Cloud Governance Reviewer

Cloud Governance Reviewer

Purpose

Review naming, tags, ownership, cost centers, allowed services, regions, data classification, policy enforcement, and audit evidence. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• cloud governance decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects cloud governance artifacts such as naming standard, tag policy, ownership register, cost center map, allowed-service list, region policy.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unowned resource, untagged cost, forbidden region, unapproved service, data classification gap, policy drift.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant cloud governance artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as resource inventory, policy compliance report, tag coverage, budget owner, classification label, audit export.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: naming standard, tag policy, ownership register, cost center map, allowed-service list, region policy.
• Risk themes: unowned resource, untagged cost, forbidden region, unapproved service, data classification gap, policy drift.
• Evidence signals: resource inventory, policy compliance report, tag coverage, budget owner, classification label, audit export.
• Ownership, approvals, review cadence, exception handling, and residual-risk decisions.
• Traceability from requirement or control intent to implementation, validation, and retained evidence.

Skill-Specific Checklist

• Confirm the review boundary covers the right cloud governance systems, teams, and environments.
• Inventory and inspect the current naming standard.
• Check whether tag policy is current, approved, versioned, and owned.
• Verify that ownership register has test, ticket, log, or approval support.
• Look for unowned resource and record concrete repository or process evidence.
• Look for untagged cost and identify affected assets, services, or stakeholders.
• Look for forbidden region and classify the operational or audit impact.
• Use resource inventory to validate that the control or practice is operating.
• Use policy compliance report to confirm ownership, timing, and reproducibility.
• Check exception, risk-acceptance, and expiry handling for cloud governance.
• Confirm remediation items have owners, due dates, validation steps, and evidence expectations.
• Identify missing artifacts separately from weak artifacts so the next action is unambiguous.
• Review whether logging, reporting, or retained evidence exposes sensitive data unnecessarily.

Decision Rules

• If naming standard is missing for a critical service, raise at least a high-severity readiness gap.
• If policy compliance report cannot be tied to an owner and approval, treat the outcome as unauditable until corrected.
• If cost center map is present but expired or untested, require validation before accepting residual risk.
• If the only support is verbal or chat-only context, request durable ticket, document, log, or test evidence.
• If remediation would require a process or architecture decision, assign a decision owner instead of prescribing legal conclusions.
• If compensating measures reduce likelihood but not impact, keep the residual-risk statement explicit.

Finding Categories

• Missing or stale cloud governance artifact.
• Unclear ownership, approval, review cadence, or accountability.
• Insufficient validation, test proof, logs, ticket trail, or retained audit material.
• Unreviewed exception, residual risk, expiry, or compensating measure.
• Policy, architecture, operational, or platform implementation drift.
• Sensitive-data exposure in logs, reports, prompts, artifacts, or evidence packages.

Severity Guidance

• Critical: a gap in cloud governance creates immediate outage, data-loss, privilege, regulatory-reporting, or irreversible business risk.
• High: naming standard is missing, unowned, untested, or unauditable for a critical service or material change.
• Medium: tag policy exists but is stale, incomplete, inconsistently enforced, or weakly evidenced.
• Low: wording, metadata, formatting, link freshness, or minor traceability improvements are needed.

DevSecOps Guardrails

• Do not read secrets, .env files, private keys, production credentials, masked CI/CD variables, database dumps, or sensitive logs unless explicitly required.
• Do not push, deploy, publish, merge, or create releases unless explicitly asked.
• Prefer merge requests, reviewable diffs, and auditable validation evidence.
• Prefer least privilege, minimal changes, and explicit rollback notes.
• Do not fabricate test results, repository state, commands, security findings, or validation outcomes.
• Report assumptions, uncertainty, residual risk, and validation gaps clearly.

Output Requirements

• Findings ordered by severity with affected cloud governance artifacts and evidence references.
• Coverage note for reviewed artifacts: naming standard, tag policy, ownership register, cost center map, allowed-service list, region policy.
• Risk note covering relevant themes: unowned resource, untagged cost, forbidden region, unapproved service, data classification gap, policy drift.
• Evidence request list using expected signals: resource inventory, policy compliance report, tag coverage, budget owner, classification label, audit export.
• Deliverables or updates needed: cloud governance findings, tagging backlog, ownership gap report, policy enforcement plan, audit evidence summary.
• Residual-risk, assumptions, missing-context, and validation-gap summary.

Acceptance Criteria

• Relevant cloud governance artifacts are identified, current, owned, and versioned where applicable.
• Each high-impact finding includes evidence, impact, likelihood, owner, and remediation guidance.
• Missing evidence is separated from failed controls or weak implementation.
• Exceptions and risk acceptances include owner, rationale, expiry, and compensating measures.
• Recommendations are review-oriented and avoid presenting regulatory interpretation as legal advice.
• Final output states pass, conditional pass, or blocked readiness with validation gaps.

Anti-Patterns

• Treating a policy title or control name as proof that the practice operates effectively.
• Collapsing missing evidence and failed implementation into one vague finding.
• Accepting open-ended exceptions without owner, expiry, impact, likelihood, and compensating measures.
• Making legal, regulatory, or audit conclusions beyond the available evidence and review scope.
• Recommending broad process rewrites when a targeted owner, test, ticket, or evidence fix is enough.
• Copying sensitive production data into examples, evidence packages, prompts, or reports.

Changelog

0.1.0 - 2026-07-28

• Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill.