Ict Third Party Risk Reviewer

Ict Third Party Risk Reviewer

Purpose

Review cloud, SaaS, outsourcing, subcontractors, contracts, exit strategies, concentration risks, and DORA information-register readiness. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• ICT third-party risk decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects ICT third-party risk artifacts such as provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unlisted subcontractor, weak exit clause, concentration exposure, missing data location, untracked outsourcing dependency, contract evidence 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 ICT third-party risk artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as contract clause, provider assessment, service criticality, suboutsourcing notice, exit-test result, register update.
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: provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.
• Risk themes: unlisted subcontractor, weak exit clause, concentration exposure, missing data location, untracked outsourcing dependency, contract evidence gap.
• Evidence signals: contract clause, provider assessment, service criticality, suboutsourcing notice, exit-test result, register update.
• 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 ICT third-party risk systems, teams, and environments.
• Inventory and inspect the current provider inventory.
• Check whether cloud contract is current, approved, versioned, and owned.
• Verify that SaaS data-flow has test, ticket, log, or approval support.
• Look for unlisted subcontractor and record concrete repository or process evidence.
• Look for weak exit clause and identify affected assets, services, or stakeholders.
• Look for concentration exposure and classify the operational or audit impact.
• Use contract clause to validate that the control or practice is operating.
• Use provider assessment to confirm ownership, timing, and reproducibility.
• Check exception, risk-acceptance, and expiry handling for ICT third-party risk.
• 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 provider inventory is missing for a critical service, raise at least a high-severity readiness gap.
• If provider assessment cannot be tied to an owner and approval, treat the outcome as unauditable until corrected.
• If subcontractor list 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 ICT third-party risk 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 ICT third-party risk creates immediate outage, data-loss, privilege, regulatory-reporting, or irreversible business risk.
• High: provider inventory is missing, unowned, untested, or unauditable for a critical service or material change.
• Medium: cloud contract 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 ICT third-party risk artifacts and evidence references.
• Coverage note for reviewed artifacts: provider inventory, cloud contract, SaaS data-flow, subcontractor list, exit plan, information register fields.
• Risk note covering relevant themes: unlisted subcontractor, weak exit clause, concentration exposure, missing data location, untracked outsourcing dependency, contract evidence gap.
• Evidence request list using expected signals: contract clause, provider assessment, service criticality, suboutsourcing notice, exit-test result, register update.
• Deliverables or updates needed: third-party risk report, DORA register gap list, exit readiness findings, concentration risk summary, contract remediation items.
• Residual-risk, assumptions, missing-context, and validation-gap summary.

Acceptance Criteria

• Relevant ICT third-party risk 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.