agentsclimarketplace

Vendor risk

Skill eyesecurity/skills/plugins/complisec/skills/vendor-risk

ACTIVATE when integrating a new service, API, SaaS tool, SDK, npm/pip/maven package, Docker image, or any third-party dependency — or when discussing suppliers, vendors, processor agreements, or supply chain security. Also activate on imports from unknown packages or adding external webhooks/endpoints. Ensures every new vendor or dependency is assessed against the org's critical assets, data residency, and NIS2 Art. 21(2)(d) supply chain requirements.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add eyesecurity/skills --skill vendor-risk

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 7 stars7 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Vendor Risk Management

Every new integration is a supply chain decision. No vendor gets access without assessment.

Storage

  • Vendor assessments: .compliance/vendors/VND-YYYY-NNN-slug.json — one file per assessment
  • Approved vendor summary: profile.jsonsuppliers[] — kept in sync after approval

Vendor assessment record

One JSON per vendor assessment. Created on first contact, updated through lifecycle.

{
  "assessment_id": "VND-2026-001-hubspot",
  "vendor_name": "HubSpot",
  "status": "proposed | under-review | approved | conditional | rejected | offboarded",
  "assessed_at": "ISO 8601",
  "assessed_by": "agent | user",
  "type": "saas | infra | service | library | api",
  "data_shared": ["klantdata", "email", "contactgegevens"],
  "criticality": "critical | important | standard",
  "touches_critical_assets": ["Klant-administratiedata (CRM)"],
  "checks": {
    "dpa_signed": false,
    "hosting_location": "EU (Ireland)",
    "hosting_compliant": true,
    "certification": "SOC2 Type II",
    "access_scope": "API read/write to CRM contacts",
    "least_privilege": true,
    "exit_strategy": "CSV export available"
  },
  "decision": "approved | conditional | rejected",
  "decision_reasoning": "Why this decision was made",
  "conditions": ["DPA must be signed before go-live"],
  "review_date": "ISO 8601 — next scheduled review",
  "timeline": [
    { "timestamp": "ISO 8601", "action": "what happened", "actor": "who" }
  ]
}

Vendor lifecycle

1. Identify

When the agent detects a new vendor (user mentions a tool, code imports a new SDK, API call to unknown service):

  • Check profile.suppliers — is this vendor already known?
  • If unknown: flag immediately and start the assessment

2. Assess

CheckQuestionFail =
Data flowWhat data does this vendor access or receive?If it touches a critical asset → criticality = critical
DPA/processor agreementIs a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed?Required if personal data is shared (GDPR Art. 28)
Hosting locationWhere is data stored/processed?If org has data residency constraints → check compliance
Security postureDoes the vendor have ISO 27001, SOC2 Type II, or equivalent?No certification for critical vendor = HIGH risk
Access scopeWhat systems/APIs does the vendor need access to? Least privilege?Broader than necessary = flag
Exit strategyCan you extract your data and switch vendors?Vendor lock-in on critical asset = risk

3. Decide

OutcomeWhenAction
ApproveAll checks pass, DPA in place, hosting compliantAdd to profile.suppliers with status "approved"
ConditionalMinor gaps (e.g. DPA pending, certification in progress)Approve with deadline for remediation, flag for follow-up
RejectFails data residency, no DPA possible, touches critical asset without security postureDo not integrate. Log decision via audit-logging

4. Monitor

  • Set contract_review_date — review vendors annually at minimum, critical vendors every 6 months
  • When a vendor's certification expires or a breach is disclosed: re-assess
  • Track vendor incidents — if a vendor reports a breach, start incident-management lifecycle

5. Offboard

When a vendor relationship ends:

  • Revoke all access (API keys, accounts, network access)
  • Verify data deletion or return per DPA terms
  • Set offboard_date and status: "offboarded"
  • Log via audit-logging

Triggers for the agent

The agent flags a vendor risk event when:

  • Code imports a new external dependency (pip install, npm install, new API client)
  • User discusses integrating a new SaaS tool
  • Code makes HTTP calls to a domain not in the approved supplier list
  • A vendor's contract_review_date is past due
  • The agent discovers an undocumented data flow to an external service

Agent instructions

  1. When a new vendor or service appears in conversation or code, check profile.suppliers. Unknown = create assessment record in .compliance/vendors/ and start the lifecycle.
  2. Cross-reference vendor data access against profile.critical_assets. Touches a critical asset = criticality=critical.
  3. Check data residency constraints from profile.constraints. Flag hosting location violations.
  4. For every vendor decision, log an ADR via audit-logging (policy_ref: "NIS2 Art. 21(2)(d)").
  5. On approval: add vendor to profile.suppliers and set review_date.
  6. Remind about overdue reviews based on review_date.
  7. On offboard: verify access revocation, update assessment record, set status "offboarded".

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most operations skills give in ~1.2k tokens

Counted across 483 of the 484 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Collect monitoring data throughout the simulationin 14 of 483, across 6 files
  • Set the random seed for reproducibilityin 14 of 483, across 6 files
  • Validate simulations against analytical solutionsin 12 of 483, across 4 files
  • Clarify goals, constraints, and inputsin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Implement contract tests for integration pointsin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Implement strangler fig infrastructure with API gatewayin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Audit modernized components for security vulnerabilitiesin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Avoid Python blocking calls in processesin 10 of 483, across 3 files
  • Use resource context managers for automatic cleanupin 9 of 483, across 2 files
  • Maintain consistent time unitsin 9 of 483, across 2 files
  • Validate outcomes against success criteriain 8 of 483, across 1 file
  • Analyze the legacy codebase for technical debtin 8 of 483, across 1 file

Said here and by no other author read

  • flag unknown vendors immediately
  • create an assessment record for unknown vendors
  • cross-reference data access against critical assets
  • check data residency constraints
  • log every vendor decision via audit-logging
  • add approved vendors to the supplier list

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.