agentsclimarketplace

Nist 800 53

Skill tinh2/skills-hub-registry/analysis/nist-800-53

Open registry of community-contributed AI coding skills (SKILL.md files) — daily-synced to skills-hub.ai. Install across Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, Windsurf, Copilot, and any MCP-compatible tool with one command.

Install
npx -y skills add tinh2/skills-hub-registry --skill nist-800-53

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

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 8 stars8 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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Map a cloud system against NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 + FedRAMP baselines to produce the documentation an authorization needs — System Security Plan (SSP), Control Implementation Summary (CIS), Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M), Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) Plan. Aware of 2026 FedRAMP CR26 changes (Certification Classes A/B/C/D replacing Pilot/Ready/Low/Li-SaaS/Moderate/High; JAB authorization model deprecated). Walks the 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR, PM) — for each control + control enhancement applicable to the chosen class, generates an implementation statement template referencing your actual stack (AWS/Azure/GCP/Kubernetes/Terraform/CI/CD), customer/provider responsibility mapping, inheritance from underlying CSP (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCC High), evidence collection mapping (screenshots, configs, scan reports), and 30/90/180-day remediation timelines per finding severity. TRIGGER on "NIST 800-53", "FedRAMP", "ATO", "SSP", "POA&M", "ConMon", "continuous monitoring", "FISMA", "RMF", "DoD CC SRG", "IL2/IL4/IL5/IL6", "STIG", "control inheritance", "3PAO", "FedRAMP authorization".

SKILL.md

14.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

NIST 800-53 / FedRAMP Authorization Engine

You map a cloud system to NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 controls and produce the documentation an authorization needs. FedRAMP demands SSP documentation often over 300 pages, plus CIS, POA&M, and ConMon plan — and 3PAO + PMO will reject anything boilerplate.

2026 landscape (CR26):

  • Certification Classes replace Impact Levels: A (Pilot/Ready), B (Li-SaaS/Low), C (Moderate), D (High).
  • JAB authorization model is gone — Agency authorization is the path.
  • Monthly ConMon required across all classes — vulnerability scans, POA&M updates, inventory changes, executive summary.
  • Remediation timelines enforced: 30 days (high), 90 days (moderate), 180 days (low).

============================================================ === PRE-FLIGHT ===

  • System boundary defined: what's in scope? Components, data flows, interconnections, customer data, customer responsibility.
  • Certification Class target: A / B / C / D — drives # of controls (~325 for C, ~421 for D).
  • Underlying CSP: AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCC High, on-prem. Drives inheritable controls (the CSP carries some PE/SC/SI/AC controls).
  • 3PAO selected: required for assessment. Pick from FedRAMP marketplace.
  • Agency sponsor: required since JAB is gone. Agency PMO sponsors authorization.
  • Existing posture: SOC 2 Type II completed? StateRAMP? ISO 27001? Substantial uplift if any.

Recovery:

  • If system boundary is ambiguous, force the user to draft a system architecture diagram + data flow diagram before continuing. Without boundary, controls don't have scope.
  • For "FedRAMP Tailored" / Li-SaaS path: scope is narrower (Class A or B) — 130-160 controls.

============================================================ === PHASE 1: BOUNDARY + INVENTORY ===

Generate system_boundary.md with:

  1. Authorization Boundary Diagram (ABD) — every component, interface, external connection.
  2. Data Flow Diagram (DFD) — how customer data enters, processes, stores, leaves.
  3. Inventory — hosts, containers, databases, queues, secrets stores, identity providers. Linked to a CMDB (Datadog, AWS Config, ServiceNow).
  4. Interconnections — every external API, every shared boundary with another system. ICA (Interconnection Security Agreement) required for shared boundaries.

VALIDATION: Boundary diagram + DFD + inventory all consistent — every box in the ABD appears in the DFD and inventory.

============================================================ === PHASE 2: CONTROL APPLICABILITY MATRIX ===

For your Certification Class, enumerate the applicable controls + enhancements from 800-53 Rev. 5:

FamilyControls Class C countSample controls
AC (Access Control)25+AC-2, AC-3, AC-4, AC-5, AC-6, AC-7, AC-11, AC-17, AC-22
AT (Awareness & Training)4AT-1, AT-2, AT-3, AT-4
AU (Audit & Accountability)14+AU-2, AU-3, AU-6, AU-9, AU-12
CA (Assessment, Authorization)9CA-2, CA-3, CA-5, CA-7, CA-9
CM (Configuration Management)12CM-2, CM-3, CM-6, CM-7, CM-8, CM-10
CP (Contingency Planning)13CP-2, CP-3, CP-4, CP-9, CP-10
IA (Identification & Authentication)11IA-2 (incl. MFA enhancements), IA-5, IA-8
IR (Incident Response)10IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-7, IR-8
MA (Maintenance)6MA-2, MA-3, MA-4
MP (Media Protection)8MP-2, MP-4, MP-5, MP-6
PE (Physical & Environmental)17PE-2, PE-6, PE-12, PE-14 (usually inherited from CSP)
PL (Planning)11PL-2, PL-4, PL-8
PS (Personnel Security)9PS-3, PS-4, PS-7
PT (PII Processing & Transparency)new in Rev 5PT-1, PT-2, PT-3
RA (Risk Assessment)10RA-3, RA-5, RA-9
SA (System & Services Acquisition)22SA-4, SA-8, SA-11, SA-22
SC (System & Communications)30+SC-7, SC-8, SC-12, SC-13, SC-17, SC-23
SI (System & Information Integrity)17SI-2, SI-3, SI-4, SI-7, SI-10
SR (Supply Chain Risk Mgmt)new in Rev 5SR-3, SR-5, SR-6, SR-11
PM (Program Management)enterprise-levelPM-1, PM-2, PM-7

Mark each control as:

  • Customer Responsibility (you implement)
  • Provider Responsibility (CSP — inherited; reference CSP's FedRAMP package)
  • Shared (both — split the implementation)
  • Hybrid (system & customer)

VALIDATION: Every applicable control assigned an owner.

============================================================ === PHASE 3: IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENTS (SSP CORE) ===

For each Customer Responsibility / Shared / Hybrid control, draft an implementation statement. FedRAMP rejects boilerplate — be specific.

Template per control:

### AC-2: Account Management

#### Implementation Status

- [x] Implemented
- [ ] Partially Implemented
- [ ] Planned
- [ ] Alternative Implementation
- [ ] Not Applicable

#### Implementation Description

{Tenant accounts are managed via {Identity Provider, e.g., AWS IAM Identity Center / Okta}
with the following lifecycle:

a. Account types: ...
b. Provisioning: SCIM-based push from HRIS (Workday) on hire.
c. Authorization workflow: tickets in JIRA Service Management with approval from manager + security.
d. Deprovisioning: automated on termination event from HRIS within {N} minutes; manual review at {cadence}.
e. Quarterly access review: documented in Confluence; failed reviews opened as POA&M items.

Evidence:

- Screenshot of Identity Provider console
- Sample provisioning ticket
- Sample quarterly review report
- Automated test in security CI: `tests/AC-2.test.ts`}

#### Customer Responsibility

{If shared/hybrid — explicit statement of what the customer agency must do.}

#### Control Enhancements Implemented

- AC-2(1) Automated System Account Management: ...
- AC-2(2) Removal of Temporary / Emergency Accounts: ...
- ...

Generate one per applicable control. Output ssp/controls/{family}-{number}.md.

VALIDATION: Each implementation statement references SPECIFIC tools, processes, evidence locations. No "documented elsewhere" placeholders.

============================================================ === PHASE 4: POA&M GENERATION ===

Plan of Action & Milestones tracks every control NOT fully implemented + every finding from scans / assessments.

Schema:

{
  "poam_id": "POAM-2026-0042",
  "weakness": "AC-2(11): Account Use Conditions — circumstances and usage restrictions not documented for service accounts.",
  "control": "AC-2(11)",
  "severity": "Moderate",
  "discovered_date": "2026-05-01",
  "discovered_by": "Internal review",
  "current_status": "Ongoing",
  "scheduled_completion": "2026-08-01",
  "remediation_plan": "Document service-account usage conditions in Confluence runbook; automate enforcement via IAM policy.",
  "milestones": [
    { "date": "2026-06-01", "milestone": "Runbook drafted, peer reviewed" },
    { "date": "2026-07-01", "milestone": "IAM policy templates updated" },
    {
      "date": "2026-08-01",
      "milestone": "All service accounts compliant; closing POA&M"
    }
  ],
  "resources_required": "1 FTE-week security engineering",
  "vendor_dependency": false
}

Timelines (enforced per FedRAMP):

  • High severity: 30 days
  • Moderate: 90 days
  • Low: 180 days

VALIDATION: Every POA&M item has milestones + deadline + owner.

============================================================ === PHASE 5: CONTINUOUS MONITORING (CONMON) PLAN ===

Monthly ConMon deliverables required across all classes:

  1. Vulnerability Scans — authenticated scans of all in-boundary hosts (Tenable, Qualys, Nessus). Web app scans (OWASP ZAP, Burp Pro). Container scans (Snyk, Aqua). All scan results uploaded to FedRAMP repository.
  2. POA&M Updates — status changes, new findings, closures.
  3. Inventory Changes — added/removed/changed components.
  4. Configuration Drift — compare current state to baselines (CIS, DISA STIGs).
  5. Executive Summary — 2-3 page agency-facing summary.

Generate conmon_plan.md with monthly cadence, tooling, evidence retention rules (1-year minimum per FedRAMP).

Plus Annual Assessment by 3PAO (Class C/D), Significant Change notifications.

VALIDATION: Plan covers all 5 monthly artifacts + annual assessment cadence.

============================================================ === PHASE 6: 3PAO READINESS ===

Pre-assessment checklist before 3PAO engagement:

  • SSP complete (Phase 3)
  • CIS (Control Implementation Summary) — 1-line per control of who owns what
  • POA&M current
  • Recent vulnerability scans (within 30 days)
  • ConMon plan documented
  • Incident Response Plan tested (tabletop exercise within 12 months)
  • Contingency Plan tested (DR exercise within 12 months)
  • Penetration test scheduled with 3PAO (required for Class C/D)
  • Privacy Impact Assessment (if PII processed)
  • Supply Chain Risk Management plan (SR family)
  • FIPS 140-3 validated crypto modules in use (where required)

VALIDATION: All checklist items have evidence pointers.

============================================================ === PHASE 7: PACKAGE & SUBMISSION ===

fedramp-package/
├── README.md
├── ssp/
│   ├── core.md                   # exec summary + boundary
│   ├── controls/                 # one MD per control
│   └── attachments/
│       ├── ABD.png
│       ├── DFD.png
│       ├── ICA-{partner}.pdf
│       └── ...
├── cis/
│   └── control_implementation_summary.xlsx
├── poam/
│   └── poam_2026Q2.xlsx
├── conmon/
│   └── conmon_plan.md
├── policies/                     # 20+ org policies (AC-1, AT-1, AU-1, etc.)
└── evidence/                     # screenshots, scan results, test outputs
    └── 2026-05/

Submit to FedRAMP via OMB Max + agency sponsor.

VALIDATION: Package structure matches FedRAMP template. All required attachments present.

============================================================ === SELF-REVIEW ===

  • Complete: Boundary + control matrix + SSP + POA&M + ConMon + 3PAO checklist?
  • Robust: Inheritance correctly mapped to underlying CSP? Class-appropriate control set?
  • Clean: Each implementation statement references specific tools / evidence (no boilerplate)?
  • FedRAMP-credible: Would a 3PAO or PMO reviewer accept the SSP as substantive?

Common gap: claiming "implemented" without evidence pointer. Every control needs traceable evidence.

============================================================ === LEARNINGS CAPTURE ===

~/.claude/skills/nist-800-53/LEARNINGS.md.

============================================================ === STRICT RULES ===

  • Never use boilerplate implementation statements. 3PAO + PMO will reject.
  • Never claim an inherited control without referencing the CSP's authorization package + Customer Responsibility Matrix.
  • Never miss a ConMon month. Lapses jeopardize authorization.
  • Never miss POA&M remediation deadlines (30/90/180 days). Late POA&Ms trigger agency conditional authorization or revocation.
  • Always reference CR26 Certification Classes (A/B/C/D), not legacy Low/Mod/High. The labels changed in 2026.
  • Always confirm FIPS 140-3 (not 140-2) crypto module validation — 140-2 sunset 2026.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. 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.