Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bestagentkits/agency-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-reviewWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bestagentkits/agency-skills/ciso-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00057 | $0.00846 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00423 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
ciso-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/cs:ciso-review — CISO Forcing Questions
Command: /cs:ciso-review <plan>
The risk-paranoid threat-modeler. Six questions before any production change that touches customer data or compliance scope.
When to Run
- Before deploying any system that touches PII / PHI / cardholder data
- Before signing a new vendor with data access
- Before a compliance audit (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR)
- Before any architecture decision crossing trust boundaries
- After any near-miss incident
The Six CISO Questions
1. Threat Model
What's the STRIDE threat model for this system, and which threat is most likely?
- Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Info Disclosure, DoS, Elevation of Privilege.
- Pick the top 3 by likelihood × impact.
2. Blast Radius
If this is fully compromised, what data is exposed and how many users are affected?
- Worst case in plain English.
- Quantify in dollars via FAIR-based ALE.
3. Detection
What signals indicate compromise, and how long until they're triggered (MTTD)?
- Logs alone are not detection.
- Define the detection rule, the alert, and the on-call.
4. Response
Is there an IR runbook for this scenario, and has it been tabletop-tested?
- If no runbook: build one before ship.
- If untested: tabletop before ship.
5. Regulatory Window
What's the regulator notification window if this scenario occurs?
- GDPR: 72h. HIPAA: 60d. State breach laws vary.
- Pre-write the customer comms template.
6. Vendor & Supply Chain
Which third-party vendors are in scope, and what's their security posture?
- Subprocessor list current?
- DPAs in place?
- Last security review per vendor?
Workflow
python ../../../skills/ciso-advisor/scripts/risk_quantifier.py
python ../../../skills/ciso-advisor/scripts/compliance_tracker.py
Output Format
# CISO Review: <plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## Threat Model
- Top threat: <STRIDE category> — <description>
- Likelihood: H/M/L | Impact: H/M/L
- ALE: $X / year
## Blast Radius
- Data exposed (worst case): <description>
- Users affected: N
- Estimated cost: $X
## Detection
- MTTD target: X hours
- Current MTTD: X hours
- Detection rule: <name>
## Response
- IR runbook: ✅ / ❌
- Last tabletop: <date>
## Regulatory
- Frameworks in scope: SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA / GDPR
- Notification window: X hours/days
## Vendors
- New vendors added: N
- DPAs signed: N / N
- Security reviews complete: N / N
## Verdict
🟢 SHIP | 🟡 MITIGATE THEN SHIP | 🔴 BLOCK
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 114 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A a47d486042ea
ciso-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bestagentkits/agency-skills (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 846 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
eu-ai-act-reviewer
Review user journeys, public content, and codebases for potentially relevant EU AI Act provisions, with exact official citations, evidence gaps, application dates, and plain-language next actions. Use for EU AI Act issue-spotting, not final legal or compliance decisions.
assess-ip-landscape
Map the intellectual property landscape for a technology domain or product area. Covers patent cluster analysis, white space identification, competitor IP portfolio assessment, freedom-to-operate preliminary screening, and strategic IP positioning recommendations. Use before starting R&D in a new technology area, when…
design-compliance-architecture
Design a compliance architecture that maps applicable regulations to computerized systems. Covers system inventory, criticality classification (GxP-critical, GxP-supporting, non-GxP), GAMP 5 category assignment, regulatory requirements traceability, and governance structure definition. Use when establishing a new…
design-training-program
Design a GxP training programme covering training needs analysis by role, curriculum design (regulatory awareness, system-specific, data integrity), competency assessment criteria, training record retention, and retraining triggers for SOP revisions and incidents. Use when a new validated system requires user training…
conduct-gxp-audit
Conduct a GxP audit of computerized systems and processes. Covers audit planning, opening meetings, evidence collection, finding classification (critical/major/minor), CAPA generation, closing meetings, report writing, and follow-up verification. Use for scheduled internal audits, supplier qualification audits…
decommission-validated-system
Decommission a validated computerized system at end-of-life. Covers data retention assessment by regulation, data migration validation (mapping, transformation, reconciliation), archival strategy, access revocation, documentation archival, and stakeholder notification. Use when a validated system is being replaced…