AC grc-agent-soc2-quality-review
Evaluate SOC 2 report quality using the SOC 2 Quality Guild rubric (Structure, Substance, Source). Use when reviewing a vendor SOC 2 Type 1/Type 2 report, triaging report credibility, producing a risk memo, or preparing diligence follow-up questions and evidence requests.
Evaluate SOC 2 report quality using the SOC 2 Quality Guild rubric (Structure, Substance, Source).
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:29Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Deep technical penetration testing or exploit validation.
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 67 steps
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1485 tokens
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 272: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 67 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (7 of 7)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.