home / skills / williamzujkowski / cognitive-toolworks / security-assessment-orchestrator

security-assessment-orchestrator skill

/skills/security-assessment-orchestrator

This skill produces a unified, NIST CSF 2.0 aligned security posture across app, cloud, and infrastructure to prioritize remediation.

npx playbooks add skill williamzujkowski/cognitive-toolworks --skill security-assessment-orchestrator

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (2)
SKILL.md
23.1 KB
---
name: Security Assessment Orchestrator
slug: security-assessment-orchestrator
description: Comprehensive security assessment across application, cloud, container, IAM, network, OS, supply chain, and zero trust using NIST CSF 2.0.
capabilities:
  - Orchestrates 10 security-* skills for unified posture assessment
  - NIST CSF 2.0 alignment (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover)
  - Aggregated risk scoring (CVSS 4.0 + business context)
  - Cross-domain finding correlation and attack path analysis
  - Security maturity assessment (Crawl, Walk, Run)
  - Prioritized remediation roadmap with effort/impact estimates
inputs:
  - Assessment scope (application, infrastructure, cloud, full-stack)
  - Target environment (dev, staging, production, all)
  - Compliance requirements (NIST CSF, CIS, OWASP, FedRAMP, none)
  - Business context (asset criticality, data sensitivity, internet-facing)
  - Depth level (quick-scan, standard, comprehensive)
outputs:
  - Unified security findings with CVSS scores and context
  - NIST CSF 2.0 function coverage report
  - Security maturity score (0-10 per CSF function)
  - Attack path analysis with exploitability assessment
  - Prioritized remediation roadmap with timelines
keywords:
  - security assessment
  - nist csf
  - security orchestration
  - risk scoring
  - cvss
  - security posture
  - vulnerability management
  - compliance
  - security maturity
version: 1.0.0
owner: cognitive-toolworks
license: MIT
security:
  - Read-only assessment, no production system modification
  - Handles sensitive findings data (encrypt/restrict access)
  - Audit logging of all delegated security skill invocations
links:
  - https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
  - https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf
  - https://www.first.org/cvss/
  - https://securecontrolsframework.com/blog/nist-csf-20-assessment-guide/
---

## Purpose & When-To-Use

**Primary trigger conditions:**

- Pre-production security review required across all layers (app + infra + cloud)
- Compliance audit preparation (NIST CSF 2.0, ISO 27001, SOC 2, FedRAMP)
- Post-incident comprehensive security assessment
- Quarterly security posture review (enterprise practice)
- M&A due diligence security evaluation
- Board/executive request for unified security metrics
- Third-party security questionnaire requiring holistic assessment

**When NOT to use this skill:**

- Single-domain security check (use specific security-* skill directly)
- Real-time vulnerability scanning (use SAST/DAST/SCA tools)
- Penetration testing (requires manual testing, not framework assessment)
- Code-level security review (use security-appsec-validator alone)

**Value proposition:** Provides unified security posture across 10 security domains, correlates findings to identify attack paths, and prioritizes remediation based on CVSS 4.0 + business context. Organizations using comprehensive security orchestration reduce MTTD (Mean Time To Detect) by 62% and MTTR (Mean Time To Respond) by 74% compared to siloed assessments (IBM Security 2025).

## Pre-Checks

**Required inputs validation:**

```python
NOW_ET = "2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00"

assert assessment_scope in ["application", "infrastructure", "cloud", "full-stack"], "Valid scopes required"
assert target_environment in ["dev", "staging", "production", "all"], "Valid environment required"
assert compliance_requirements in ["nist-csf", "cis", "owasp", "fedramp", "none"]
assert depth_level in ["quick-scan", "standard", "comprehensive"], "Valid depth required"

# Business context validation
if business_context.get("internet_facing") and target_environment == "production":
    warn("Internet-facing production asset: elevating scan depth to comprehensive")

# Scope validation
required_skills = map_scope_to_skills(assessment_scope)
if len(required_skills) > 5 and depth_level == "comprehensive":
    estimate_duration = len(required_skills) * 15  # minutes per skill at T2
    warn(f"Comprehensive scan will invoke {len(required_skills)} skills, ~{estimate_duration} minutes")
```

**Authority checks:**

- Read access to target environments (no write/deploy permissions required)
- API/CLI credentials for cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP) if cloud scope
- Source code repository access if application scope
- Network scan permissions if infrastructure scope

**Source citations (accessed 2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00):**

- NIST CSF 2.0 (CSWP 29): https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf
- CVSS v4.0 Specification: https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/specification-document
- NIST CSF Assessment Guide: https://securecontrolsframework.com/blog/nist-csf-20-assessment-guide/
- IBM Security X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2025: Organizations using unified security reduce MTTD by 62%, MTTR by 74%

## Procedure

### Tier 1 (≤2k tokens): Quick Security Scan

**Goal:** Identify critical security risks across all domains in <15 minutes.

**Steps:**

1. **Map scope to skills** (determine which security-* skills to invoke)
   - `application` → security-appsec-validator
   - `infrastructure` → security-network-validator, security-os-validator
   - `cloud` → security-cloud-analyzer, security-iam-reviewer
   - `full-stack` → all 10 security-* skills

2. **Invoke skills in parallel** (T1 tier for each)
   - Set `check_level: critical-only` for all delegated skills
   - Collect findings with CVSS ≥7.0 (High/Critical severity only)
   - Timeout: 90 seconds per skill invocation

3. **Aggregate critical findings**
   - Deduplicate cross-skill findings (e.g., same IAM issue found by cloud + zerotrust skills)
   - Sort by CVSS score descending
   - Group by NIST CSF function (Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover, Govern)

4. **Quick risk scoring**
   - Calculate **Critical Risk Index (CRI)**: `(count_critical × 10) + (count_high × 5)`
   - If CRI >50 → **immediate action required**
   - If CRI 20-50 → **standard remediation timeline (30 days)**
   - If CRI <20 → **low priority (90 days)**

5. **Output quick wins** (top 3 highest-impact remediations)
   - Example: "Public S3 bucket with PII exposed (CVSS 9.8) → add bucket policy denying public access"
   - Example: "Overpermissive IAM role with admin access (CVSS 8.1) → apply principle of least privilege"
   - Example: "Unpatched OS vulnerability (CVE-2024-1234, CVSS 7.5) → apply security patch"

**Token budget checkpoint:** ~1.8k tokens for skill orchestration, aggregation, risk scoring, output formatting.

### Tier 2 (≤6k tokens): Comprehensive Security Assessment

**Goal:** Generate detailed security posture report with NIST CSF 2.0 alignment and prioritized remediation roadmap.

**Extends T1 with:**

6. **Invoke all in-scope skills at T2 depth**
   - Set `check_level: standard` for delegated skills
   - Collect all findings (CVSS ≥4.0, Medium/High/Critical)
   - Enable compliance checks where applicable (CIS Benchmarks, OWASP Top 10, etc.)

   **Skill invocation matrix:**

   | Domain | Skill | NIST CSF Functions | Compliance |
   |--------|-------|-------------------|------------|
   | Application | security-appsec-validator | Protect (PR.AC, PR.DS) | OWASP Top 10, API Top 10 |
   | Cloud | security-cloud-analyzer | Identify (ID.AM), Protect (PR.AC) | CIS Benchmarks, Well-Architected |
   | Container | security-container-validator | Protect (PR.IP) | CIS Docker/K8s |
   | Cryptography | security-crypto-validator | Protect (PR.DS) | FIPS 140-2 |
   | IAM | security-iam-reviewer | Protect (PR.AC) | CIS IAM |
   | Network | security-network-validator | Protect (PR.PT), Detect (DE.CM) | CIS Network |
   | OS | security-os-validator | Protect (PR.IP) | CIS OS Benchmarks |
   | Supply Chain | security-supplychain-validator | Identify (ID.SC), Govern (GV.SC) | NIST SSDF, SLSA |
   | Zero Trust | security-zerotrust-architect | Govern (GV.PO), Protect (PR.AC) | NIST SP 800-207 |
   | Zero Trust Assess | security-zerotrust-assessor | Identify (ID.RA) | CISA ZT Maturity |

7. **Cross-domain finding correlation**
   - Identify **attack paths**: chain findings across domains
     - Example: "Overpermissive IAM role (security-iam-reviewer) + public S3 bucket (security-cloud-analyzer) + weak encryption (security-crypto-validator) = complete data breach path"
   - Calculate **attack path exploitability**: multiply individual CVSS scores by 0.8 (cumulative risk)
   - Flag correlated findings with `attack_path_id` for tracking

8. **NIST CSF 2.0 coverage analysis**
   - Map findings to CSF Categories and Subcategories
   - Calculate **function coverage** (% of subcategories assessed vs total)
   - Generate coverage report:
     ```
     Govern (GV): 85% coverage (17/20 subcategories)
     Identify (ID): 90% coverage (27/30 subcategories)
     Protect (PR): 78% coverage (39/50 subcategories)
     Detect (DE): 65% coverage (26/40 subcategories)
     Respond (RS): 45% coverage (18/40 subcategories) ← low coverage, gap
     Recover (RC): 30% coverage (9/30 subcategories) ← low coverage, gap
     ```

9. **Security maturity assessment**
   - Evaluate maturity per NIST CSF function using SCF scoring (Conforms, Significant Deficiency, Material Weakness)
   - Assign maturity level (0-10 scale):
     - **Crawl (0-3)**: Ad-hoc, reactive, significant gaps
     - **Walk (4-6)**: Defined processes, some automation, moderate gaps
     - **Run (7-10)**: Optimized, automated, continuous improvement, minimal gaps
   - Calculate **overall security maturity score**: weighted average across 6 functions
     - Govern: 20% weight (highest priority in CSF 2.0)
     - Identify: 15%
     - Protect: 25% (largest function)
     - Detect: 15%
     - Respond: 15%
     - Recover: 10%

10. **Contextual risk scoring** (CVSS 4.0 + business factors)
    - Base CVSS score from vulnerability databases
    - **Business criticality multiplier** (1.0-2.0):
      - Mission-critical production asset: 2.0x
      - Production asset: 1.5x
      - Non-production: 1.0x
    - **Exploit intelligence modifier** (+0.5 to +2.0):
      - Active exploits in the wild: +2.0
      - PoC exploit available: +1.0
      - Theoretical exploit: +0.5
    - **Data sensitivity modifier** (+0.5 to +1.5):
      - PII/PHI/financial data: +1.5
      - Confidential business data: +1.0
      - Public data: +0.5
    - **Internet exposure modifier** (+1.0 if internet-facing)

    **Final risk score formula:**
    ```
    Risk Score = (CVSS × Business Multiplier) + Exploit Modifier + Data Modifier + Exposure Modifier
    ```

11. **Prioritized remediation roadmap**
    - Rank findings by **ROI** (risk reduction / effort):
      - Effort scale: Low (1 hour), Medium (1 day), High (1 week), Very High (1 month+)
      - ROI = `Final Risk Score / Effort Hours`
    - Group remediation into phases:
      - **Phase 1 (0-30 days)**: Critical (CVSS ≥9.0) + High-ROI (ROI >5)
      - **Phase 2 (31-90 days)**: High (CVSS 7.0-8.9) + Medium-ROI (ROI 2-5)
      - **Phase 3 (91-180 days)**: Medium (CVSS 4.0-6.9) + Low-ROI (ROI <2)
      - **Accepted Risk**: Low (CVSS <4.0) or business justification for deferral
    - Assign ownership (AppSec, CloudOps, NetOps, DevOps, Platform) per finding domain

12. **Generate comprehensive report**
    - **Executive summary**: Overall maturity score, CRI, top 5 risks, estimated remediation timeline
    - **Detailed findings**: Per-domain breakdown with CVSS scores, attack paths, remediation steps
    - **NIST CSF compliance**: Function coverage, maturity scores, gap analysis
    - **Remediation roadmap**: Phased timeline, ownership assignments, effort estimates

**Authority sources (accessed 2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00):**

- NIST CSF 2.0 Functions and Categories: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/framework
- CVSS v4.0 Base Metrics: https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/specification-document
- Secure Controls Framework (SCF) Maturity Model: https://securecontrolsframework.com/
- IBM X-Force 2025: 280,000+ CVEs in NVD, 32% YoY increase in vulnerability submissions

**Output:** JSON report with sections: executive_summary, findings_by_domain, nist_csf_coverage, security_maturity_assessment, attack_paths, prioritized_roadmap.

**Token budget checkpoint:** ~5.5k tokens (includes T1 + comprehensive skill orchestration + detailed analysis).

### T3: Enterprise Security Governance (≤12k tokens)

**Goal:** Deep governance alignment, continuous monitoring strategy, and board-level security metrics for organizations with >$100M revenue or regulatory requirements.

**Extends T2 with:**

13. **Continuous monitoring strategy**
    - Map findings to automated detection rules (SIEM, CSPM, CNAPP)
    - Recommend security tool stack (SAST, DAST, SCA, CSPM, CNAPP, EDR, SIEM)
    - Define SLA targets per severity: Critical (4h), High (24h), Medium (7d), Low (30d)

14. **Regulatory compliance mapping**
    - Cross-reference findings with specific compliance controls:
      - SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria (CC, A, PI, C, P)
      - ISO 27001:2022 Annex A controls
      - FedRAMP High baseline (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5)
      - PCI-DSS 4.0 requirements
    - Generate compliance gap report with remediation-to-compliance mapping

15. **Board-level security metrics**
    - **Cyber Risk Quantification (CRQ):** Dollar value of risk exposure (ALE = ARO × SLE)
    - **Security ROI:** Cost of remediation vs cost of breach (based on industry breach costs)
    - **Trend analysis:** Compare current vs previous assessment (quarterly tracking)
    - **Benchmark comparison:** Compare maturity vs industry peers (anonymized data)

16. **Third-party risk assessment**
    - Extend assessment to supply chain dependencies (npm, PyPI, Maven, container images)
    - Evaluate vendor security questionnaires against NIST CSF alignment
    - Recommend vendor security SLA requirements

17. **Incident response readiness**
    - Evaluate Respond (RS) and Recover (RC) function maturity
    - Validate incident response plan (IRP) against NIST CSF subcategories
    - Recommend tabletop exercise scenarios based on identified attack paths

**Authority sources (accessed 2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00):**

- NIST SP 800-61 Rev 3 (Incident Response): https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/61/r3/final
- Cyber Risk Quantification (Factor Analysis): https://www.fairinstitute.org/
- IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025: Average breach cost $4.88M (+10% from 2024)

**Output:** Full enterprise security governance package including CRQ analysis, compliance mapping, board metrics, continuous monitoring blueprint, and incident response readiness assessment.

**Token budget checkpoint:** ~11k tokens (includes T1 + T2 + enterprise-grade governance analysis).

## Decision Rules

**When to abort:**

- No access to target environment → insufficient permissions; emit access requirement checklist
- <3 security skills applicable to scope → use specific security-* skill directly, not orchestrator
- Contradictory compliance requirements (e.g., "FedRAMP High + no budget for controls") → document conflicts, request prioritization

**Ambiguity thresholds:**

- **Maturity scoring:** If <50% CSF subcategory coverage → report "Insufficient Coverage" instead of maturity score
- **Attack path correlation:** Only correlate findings if exploitability chain probability >30% (avoid false positives)
- **Risk prioritization:** If business context missing → use CVSS base score only (no multipliers) and flag as "incomplete risk assessment"

**Prioritization logic:**

1. **Severity-first:** Critical (CVSS ≥9.0) always ranked highest, regardless of ROI
2. **ROI-based:** Within same severity tier, rank by ROI (risk reduction / effort)
3. **Compliance-driven:** If compliance requirement specified, elevate findings mapped to that framework
4. **Internet-facing:** Public-facing production assets get +2 priority boost

**NIST CSF principle application (accessed 2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00):**

Per NIST CSF 2.0 (https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework):

- **"Govern first":** Prioritize Govern (GV) function findings, as they cascade to all other functions
- **"Continuous improvement":** Track maturity scores over time (quarterly assessments recommended)
- **"Risk-informed":** All recommendations incorporate risk tolerance and business impact

## Output Contract

**Schema (JSON):**

```json
{
  "assessment_metadata": {
    "timestamp": "2025-10-26T16:45:00-04:00",
    "scope": "full-stack",
    "environment": "production",
    "depth": "comprehensive",
    "skills_invoked": 10
  },
  "executive_summary": {
    "overall_maturity_score": 6.2,
    "critical_risk_index": 47,
    "total_findings": 142,
    "breakdown": {
      "critical": 3,
      "high": 18,
      "medium": 67,
      "low": 54
    },
    "top_5_risks": [
      {
        "finding_id": "IAM-001",
        "title": "Overpermissive admin role attached to 50+ users",
        "cvss": 8.8,
        "risk_score": 15.8,
        "domain": "iam"
      }
    ],
    "estimated_remediation_timeline": "90 days for all Critical+High findings"
  },
  "findings_by_domain": [
    {
      "domain": "application",
      "skill": "security-appsec-validator",
      "findings_count": 28,
      "findings": [
        {
          "id": "APP-001",
          "title": "SQL injection vulnerability in /api/users endpoint",
          "severity": "critical",
          "cvss": 9.8,
          "risk_score": 19.3,
          "owasp_category": "A03:2021 - Injection",
          "remediation": "Use parameterized queries, ORM with escaping",
          "effort": "medium",
          "owner": "appsec-team"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "nist_csf_coverage": {
    "govern": {"coverage_pct": 85, "maturity_score": 7.2},
    "identify": {"coverage_pct": 90, "maturity_score": 6.8},
    "protect": {"coverage_pct": 78, "maturity_score": 6.1},
    "detect": {"coverage_pct": 65, "maturity_score": 5.5},
    "respond": {"coverage_pct": 45, "maturity_score": 4.2},
    "recover": {"coverage_pct": 30, "maturity_score": 3.8}
  },
  "attack_paths": [
    {
      "path_id": "AP-001",
      "description": "Public S3 bucket → overpermissive IAM → PII data exfiltration",
      "exploitability": "high",
      "combined_risk_score": 17.6,
      "findings": ["CLOUD-012", "IAM-001", "CRYPTO-005"]
    }
  ],
  "prioritized_roadmap": [
    {
      "phase": "Phase 1 (0-30 days)",
      "findings_count": 21,
      "estimated_effort": "120 hours",
      "risk_reduction": 68.5,
      "items": [
        {
          "finding_id": "APP-001",
          "priority": 1,
          "action": "Remediate SQL injection vulnerabilities",
          "owner": "appsec-team",
          "effort": "medium",
          "roi": 12.3
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}
```

**Required fields:** assessment_metadata, executive_summary (with maturity_score, CRI, total_findings), nist_csf_coverage, prioritized_roadmap.

**Optional fields:** attack_paths (only if correlations found), findings_by_domain (can be filtered by severity).

## Examples

```yaml
# Example: Full-stack security assessment for production SaaS application
input:
  assessment_scope: full-stack
  target_environment: production
  compliance_requirements: nist-csf
  business_context:
    asset_criticality: mission-critical
    data_sensitivity: pii-phi
    internet_facing: true
  depth_level: comprehensive

output:
  overall_maturity: 6.2 (Walk tier)
  critical_risk_index: 47 (immediate action)
  findings: 142 total (3 critical, 18 high, 67 medium, 54 low)
  top_risks:
    1. SQL injection (CVSS 9.8, risk_score 19.3)
    2. Overpermissive IAM (CVSS 8.8, risk_score 15.8)
    3. Public S3 bucket with PII (CVSS 8.6, risk_score 15.2)
  attack_paths:
    - Public S3 → IAM escalation → PII exfiltration (risk 17.6)
  roadmap:
    Phase 1 (0-30d): 21 items, 120h effort, 68.5 risk reduction
    Phase 2 (31-90d): 45 items, 280h effort, 24.3 risk reduction
    Phase 3 (91-180d): 76 items, 450h effort, 7.2 risk reduction
```

## Quality Gates

**Token budgets (enforced):**
- **T1**: ≤2,000 tokens - quick security scan with critical findings only (CVSS ≥7.0)
- **T2**: ≤6,000 tokens - comprehensive assessment with NIST CSF alignment, maturity scoring, attack path analysis, and prioritized roadmap
- **T3**: ≤12,000 tokens - enterprise governance with CRQ, compliance mapping, board metrics, continuous monitoring, and incident response readiness

**Accuracy requirements:**

- CVSS scores must match official NVD/vendor advisories (no estimation)
- Maturity scores validated against NIST CSF 2.0 subcategory criteria
- Attack path correlations verified for logical exploitability chain

**Safety constraints:**

- **Read-only assessment:** No modification of production systems, configurations, or data
- **Secure finding storage:** Encrypt findings at rest, restrict access to security team + executives
- **Audit trail:** Log all skill invocations with timestamps, scopes, and results

**Auditability:**

- Cite specific NIST CSF subcategories for each finding
- Document maturity scoring methodology (SCF criteria used)
- Include timestamps and data sources for all CVSS scores

**Determinism:**

- Same inputs + same environment state → same findings and scores
- Configurable thresholds (CRI limits, maturity boundaries, ROI minimums)

## Resources

**Official NIST CSF 2.0 documentation:**

- NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
- CSWP 29 (CSF 2.0 Specification): https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf
- CSF 2.0 Assessment Resources: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/assessment-auditing-resources

**Risk scoring and vulnerability management:**

- CVSS v4.0 Specification: https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/specification-document
- CVSS v4.0 Calculator: https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0
- NVD (National Vulnerability Database): https://nvd.nist.gov/

**Security frameworks and standards:**

- CIS Benchmarks: https://www.cisecurity.org/cis-benchmarks
- OWASP Top 10 2021: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/
- OWASP API Security Top 10: https://owasp.org/API-Security/
- NIST SP 800-207 (Zero Trust Architecture): https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/207/final

**Compliance and governance:**

- Secure Controls Framework (SCF): https://securecontrolsframework.com/
- FedRAMP Baselines: https://www.fedramp.gov/baselines/
- SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria: https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2

**Industry research:**

- IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach
- Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2025: https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/

**Related skills:**

This meta-skill orchestrates the following specialist skills:

- `security-appsec-validator`: Application security (OWASP Top 10)
- `security-cloud-analyzer`: Cloud security posture (AWS, Azure, GCP)
- `security-container-validator`: Container and Kubernetes security
- `security-crypto-validator`: Cryptography and encryption validation
- `security-iam-reviewer`: Identity and access management review
- `security-network-validator`: Network security and segmentation
- `security-os-validator`: Operating system hardening
- `security-supplychain-validator`: Software supply chain security
- `security-zerotrust-architect`: Zero trust architecture design
- `security-zerotrust-assessor`: Zero trust maturity assessment

**Complementary skills:**

- `compliance-oscal-validator`: OSCAL-formatted compliance validation
- `compliance-fedramp-validator`: FedRAMP-specific compliance
- `compliance-automation-engine`: Automated compliance monitoring

Overview

This skill orchestrates comprehensive security assessments across application, cloud, container, IAM, network, OS, supply chain, and zero trust domains, aligned to NIST CSF 2.0. It produces prioritized, actionable remediation roadmaps, correlated attack paths, and a NIST CSF coverage and maturity report. Designed for pre-production reviews, compliance prep, post-incident analysis, and executive reporting.

How this skill works

The orchestrator maps the requested scope to domain-specific validator skills and invokes them at a chosen depth (quick, standard, comprehensive). It aggregates and deduplicates findings, correlates cross-domain issues into attack paths, scores risk using CVSS 4.0 plus business context modifiers, and generates a JSON report with executive summary, findings, attack paths, NIST CSF coverage, maturity assessment, and a prioritized remediation roadmap. Tiers scale from a fast critical-only scan to enterprise governance and continuous monitoring recommendations.

When to use it

  • Before production releases or major deployments for a full-stack security review
  • Preparing for compliance audits (NIST CSF 2.0, ISO 27001, SOC 2, FedRAMP)
  • After a security incident to identify root causes and chained attack paths
  • Quarterly or periodic posture reviews to measure maturity and track remediation progress
  • M&A or third-party due diligence requiring unified security metrics and coverage

Best practices

  • Provide read access and API/CLI credentials for target environments; confirm permissions before running
  • Choose depth appropriate to risk: quick-scan for triage, comprehensive for compliance or production assets
  • Supply accurate business context (internet-facing, business criticality, data sensitivity) so risk scoring uses correct multipliers
  • Use the orchestrator for cross-domain correlation; for single-domain checks, call the dedicated validator skill directly
  • Review assigned ownership and effort estimates and convert the roadmap phases into ticketed remediation work

Example use cases

  • Rapid critical-only scan before a production launch to identify top 3 urgent fixes
  • Full-stack comprehensive assessment for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 readiness with NIST CSF 2.0 mapping
  • Post-breach analysis that correlates IAM, cloud, and app findings into an attack path and remediation plan
  • Quarterly enterprise review producing board-level metrics, Cyber Risk Quantification, and continuous monitoring blueprint
  • M&A due diligence delivering a prioritized security remediation list and maturity benchmark

FAQ

What inputs are required to run an assessment?

Assessment scope, target environment, compliance requirement, depth level, and minimal business context (internet-facing, criticality). Read access and provider credentials are required for in-scope assets.

When will the orchestrator abort the assessment?

It will abort if required access is missing, fewer than three relevant domain skills apply, or compliance requirements are contradictory; in each case it emits an access or conflict checklist.

How are findings prioritized?

Severity-first (CVSS ≥9.0 top), then ROI within the same severity, with compliance-mapped findings and internet-facing production assets elevated per decision rules.

What outputs are produced?

A JSON report containing executive_summary, findings_by_domain, nist_csf_coverage, security_maturity_assessment, attack_paths, and a prioritized_roadmap.