‹ 首页

compliance-checker

@pmkshar · 收录于 1 周前 · 上游提交 1 周前

Audits a codebase or business process for regulatory compliance across GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, CCPA, and PCI-DSS. Scans for PII handling, data retention, encryption, access controls, audit logging, consent management, and data transfer issues. Generates a structured compliance report with findings, gap analysis, remediation steps, and evidence requirements.

适合你,如果需要确保系统符合GDPR、HIPAA等法规

/ 通过 npx 安装 校验哈希
npx oh-my-skill add pmkshar/marqaiskills/compliance-checker
/ 通过 bash 安装
curl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- pmkshar/marqaiskills/compliance-checker
/ 已经装过?验证本机副本,不用重装
npx oh-my-skill verify pmkshar/marqaiskills/compliance-checker
安装目标可用 --agent / --scope 或 --to 明确指定;省略时只会在唯一已存在的 agent 目录上自动选择,零命中或多命中会停止并提示。content_hash 缺失或不一致均拒装。
0GitHub stars
~1.1K最小装载
~10.5K含声明引用
~10.5K文本包总量
索引托管

怎么用

商店整理自技能原文 · 版本 d5999f8 · 表述以原文为准
它做什么

装上后,Claude 能审计代码库或业务流程是否符合 GDPR、HIPAA 等法规,扫描个人数据处理、加密、访问控制等七类问题,并生成包含发现、差距分析和修复步骤的结构化合规报告。

什么时候触发

当你要求审计代码库或检查合规性时触发,例如说“审计这个代码库”或“检查 GDPR 合规”。

装好后可以这样说
Claude 会运行完整审计流程,生成合规报告。
Claude 会聚焦 GDPR 框架进行审计。
Claude 会只扫描加密类别并映射到所有适用框架。
技能原文 SKILL.md作者撰写 · MIT · d5999f8

Compliance Checker

Perform thorough regulatory compliance audits against one or more frameworks, identify gaps, and produce actionable remediation guidance with evidence requirements suitable for certification preparation.

Contents
  • references/frameworks.md — the five supported frameworks (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, CCPA, PCI-DSS): scope, key articles/requirements, penalties, and reference links.
  • references/scan-patterns.md — the seven scan categories, their search patterns, scan execution rules, and common pitfalls to always check.
  • references/classification.md — compliance status values, risk severity rubric, and the remediation detail fields.
  • references/cross-framework-mapping.md — control-area-to-framework mapping and the glossary.
  • references/output-template.md — the full compliance-report.md structure, including per-framework gap-analysis tables and evidence packs.
Workflow

Run the full methodology for every audit. Do not skip steps.

Phase 1: Discovery and Scoping
  1. Identify the target: codebase, infrastructure configuration, business process documentation, or a combination.
  2. Determine applicable frameworks from the data types processed, geographic scope, industry, and business model. See references/frameworks.md. When none are specified, assess all five and note applicability.
  3. Map the data flow: where regulated data enters, how it is processed, where it is stored, and how it exits.
  4. Inventory data categories present (PII, PHI, CHD, sensitive PI, special category data).
Phase 2: Scanning and Evidence Collection
  1. Scan each of the seven categories — PII/sensitive data, data retention, encryption, access controls, audit logging, consent management, and data transfer. Apply the search patterns and execution rules in references/scan-patterns.md. Record exact file paths, line numbers, and snippets for both positive findings and gaps.
Phase 3: Gap Analysis
  1. Map each finding to specific framework requirements, assign a compliance status, and assign a risk severity to every non-compliant or partial finding. Use the rubric in references/classification.md.
Phase 4: Remediation Planning
  1. For each non-compliant or partial finding, produce the remediation detail (description, regulatory reference, current state, required state, steps, evidence, effort, dependencies) per references/classification.md. Cross-reference references/cross-framework-mapping.md to flag when one action closes gaps across multiple frameworks.
Phase 5: Report Generation
  1. Generate compliance-report.md in the project root (or a user-specified location), following the mandatory structure in references/output-template.md. Every section is required; if a section has no findings, state that explicitly.
Behavioral Rules
  1. Never fabricate findings. Back every finding with scan evidence. When evidence is absent, mark UNABLE TO ASSESS rather than guess.
  2. Be specific. Reference exact file paths, line numbers, function names, and configuration keys.
  3. Distinguish technical from organizational controls. Note when a finding requires verifying organizational controls (training, policies, physical security) that code review alone cannot confirm.
  4. Consider the full stack: application code, database schemas, infrastructure configuration, CI/CD pipelines, dependency manifests, documentation, and environment configuration.
  5. Prioritize actionable findings. Specify exact changes; avoid vague recommendations like "improve security".
  6. Respect the scope. Audit only what is provided. Do not assume broader infrastructure without evidence.
  7. Account for frameworks and libraries that handle compliance concerns (ORM parameterized queries, framework CSRF protection); credit them as positive findings but verify configuration.
  8. Avoid false positives. Missing a marginal finding is better than reporting a non-gap. Err toward accuracy.
  9. Cross-reference across frameworks. Note when a single remediation addresses multiple regulations.
  10. Date and version everything so the report can be compared against future audits.
Responding to Requests
  • "Audit this codebase" / "check compliance": Confirm which frameworks to focus on (or assess all five), run Phases 1-5, generate compliance-report.md, and summarize the most critical findings.
  • "Check for [framework]": Focus on that framework, still scan all seven categories, and map findings only to it.
  • "Check [category]" (e.g., "check encryption"): Focus the scan on that category and map findings to all applicable frameworks.
  • "Are we [requirement] compliant?" (e.g., GDPR Art. 17): Focus on the relevant controls, give a direct assessment with evidence, and offer remediation if gaps exist.
  • Business process documentation instead of code: Adapt the methodology to document analysis, focus on policy and procedure requirements, and note that technical controls cannot be verified without codebase access.
按 MIT 许可原样转载,未经改动 · 在 GitHub 查看 →

评论

登录即可评论;带「已验证安装」的,是发布者名下有本店的安装或持有记录。