Compliance Assessment

Compliance Assessment

Before you start

Gather the following from the user. If anything is missing, ask before proceeding:

1. Which frameworks apply? — SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or others
2. What is the scope? — Which systems, services, data types, and teams are in scope
3. What is the driver? — Customer requirement, regulatory obligation, funding milestone, or internal initiative
4. What is the timeline? — Audit date, certification deadline, or customer commitment
5. What exists today? — Current policies, controls, prior audit reports, known gaps
6. Who are the stakeholders? — Engineering, legal, security, executive sponsor

Assessment template

1. Define Scope Boundary

Document exactly what is in and out of scope:

In Scope:
- Systems: [List every system, service, and data store]
- Data types: [PII, PHI, financial data, credentials, logs]
- Teams: [Engineering, DevOps, support, HR]
- Environments: [Production, staging, CI/CD pipelines]
- Third parties: [Cloud providers, SaaS tools, subprocessors]

Out of Scope:
- [System/area]: [Reason]

Rules: if a third-party processes in-scope data, they are in scope. If staging has production data copies, staging is in scope. CI/CD pipelines deploying to production are in scope.

2. Map Controls to Framework Requirements

For each framework, map existing controls to requirements per control area:

| Requirement | Framework Ref | Current Control | Status | Gap | |-------------|--------------|-----------------|--------|-----| | Unique user IDs | SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO A.9.2.1 | SSO via Okta | Compliant | None | | MFA for privileged access | SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO A.9.4.2 | MFA for admin roles | Compliant | None | | Access reviews | SOC 2 CC6.2, ISO A.9.2.5 | None | Gap | Quarterly review needed |

Cover at minimum: Access Control, Data Protection (encryption, key management, retention), Logging and Monitoring, Incident Response, Change Management, Business Continuity, Vendor Management, HR Security (training, onboarding/offboarding).

3. Evidence Inventory

For every "Compliant" or "Partial" control, document: the control name, evidence type (policy document, configuration screenshot, logs/reports, process records, or third-party certification), evidence location, last verified date, and refresh cadence.

If evidence does not exist for a control marked "Compliant," it is not compliant. Undocumented controls fail audits.

4. Gap Analysis

For each gap, document using this format:

Gap ID:         GAP-001
Control Area:   Access Control
Requirement:    Quarterly access reviews (SOC 2 CC6.2)
Current State:  No regular access reviews performed
Risk Level:     High
Remediation:    Implement quarterly review with automated user listing
Evidence Needed: Review records, revocation tickets
Estimated Effort: 2 weeks to implement, 4 hours/quarter ongoing

Risk levels: Critical (regulatory violation, active exposure), High (control missing entirely), Medium (partially implemented), Low (exists but evidence incomplete).

5. Remediation Roadmap

Prioritize gaps into phases. Each item must have a single owner, deadline, and evidence deliverable:

• Phase 1 (0-30 days): Critical and High gaps
• Phase 2 (30-90 days): Medium gaps
• Phase 3 (90-180 days): Low gaps and documentation

6. Framework-Specific Considerations

SOC 2: Type II requires a period of observation (3-12 months). Controls implemented one week before the audit window provide insufficient evidence.

GDPR: Requires data processing records (Article 30), DPIAs for high-risk processing (Article 35), and documented lawful basis for each processing activity.

HIPAA: Requires formal risk analysis, Business Associate Agreements with all PHI vendors, and minimum necessary access. Breach notification within 60 days.

ISO 27001: Requires a formal ISMS with Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and management review. Certification requires accredited external audit.

Quality checklist

Before delivering a compliance assessment, verify:

• [ ] Scope boundary is documented with explicit in/out decisions
• [ ] Every control area has been assessed against each applicable framework
• [ ] Each compliant control has evidence with location and verification date
• [ ] Gaps include risk level, remediation steps, and evidence requirements
• [ ] Remediation roadmap is phased with owners, deadlines, and deliverables
• [ ] Framework-specific requirements (observation periods, mandatory documents) are addressed
• [ ] Third-party/vendor controls are assessed, not assumed compliant

Common mistakes

• Treating compliance as point-in-time. Controls must remain effective after the audit. Build ongoing processes, not one-time fixes.
• Assuming vendor compliance covers you. Your cloud provider's SOC 2 does not make you SOC 2 compliant. You own your configuration.
• Documenting controls that do not exist. Auditors verify operation, not just policy documents. A policy without an implemented process is a finding.
• Ignoring evidence requirements. A control without evidence is a gap. Every control must produce verifiable proof of operation.
• Scoping too narrowly. Excluding systems that process in-scope data creates unassessed risk. Auditors will question exclusions.
• No single owner for remediation. "The team will handle it" means no one will. Every gap needs one person accountable by a specific date.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: The-AI-Directory-Company
• Source: The-AI-Directory-Company/agents-and-skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://ai-directory.company

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.