research
Start or resume an academic research project — idea through literature, methodology, writing, feedback, and publishing
Week-over-week automation coverage analysis with ROI narrative
> /plugin marketplace add GRCEngClub/claude-grc-engineeringHow it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/automation-coverageContext preview
What this command does when you run it.
Week-over-week automation coverage analysis with ROI narrative
description: Week-over-week automation coverage analysis with ROI narrative allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash
Report how much of your control portfolio is covered by automated evidence this week, how that compares to last week, and what the trend says about the GRC engineering work.
This is where GRC engineers prove their worth. Manual evidence is expensive and doesn't scale. Shifting a control from manual to automated is the engineering work that compounds. This command surfaces that work so leadership sees it.
Invoke `context-bootstrap`. Week-over-week analysis requires history:
If history is thin (0 or 1 runs, or runs clustered in the last few days), this command's empty-context path is the one users will hit. Do not fabricate a delta. Walk the user through:
Prefer operator-observed metric rows. Capability baselines derived from toolkit config are useful for setup and planning, but should not be presented as proof that a given environment already automated those controls.
Apply `automation-coverage-analysis` for the delta analysis and ROI framing. Apply `so-what-translation` for business-impact translation.
Do not infer manual → automated state from `evaluations[].remediation.automation` in Findings. That field describes remediation effort, not evidence-collection coverage.
Structure:
# Automation Coverage - <period> ## Headline <One sentence. Coverage moved from X% to Y%. Z new controls automated this week.> ## Coverage Snapshot | Framework | Total controls | Automated this period | Previous period | Delta | |---|---|---|---|---| | <fw> | <n> | <n (%)> | <n (%)> | <+/- n (+/- pp)> | ## What Moved This Period ### Gains - <Metric-supported gain, and named controls only when the source data or operator notes explicitly identify them> ### Regressions (if any) - <Only include when the source data explicitly records the regression and the cause> ## ROI Framing <If prior-period manual evidence took X hours per cycle and the automated version is effectively free, this is the compounded saving. Avoid fake precision. Use honest ranges.> ## Next Targets <Top 5 manually-evidenced controls by cost (frequency x hours) when the program tracks them. Otherwise, list next automation themes rather than pretending you have control-level precision.> ## Appendix Current-period run: <run_id> Previous-period run: <run_id> Period delta: <days>
Write to `./grc-reports/automation-coverage-<period>.md`. Offer:
# Current week, all frameworks /report:automation-coverage # Specific week /report:automation-coverage 2026-W16 # SOC 2 and FedRAMP only /report:automation-coverage 2026-W16 soc2,fedramp-moderate
Open-source GRC Engineering resource for Claude. claude-grc-engineering turns technical evidence from cloud, SaaS, code, and security tools into framework-aligned findings, gap reports, remediation guidance, evidence packages, and OSCAL workflows.
Repo: GRCEngClub/claude-grc-engineering
Start or resume an academic research project — idea through literature, methodology, writing, feedback, and publishing
Query AWS for compliance-relevant configuration across IAM, S3, CloudTrail, EBS, and emit findings conforming to the v1 contract.
Install the frdocx-to-froscal-ssp Python pipeline and verify its dependencies. Idempotent.
Retrieve a single AWS Secrets Manager secret value to stdout or a 0600-permission file. Opt-in retrieval mode — never writes to the findings cache.
Run testssl.sh against one or more HTTPS endpoints and emit v1 Findings mapped to SOC 2, NIST 800-53, PCI DSS 4.0.1, ISO 27001, and SCF controls.