Aegis

What /aegis does

Closes the AI governance proof-gap (Grant Thornton 2026: 78% of execs can't pass a 90-day AI governance audit; only ~20% have a tested agent incident-response plan). You point it at an AI system/repo; it produces two evidence-backed artifacts scored against the NIST AI RMF with ISO/IEC 42001 + EU AI Act crosswalk tags:

1. Audit-Readiness Report — scored gap analysis + prioritized 90-day fix list.
2. Agent Incident-Response Playbook — kill switch, rollback, containment, escalation, and a runnable tabletop test.

It works by the hybrid evidence model: scan for what code can prove, then interview only for the org/policy controls code can't prove. Conservative by design — absence of evidence is a gap, not a free pass.

Files this skill uses

• rubric.json — 26 controls with nist_rmf subcategory mapping, evidence signals, interview questions, ISO/EU crosswalk + applicability, severity. (Control IDs are AEGIS-prefixed — they are NOT NIST subcategory numbers; the real NIST mapping is the nist_rmf field.)
• reference.md — adjudication rules, scoring, crosswalk note, and the two output templates. Read it before scoring.
• scripts/proof-gap-scan.py — deterministic, read-only evidence scanner.

Workflow

Step 0 — Resolve the target

Target path = $1 if given, else the current directory. Tell the user what you're about to audit.

Step 1 — Scan for evidence

Run the scanner and read its JSON:

python3 scripts/proof-gap-scan.py "<target>"

• If it returns {"error": ..., "mode": "interview-only"} (target isn't a directory) → announce interview-only mode (graceful degradation) and skip to Step 3 using the full rubric.
• If looks_like_ai_repo is false → warn the user this may not be an AI system before continuing.
• The scanner reports evidence: strong (control-specific file) / candidate (generic file) / weak (keyword only) / none. This is candidate evidence, not a verdict.

Step 1.5 — Establish classification (do this early)

Adjudicate AEGIS-GOV-03 (regulatory applicability register) first, interviewing if needed: is the system prohibited / high-risk / limited / minimal? GPAI? Are you provider or deployer? This determines which EU-conditional controls are in scope vs marked NA. Do not apply EU obligations as if universal.

Step 2 — Adjudicate controls against evidence

Read reference.md §3 (adjudication rules). For each control with strong / candidate / weak evidence:

• Open the matched path(s). Judge: does this artifact actually implement/document the control, or just mention it?
• Assign VERIFIED_FILE / PARTIAL / GAP per the rules. Never score VERIFIED_FILE off a bare keyword or a generic file without inspecting the path.

Step 3 — Targeted interview (only for what code can't prove)

For policy/hybrid controls that ended Step 2 as none/candidate/weak-unresolved, ask their interview_question. Batch into one concise round (use AskUserQuestion where it helps). Rules:

• A concrete, specific answer → ATTESTED (label it as attested; it scores less than file evidence).
• A vague answer, "I think so," declined, or skipped → GAP. Never a free pass.
• Don't interview code controls that scored none — those are simply GAPs.

Step 4 — Score

Per reference.md §4 (VERIFIED_FILE = 1.0, ATTESTED = 0.75, PARTIAL = 0.5, GAP = 0, NA excluded): compute per-function readiness %, overall severity-weighted readiness %, assign the band, and rank gaps by severity × effort.

Step 5 — Write the Audit-Readiness Report

Use the template in reference.md §6. Write markdown to artifacts/proof-gap/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<target-slug>-audit.md, then render an HTML twin at the same path with .html (follow references/html-as-llm-output.md — scannable, scorecard-style). <target-slug> = basename of the target.

Step 6 — Write the Agent Incident-Response Playbook

Use the template in reference.md §7. Tailor every section to the detected system (tools it can reach, blast radius, where it runs). Write markdown + HTML twin to artifacts/proof-gap/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<target-slug>-ir-playbook.{md,html}. The tabletop test (§8 of the template) is mandatory — it's what closes the "tested plan" gap.

Step 7 — Summarize in chat

Report: overall readiness % + band, a one-line per-function breakdown, and the top 3 prioritized fixes. Give the two artifact paths. Offer to open the HTML.

Guardrails

• Conservative scoring. Absence of evidence = GAP. Skipped/vague attestation = GAP. Defensibility over flattery — self-report is the exact weakness of the survey that named this problem.
• Read-only. Never modify the target. The scanner never writes to it.
• Crosswalk = indicative + conditional. ISO 42001 / EU AI Act tags help locate the matching clause; they are not legal advice or certified equivalence. EU obligations are conditional on the system's classification (AEGIS-GOV-03) — most apply only to high-risk systems. State applicability; never present a conditional obligation as universal. The report footer must say so.
• Local artifact only. The report can contain sensitive system detail. Write it to artifacts/proof-gap/ and do not share/publish externally unless the user explicitly asks.
• Don't invent evidence. If you can't see it and the user can't attest to it specifically, it's a gap.
• No self-certification of the rubric. The rubric/crosswalk was adversarially reviewed by Codex (No-Self-Review Law) on 2026-06-02; re-review after material rubric changes.

Notes

• category in the rubric: code (provable by scan), policy (needs attestation), hybrid (either).
• Severity: 1 good-practice · 2 important · 3 critical/blocking for an audit.
• To extend coverage, add controls to rubric.json — no code change needed; the scanner is config-driven.