documentation, configurations, evidence artifacts.
- OSCAL Integration: Check if OSCAL SSP (System Security Plan) exists for evidence mapping.
- Assessment Type: Clarify if initial assessment, periodic re-assessment, or continuous monitoring.
Abort Conditions:
- No baseline or control scope specified → emit TODO list with required inputs.
- Zero documentation or evidence → warn that validation will be minimal.
Procedure
T1: Quick Control Gap Analysis (≤2k tokens)
Use Case: Fast path for common scenarios (80% of requests).
Steps:
1. Identify NIST Baseline: Select applicable baseline controls.
| Baseline | Control Count | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 125 controls | Low-impact systems (public info) |
| MODERATE | 325 controls | Moderate-impact (most federal systems) |
| HIGH | 421 controls | High-impact (national security, critical infrastructure) |
- Sample 5 High-Priority Controls (T1 Fast Check):
| Control ID | Control Name | Family | Validation Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| AC-2 | Account Management | Access Control | User account policies exist, periodic review evidence |
| SI-2 | Flaw Remediation | System Integrity | Patch management process, vulnerability scan results |
| CM-2 | Baseline Configuration | Configuration Mgmt | Configuration baselines documented, change control |
| IA-2 | Identification & Auth | Identification/Auth | MFA enabled, authentication logs |
| AU-2 | Event Logging | Audit & Accountability | Audit policy configured, log retention evidence |
- Quick Gap Score:
- Implemented: Control fully operational with evidence (Green).
- Partial: Control partially implemented, missing evidence or incomplete (Yellow).
-
Not Implemented: Control missing or no evidence (Red).
-
Top 3 Gaps: Identify highest-risk missing controls with immediate remediation actions.
Output: Baseline mapping, 5-control quick check, gap score, top 3 priorities.
T2: Comprehensive Control Family Assessment (≤6k tokens)
Use Case: Full control family validation for production assessments.
Steps:
1. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0 (20 Control Families)
Complete Control Families (1,189 controls total):
| ID | Family Name | Controls | Focus Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| AC | Access Control | 25 | User access, permissions, least privilege |
| AT | Awareness and Training | 6 | Security training, role-based awareness |
| AU | Audit and Accountability | 16 | Event logging, audit review, log protection |
| CA | Assessment, Authorization, Monitoring | 9 | Security assessments, continuous monitoring, authorization |
| CM | Configuration Management | 14 | Baseline configs, change control, inventory |
| CP | Contingency Planning | 13 | Backup, disaster recovery, alternate processing |
| IA | Identification and Authentication | 12 | MFA, credential management, authenticator management |
| IR | Incident Response | 10 | Incident handling, reporting, testing |
| MA | Maintenance | 6 | System maintenance, remote maintenance, tools |
| MP | Media Protection | 8 | Media sanitization, storage, transport |
| PE | Physical and Environmental Protection | 20 | Physical access, visitor control, environmental controls |
| PL | Planning | 11 | Security planning, architecture, privacy |
| PM | Program Management | 31 | Risk management strategy, governance |
| PS | Personnel Security | 9 | Position categorization, termination, sanctions |
| PT | PII Processing and Transparency | 8 | Privacy controls, consent, data minimization |
| RA | Risk Assessment | 10 | Risk assessments, vulnerability scanning |
| SA | System and Services Acquisition | 23 | SDLC security, supply chain, developer testing |
| SC | System and Communications Protection | 51 | Network security, crypto, transmission integrity |
| SI | System and Information Integrity | 23 | Flaw remediation, malware protection, monitoring |
| SR | Supply Chain Risk Management | 12 | Supply chain risk, supplier assessments, provenance |
Total: 1,189 controls across 20 families (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0, accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400).
2. Control Validation Methodology (NIST SP 800-53A)
Assessment Methods (per NIST SP 800-53A):
| Method | Description | Evidence Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Examine | Review documentation, policies, procedures | Policies, plans, procedures, configs, logs |
| Interview | Discuss with responsible personnel | Interview notes, attestations, walkthroughs |
| Test | Execute technical validation, scanning, testing | Scan results, penetration tests, automated checks |
Control Assessment Example (AC-2: Account Management):
control_id: AC-2
control_name: Account Management
family: AC (Access Control)
baseline: MODERATE
assessment_objectives:
- AC-2a: Organization manages system accounts (types, establish, activate, modify, review, disable, remove)
- AC-2(1): Automated account management (enhancements)
- AC-2(2): Automated account removal/disabling
assessment_methods:
examine:
- Account management policy and procedures
- Configuration baselines for account creation
- Account review logs (periodic review evidence)
interview:
- System administrators on account lifecycle
- HR on termination processes
test:
- Automated scan: verify inactive accounts disabled after 90 days
- Test account creation workflow: verify approval required
- Verify MFA enforcement for privileged accounts
evidence_artifacts:
- account_policy.pdf (policy document)
- user_access_review_2025-Q3.xlsx (quarterly review)
- qualys_scan_2025-10-15.pdf (automated compliance scan)
- iam_config_baseline.json (baseline configuration)
validation_result: Implemented (Green)
findings: All assessment objectives met with documented evidence
compliance_score: 100%
3. Evidence Mapping Matrix
Evidence Collection (60-70% of compliance effort - automate for efficiency):
| Control Family | Evidence Type | Automated Collection | Manual Collection |
|---|---|---|---|
| AC (Access Control) | IAM configs, user lists, MFA logs | ✅ Config exports, SIEM logs | Policies, interviews |
| SI (System Integrity) | Patch status, vuln scans, AV logs | ✅ Qualys/Nessus scans, SCCM | Patch procedures |
| CM (Config Mgmt) | Config baselines, change logs | ✅ Git commits, Terraform state | Change board minutes |
| AU (Audit/Accountability) | Audit logs, SIEM retention | ✅ Splunk/ELK exports | Log retention policy |
| IA (Identification/Auth) | MFA enrollment, auth logs | ✅ Okta/AD reports | Authentication policy |
Automation Benefits:
- 60-80% effort reduction with automated evidence collection (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400).
- Continuous monitoring vs. point-in-time snapshots.
- Real-time compliance dashboards.
4. Gap Analysis & Remediation Planning
Gap Analysis Workflow:
- For each control in baseline:
- Check implementation status: Implemented / Partial / Not Implemented.
- Verify evidence: Complete / Incomplete / Missing.
-
Calculate control strength: Strong / Weak / None.
-
Gap Categorization:
| Gap Type | Description | Remediation Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation Gap | Control not implemented | High (design, deploy, test) |
| Evidence Gap | Control implemented, no evidence | Low (document, collect artifacts) |
| Partial Implementation | Control partially implemented | Medium (complete missing aspects) |
| Enhancement Gap | Base control OK, enhancements missing | Medium (add enhancements) |
- Prioritization (Risk-Based):
# Risk score = (Control Criticality × Impact × Likelihood) / Effort
# Criticality: LOW=1, MODERATE=2, HIGH=3
# Impact: 1-5 (data breach, downtime, regulatory)
# Likelihood: 1-5 (exploitability, threat landscape)
# Effort: hours to remediate
def calculate_priority(control):
criticality = {"LOW": 1, "MODERATE": 2, "HIGH": 3}[control.baseline]
impact = control.impact_score # 1-5
likelihood = control.likelihood_score # 1-5
effort = control.remediation_hours
risk_score = (criticality * impact * likelihood) / effort
return risk_score
# Sort gaps by risk_score descending → prioritized remediation list
- Remediation Plan Example:
| Priority | Control | Gap Type | Effort | Risk Score | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) | Implementation | 40h | 18.0 | 30 days |
| 2 | IA-2(1) (MFA) | Partial | 20h | 15.0 | 45 days |
| 3 | CM-2 (Baseline Config) | Evidence | 8h | 12.0 | 60 days |
| 4 | AC-2(4) (Auto Account Mgmt) | Enhancement | 30h | 10.0 | 90 days |
5. OSCAL Integration (Interoperability with OSCAL Validator)
OSCAL Artifacts:
- SSP (System Security Plan): Control implementation descriptions, responsible roles.
- SAP (Security Assessment Plan): Assessment objectives, methods, schedules.
- SAR (Security Assessment Report): Results, findings, recommendations.
- POA&M (Plan of Action & Milestones): Remediation plan with milestones.
Generate OSCAL SAR (Security Assessment Report):
{
"assessment-results": {
"uuid": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
"metadata": {
"title": "NIST SP 800-53 Assessment Results",
"published": "2025-10-26T18:38:09-04:00",
"version": "1.0",
"oscal-version": "1.1.2"
},
"import-ap": {
"href": "#assessment-plan-uuid"
},
"results": [
{
"uuid": "result-uuid-1",
"title": "AC-2 Account Management Assessment",
"finding": {
"uuid": "finding-uuid-1",
"title": "AC-2 Implemented with Evidence",
"description": "Account management controls fully implemented.",
"related-observations": [
{
"observation-uuid": "obs-uuid-1",
"type": "examine",
"description": "Account management policy reviewed and current."
},
{
"observation-uuid": "obs-uuid-2",
"type": "test",
"description": "Automated test: Inactive accounts disabled after 90 days."
}
]
},
"risk": {
"status": "satisfied"
}
}
],
"assessment-log": {
"entries": [
{
"title": "Assessment Start",
"start": "2025-10-15T09:00:00-04:00",
"end": "2025-10-26T17:00:00-04:00"
}
]
}
}
}
OSCAL POA&M for Gaps:
{
"plan-of-action-and-milestones": {
"uuid": "poam-uuid-1",
"metadata": {
"title": "NIST SP 800-53 Remediation Plan",
"published": "2025-10-26T18:38:09-04:00"
},
"poam-items": [
{
"uuid": "poam-item-1",
"title": "Implement SI-2 Flaw Remediation",
"description": "Deploy automated patch management solution.",
"related-findings": ["finding-uuid-si2"],
"milestones": [
{
"uuid": "milestone-1",
"title": "Deploy SCCM/Patch Management",
"description": "Install and configure patch management platform.",
"target-date": "2025-11-25"
},
{
"uuid": "milestone-2",
"title": "Test Patch Deployment",
"description": "Pilot patch deployment to test systems.",
"target-date": "2025-12-10"
}
]
}
]
}
}
Output: Complete control family assessment, evidence mapping, gap analysis, remediation plan, OSCAL SAR/POA&M.
T3: Enterprise-Wide Continuous Monitoring (≤12k tokens)
Use Case: Continuous monitoring, multi-system assessments, automated testing at scale.
Steps:
1. Continuous Monitoring Architecture
NIST SP 800-137 Continuous Monitoring Framework:
- Define: Metrics, assessment frequency, roles.
- Establish: Baseline configuration, continuous monitoring tools.
- Implement: Automated data collection, analysis, reporting.
- Analyze: Correlate findings, trend analysis, risk scoring.
- Respond: Remediation, escalation, risk acceptance.
- Review: Periodic review of monitoring effectiveness.
Automated Control Testing (60-80% effort reduction):
| Control Family | Automated Test | Tool/Method | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| AC (Access Control) | Inactive account detection | SIEM query, IAM API | Daily |
| SI (System Integrity) | Vulnerability scanning | Qualys, Nessus, Tenable | Weekly |
| CM (Config Management) | Configuration drift detection | Chef InSpec, AWS Config | Continuous |
| AU (Audit/Accountability) | Log collection and retention | Splunk, ELK, SIEM | Continuous |
| IA (Identification/Auth) | MFA enrollment rate | Okta/AD reports | Daily |
Continuous Monitoring Dashboard:
NIST SP 800-53 Compliance Dashboard (Real-Time)
Overall Compliance Score: 87% (325/375 controls implemented)
Control Families (MODERATE Baseline):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AC (Access Control): ████████░░ 85% (21/25) │
│ SI (System Integrity): ███████░░░ 78% (18/23) │
│ CM (Configuration Mgmt): ██████████ 92% (13/14) │
│ AU (Audit/Accountability): ████████░░ 81% (13/16) │
│ IA (Identification/Auth): ██████████ 100% (12/12) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Recent Findings (Last 7 Days):
❌ SI-2: 15 systems missing critical patches (detected 2025-10-24)
⚠️ AC-2(3): 3 inactive accounts not disabled (detected 2025-10-25)
✅ CM-2: Configuration drift remediated on 10 systems (2025-10-26)
Trending:
↗ Compliance improved 5% from 82% → 87% (last 30 days)
↘ Open findings decreased from 45 → 32 (last 30 days)
2. Multi-System Assessment (Enterprise Scale)
Scenario: Assess 50 federal systems across 3 data centers.
Approach:
- Standardized Baselines: Define organization-wide baselines (LOW/MODERATE/HIGH).
- Centralized Evidence Repository: Shared evidence library (common controls).
- Automated Collection: API integrations with cloud providers, SIEM, CM tools.
- Parallel Assessments: Assess systems concurrently (reduce timeline).
- Rollup Reporting: Aggregate compliance scores, common gaps, organization-wide trends.
Common Controls (Inheritance):
| Control | Common Control Provider | Inheriting Systems |
|---|---|---|
| PE-2 (Physical Access) | Data Center Operations | All systems in DC1, DC2, DC3 |
| IR-1 (Incident Response Policy) | CISO Office | All organizational systems |
| CP-1 (Contingency Planning Policy) | Business Continuity Team | All organizational systems |
Benefit: Assess common controls once, inherit across all systems (reduce duplication).
3. Advanced Automation (Infrastructure as Code)
Policy-as-Code Validation:
# Example: Chef InSpec test for AC-2 (Account Management)
control 'AC-2' do
impact 1.0
title 'Account Management'
desc 'Verify inactive accounts are disabled after 90 days'
# Check all user accounts
describe command('lastlog -b 90') do
its('stdout') { should eq '' } # No logins in last 90 days
end
# Verify accounts are disabled
users = command('awk -F: \'{print $1}\' /etc/passwd').stdout.split("\n")
users.each do |user|
describe user(user) do
it { should_not be_disabled } if user_last_login(user) < 90.days.ago
end
end
end
Infrastructure Scanning:
# AWS Config rule for SI-2 (Flaw Remediation)
aws configservice put-config-rule --config-rule '{
"ConfigRuleName": "ec2-managedinstance-patch-compliance-status-check",
"Description": "Checks if patches are applied to EC2 instances",
"Source": {
"Owner": "AWS",
"SourceIdentifier": "EC2_MANAGEDINSTANCE_PATCH_COMPLIANCE_STATUS_CHECK"
},
"Scope": {
"ComplianceResourceTypes": ["AWS::EC2::Instance"]
}
}'
4. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0 (August 2025 Updates)
Key Updates in Release 5.2.0:
- SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, Tools): Enhanced software update security.
- SA-11 (Developer Testing): Improved testing requirements for software security.
- CM-3 (Configuration Change Control): Strengthened update deployment management.
- SI-7 (Software Integrity): Enhanced integrity verification and validation.
Executive Order 14306 Compliance:
- Focus: "Strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity."
- Emphasis: Software supply chain security, update integrity, secure development.
Output: Continuous monitoring architecture, multi-system assessment, policy-as-code automation, 5.2.0 compliance.
Decision Rules
- Baseline Selection:
- If system impact level known → use corresponding baseline (LOW/MODERATE/HIGH).
- If impact unknown → default to MODERATE (325 controls, most federal systems).
-
If custom controls → validate against full 1,189 control catalog.
-
Evidence Sufficiency:
- Strong Evidence: Multiple artifacts from different sources (examine + interview + test).
- Weak Evidence: Single artifact or outdated evidence (>1 year old).
-
No Evidence: No documentation or artifacts → control marked "Not Implemented."
-
Gap Prioritization:
- Prioritize by risk score: (Criticality × Impact × Likelihood) / Effort.
- Critical controls (HIGH baseline) before enhancements.
-
Quick wins (high risk, low effort) prioritized for fast remediation.
-
Automation Threshold:
- If >10 systems → implement continuous monitoring (cost-effective).
- If evidence collection >100 hours → automate with API integrations.
-
If assessment frequency ≥ quarterly → continuous monitoring required.
-
OSCAL Integration:
- If OSCAL SSP exists → import and validate control descriptions.
- Generate OSCAL SAR for all assessments (interoperability).
- If gaps identified → generate OSCAL POA&M with milestones.
Uncertainty Thresholds:
- If baseline unclear → request system categorization (FIPS 199).
- If evidence sources unknown → emit TODO list with required artifacts.
- If control scope ambiguous → default to full baseline assessment.
Output Contract
Required Fields:
baseline:
- level: "LOW" | "MODERATE" | "HIGH" | "CUSTOM"
control_count: integer
control_families: array (AC, SI, CM, etc.)
validation_results:
- control_id: string (e.g., "AC-2")
control_name: string
family: string
implementation_status: "Implemented" | "Partial" | "Not Implemented"
evidence_artifacts: array (file names, URLs)
compliance_score: float (0-100%)
findings: string (summary)
evidence_mapping:
- control_family: string
automated_evidence: array (log files, configs, scan results)
manual_evidence: array (policies, interviews, procedures)
collection_method: "automated" | "manual" | "hybrid"
gap_analysis:
- gap_type: "Implementation" | "Evidence" | "Partial" | "Enhancement"
control_id: string
risk_score: float
remediation_effort: integer (hours)
priority: integer (1=highest)
deadline: date
remediation_plan:
- control_id: string
remediation_action: string
assigned_to: string (role/team)
effort_estimate: integer (hours)
target_date: date
dependencies: array (other controls)
oscal_outputs:
- sar: object (OSCAL SAR JSON)
poam: object (OSCAL POA&M JSON)
format: "json" | "xml" | "yaml"
compliance_metrics:
- overall_score: float (0-100%)
by_family: object ({AC: 85%, SI: 78%, ...})
trend: "improving" | "stable" | "declining"
finding_count: integer
continuous_monitoring: # If T3
- enabled: boolean
assessment_frequency: string (daily, weekly, monthly)
automated_tests: array (test names)
dashboard_url: string
Token Tier Minimums:
- T1: baseline, validation_results (5 sample controls), gap_analysis (top 3).
- T2: All of T1 + evidence_mapping, remediation_plan, oscal_outputs, compliance_metrics.
- T3: All of T2 + continuous_monitoring, multi-system assessment, advanced automation.
Examples
AC-2 Account Management Validation:
control_id: AC-2
control_name: Account Management
family: AC (Access Control)
implementation_status: Implemented
evidence_artifacts:
- account_management_policy.pdf
- quarterly_user_review_2025-Q3.xlsx
- qualys_inactive_account_scan.pdf
compliance_score: 100%
findings: All assessment objectives met. Automated testing confirms inactive accounts disabled after 90 days.
See examples/nist-moderate-baseline-assessment.txt for a complete MODERATE baseline assessment.
Quality Gates
- Token Budgets:
- T1 response ≤2k tokens (quick gap analysis, 5 controls).
- T2 response ≤6k tokens (full family assessment, evidence mapping).
-
T3 response ≤12k tokens (continuous monitoring, multi-system).
-
Safety Checks:
- No PII or classified information in evidence artifacts.
- Evidence collection respects data privacy (NIST PT family).
-
Automated tests do not disrupt production systems.
-
Auditability:
- All validation results include evidence artifact references.
- Gap analysis includes risk scoring methodology.
-
Remediation plans include effort estimates and deadlines.
-
Determinism:
- Same baseline + evidence → same validation results.
-
Gap prioritization deterministic (risk score formula).
-
Citations:
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0: 1,189 controls across 20 families (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400, NIST CSRC).
- Release 5.2.0 (August 27, 2025): Software security, Executive Order 14306 (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400, NIST News).
- Automation: 60-80% effort reduction (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400, Satine Tech).
Resources
Official NIST Documentation:
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.2.0 (August 2025) (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400)
- NIST SP 800-53A Rev 5.2.0 Assessment Procedures (accessed 2025-10-26T18:38:09-0400)
- NIST SP 800-137 Continuous Monitoring
- NIST SP 800-53B Control Baselines
OSCAL Integration:
- OSCAL Homepage
- OSCAL SAR Schema
- OSCAL POA&M Schema
Automation Tools:
- Chef InSpec (compliance as code)
- AWS Config (cloud resource compliance)
- Azure Policy (NIST compliance built-in)
- OpenSCAP (open-source security compliance)
# Supported AI Coding Agents
This skill is compatible with the SKILL.md standard and works with all major AI coding agents:
Learn more about the SKILL.md standard and how to use these skills with your preferred AI coding agent.