a2a-security-review
Review agent-to-agent (A2A) / multi-agent-system trust: peer identity and authentication, message integrity, capability-negotiation trust, and delegation-chain…
Gap-assess an AI system or program against a responsible-AI / governance framework — NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act, OECD principles — covering governance, transparency, accountability, human oversight, documentation, and monitoring, then produce a prioritized roadmap.
$ npx -y skills add jassics/awesome-claude-security --skill responsible-ai-assessment --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/responsible-ai-assessmentContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Gap-assess an AI system or program against a responsible-AI / governance framework — NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act, OECD principles — covering governance, transparency, accountability, human oversight, documentation, and monitoring, then produce a prioritized roadmap.
name: responsible-ai-assessment description: >- Gap-assess an AI system or program against a responsible-AI / governance framework — NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act, OECD principles — covering governance, transparency, accountability, human oversight, documentation, and monitoring, then produce a prioritized roadmap. Use for AI governance, audit readiness, or compliance gap analysis.
A governance gap analysis: where the system/program stands against the chosen framework(s), the gaps, and a prioritized roadmap to close them.
1. **Pick the framework(s)** for the context:
minimal); high-risk triggers specific obligations.
(See `harm-modeling/reference.md` for the framework map.) 2. **Assess each control/function**: governance & accountability (who owns AI risk), risk mapping (intended use, harms — reuse `harm-modeling`), measurement (evals, bias, monitoring — reuse `safety-evaluation`, `bias-fairness-assessment`), transparency (model/data cards, user disclosures), human oversight, data governance, incident response, and ongoing monitoring/drift. 3. **Score each** (e.g. absent / partial / met) with evidence. 4. **Prioritize the roadmap** by risk (and regulatory deadline, for EU AI Act high-risk), with owners.
A gap-analysis table: framework area · requirement · status · evidence · gap · priority · owner, plus a phased roadmap. Use `security-reporting` for the report and an executive summary for leadership; this feeds a CISO/CTO or `ai-safety-engineer` program view.
Governance ties the technical safety work (harm modeling, evals, guardrails, fairness) to organizational accountability and regulation. Start by classifying the use case's risk tier — it determines how much rigor each control needs. Verify current framework versions and any jurisdiction-specific obligations.
A Claude Code plugin marketplace for the full cybersecurity & GenAI-security lifecycle — from recon and threat modeling to detection engineering, GRC, and CISO-level strategy. A pentester knows which OWASP test bends a broken-access-control endpoint.
Repo: jassics/awesome-claude-security
Review agent-to-agent (A2A) / multi-agent-system trust: peer identity and authentication, message integrity, capability-negotiation trust, and delegation-chain…
Test the agent execution harness/runtime itself — LangChain/LangGraph, AutoGen, CrewAI, custom ReAct-style loops, or computer-use/browser-use agents — for…
Assess an autonomous / tool-using AI agent for security end-to-end: tool privileges, autonomy and approval boundaries, excessive agency, memory/state…
Test what an AI agent will actually do without human confirmation, including under injected-goal / prompt-injection scenarios, to validate its autonomy and…
Review the security of MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers/clients an agent uses: server trust tier, tool/resource description and result poisoning,…
Inventory the tools/functions an AI agent can call and audit their privileges, side effects, and approval requirements to find excessive-agency and…