# Dora Readiness Reviewer > Describe what this skill helps an agent do. - Skill: `domehahn/dora-readiness-reviewer-2` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 10 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add domehahn/dora-readiness-reviewer-2` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/domehahn/dora-readiness-reviewer-2/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: domehahn (https://skillmd.com/u/domehahn) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/domehahn/dora-readiness-reviewer-2 --- # Dora Readiness Reviewer ## Purpose Review DORA readiness for ICT risk management, resilience testing, ICT incidents, third-party risk, roles, policies, evidence, and auditability. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice. ## When to use - DORA readiness and ICT auditability decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review. - A change affects DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts such as ICT risk framework, resilience test plan, incident procedure, third-party register, role matrix, policy set. - The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unowned DORA capability, untested critical function, missing incident evidence, outsourcing blind spot, policy without approval, audit trail gap. - 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary. 2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as risk acceptance record, test protocol, incident timeline, contract inventory, management approval, evidence package. 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: ICT risk framework, resilience test plan, incident procedure, third-party register, role matrix, policy set. - Risk themes: unowned DORA capability, untested critical function, missing incident evidence, outsourcing blind spot, policy without approval, audit trail gap. - Evidence signals: risk acceptance record, test protocol, incident timeline, contract inventory, management approval, evidence package. - 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability systems, teams, and environments. - [ ] Inventory and inspect the current ICT risk framework. - [ ] Check whether resilience test plan is current, approved, versioned, and owned. - [ ] Verify that incident procedure has test, ticket, log, or approval support. - [ ] Look for unowned DORA capability and record concrete repository or process evidence. - [ ] Look for untested critical function and identify affected assets, services, or stakeholders. - [ ] Look for missing incident evidence and classify the operational or audit impact. - [ ] Use risk acceptance record to validate that the control or practice is operating. - [ ] Use test protocol to confirm ownership, timing, and reproducibility. - [ ] Check exception, risk-acceptance, and expiry handling for DORA readiness and ICT auditability. - [ ] 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 ICT risk framework is missing for a critical service, raise at least a high-severity readiness gap. - If test protocol cannot be tied to an owner and approval, treat the outcome as unauditable until corrected. - If third-party register 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability creates immediate outage, data-loss, privilege, regulatory-reporting, or irreversible business risk. - High: ICT risk framework is missing, unowned, untested, or unauditable for a critical service or material change. - Medium: resilience test plan 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 DORA readiness and ICT auditability artifacts and evidence references. - Coverage note for reviewed artifacts: ICT risk framework, resilience test plan, incident procedure, third-party register, role matrix, policy set. - Risk note covering relevant themes: unowned DORA capability, untested critical function, missing incident evidence, outsourcing blind spot, policy without approval, audit trail gap. - Evidence request list using expected signals: risk acceptance record, test protocol, incident timeline, contract inventory, management approval, evidence package. - Deliverables or updates needed: DORA readiness gap list, auditability matrix, evidence request list, policy and role remediation plan, residual readiness risk summary. - Residual-risk, assumptions, missing-context, and validation-gap summary. ## Acceptance Criteria - Relevant DORA readiness and ICT auditability 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.