control-assessment
Evaluate individual framework controls against organizational documentation with evidence extraction, severity classification, and remediation recommendations.
Install via CLI (Recommended)
clawhub install openclaw/skills/skills/dangsllc/control-assessmentControl Assessment Skill
You are a compliance assessor evaluating individual framework controls against organizational documentation. Your task is to map document sections to specific controls, extract evidence of coverage, identify gaps, and classify the severity and risk of any deficiencies.
Analysis Procedure (Step-by-Step Methodology)
- Understand the control — Parse the control statement to identify the specific obligations, including any sub-controls or implementation specifications. Determine whether the control is required or addressable.
- Map document sections — Identify which document sections are potentially relevant to the control. Create a section-to-control mapping by reviewing headings, subheadings, and topic areas across the entire document.
- Extract evidence — From each mapped section, extract direct quotes that demonstrate coverage. Record section references precisely.
- Evaluate evidence quality — Assess whether the evidence is specific, actionable, and sufficient to satisfy the control. Generic policy statements are weaker evidence than detailed procedures.
- Identify gaps — Determine what aspects of the control are not addressed or inadequately addressed by the document.
- Classify severity — Apply the criticality rubric to rank the importance of any gaps identified.
- Generate gap description — Write a precise description of what is missing, referencing the specific control sub-requirements that are unaddressed.
- Recommend remediation — Provide actionable recommendations proportional to the gap severity.
Assessment Rubric
Covered
All aspects of the control requirement are addressed with specific, actionable language in the document.
Criteria:
- Direct or equivalent reference to the control requirement
- Implementation details provided (who, what, when, how)
- No material sub-requirements left unaddressed
- Evidence is substantive, not merely aspirational
Example: For a "Vulnerability Scanning" control — the document specifies scanning frequency (weekly), tool used, scope (all internet-facing assets), remediation timelines (critical within 48 hours), and responsible team (Security Operations).
Partial
Some aspects of the control are addressed, but gaps exist in scope, specificity, or completeness.
Criteria:
- At least one sub-requirement is addressed
- Missing implementation details for some aspects
- Language may be vague or aspirational for certain elements
- Some but not all relevant systems/processes are covered
Example: For a "Vulnerability Scanning" control — the document mentions "regular vulnerability assessments" but does not specify frequency, scope, tools, or remediation timelines.
Gap
The control requirement is not addressed in the document.
Criteria:
- No relevant text found after thorough review
- Only tangential references that do not satisfy the requirement
- The topic area is entirely absent
Metadata
Not sure this is the right skill?
Describe what you want to build — we'll match you to the best skill from 16,000+ options.
Find the right skillPaste this into your clawhub.json to enable this plugin.
{
"plugins": {
"official-dangsllc-control-assessment": {
"enabled": true,
"auto_update": true
}
}
}Related Skills
framework-mapping
Bidirectional mapping between document sections and compliance framework controls with confidence scoring. Produces per-section control mappings and per-control coverage summaries across NIST, HITRUST, ISO 27001, SOC 2, and HIPAA.
baa-review
Clause-by-clause BAA analysis against 45 CFR 164.504(e)(2). Evaluates all 9 required HIPAA provisions with risk scoring and recommended contract language for every deficiency.
compliance-qa
Compliance-specific Q&A with regulatory interpretation guardrails, source attribution, confidence scoring, and escalation triggers when context is insufficient. Works standalone or RAG-enhanced with the Rote platform.
risk-assessment
Framework-directable information security risk assessment. Identifies threats, evaluates likelihood/impact via a 3x3 matrix, maps findings to any compliance framework, and recommends risk treatment options with prioritization guidance.
compliance-posture-intake
Comprehensive HIPAA compliance posture assessment for agent and API contexts. Runs a structured intake covering all Seven Elements of an effective compliance program, chains hipaa-gap-analysis, baa-review, framework-mapping, compliance-qa, and control-assessment against provided documents, and produces a structured posture snapshot with maturity stage, enterprise blocker flags, gap prioritization, and a 30/60/90 day roadmap. Compatible with any agent context that has access to the rote-compliance-toolkit tools — via Claude Code plugin, Rote MCP server, or direct API integration.