gensecaihq/wazuh-autopilot/compliance-mapping

Claude Code and agent skill by gensecaihq/wazuh-autopilot

Trust tier 2
  • community
LLM review pending
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Map incidents, control checks and SCA results to ISO 27001:2022, PCI DSS v4.0.1, NIST SP 800-53r5 and CIS Controls v8.1 and write auditor-ready evidence statements; use for compliance checks, audit questions, or incidents on regulated assets.

Install

npx vskill@latest install gensecaihq/wazuh-autopilot/compliance-mapping

SKILL.md

Compliance Mapping

Translate security evidence into control language auditors accept. You report status and gaps; you don't certify compliance.

Tools

NeedTool
Framework checkrun_compliance_check(framework="PCI-DSS", agent_id=...); framework is one of PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOX, GDPR, NIST, ISO27001; omit agent_id for the whole environment
CIS benchmark / SCA results per agentget_sca_policy_checks(agent_id)
ISO 27001 postureget_iso27001_dashboard
ISO 27001 gapsget_iso27001_gap_analysis
One ISO controlget_iso27001_control_detail(control_id="A.8.16")
Alerts tagged to ISO controlsget_iso27001_alerts
Wazuh compliance tags

Stock Wazuh rules declare compliance mappings as groups in the ruleset (pci_dss_10.2.4, gdpr_IV_32.2, hipaa_164.312.b, nist_800_53_AC.7, tsc_CC6.1, gpg13_7.1). In alerts Wazuh emits them as arrays: rule.pci_dss, rule.gdpr, rule.hipaa, rule.nist_800_53, rule.tsc, rule.gpg13. For example, rule 5712 (sshd brute force) carries PCI DSS 10.2.4 / 10.2.5 / 11.4, NIST 800-53 AC.7 / AU.14 / SI.4, HIPAA 164.312.b and TSC CC6.1 / CC6.8 / CC7.2 / CC7.3.

  • Use them as evidence hints: get_wazuh_alerts on the scope and period, then count

alerts per tag to show that monitoring for a requirement is producing events.

  • They map detections to requirements. They don't prove a control is effective.

Pair them with SCA results (get_sca_policy_checks) for configuration requirements.

  • There is no ISO 27001 tag in the stock ruleset. The MCP ISO tools

(get_iso27001_*) do that mapping server-side.

  • The PCI tags refer to the requirement numbering the rule was written against. Check

it against v4.0.1 wording before citing it in an audit statement.

Load wazuh-sca-hardening for CIS benchmark and SCA detail (rule 19011 is a check that went from passed to failed, level 9).

Framework anchors (category level — cite specific controls only when confident)

TopicISO 27001:2022 Annex APCI DSS v4.0.1NIST 800-53r5CIS v8.1
Logging & monitoringA.8.15 Logging, A.8.16 Monitoring activitiesReq 10AU family, SI-4Control 8
Incident managementA.5.24–A.5.28Req 12.10IR familyControl 17
Vulnerability mgmtA.8.8 Management of technical vulnerabilitiesReq 6, Req 11RA-5, SI-2Control 7
Access control / accountsA.5.15–A.5.18, A.8.2, A.8.5Req 7, Req 8AC, IA familiesControls 5, 6
Configuration / hardeningA.8.9 Configuration managementReq 2CM familyControl 4
Malware protectionA.8.7Req 5SI-3Control 10
File integrityA.8.9 / A.8.16 (supporting)Req 11.5 (change detection)SI-7Control 3 (data protection, supporting)
Network securityA.8.20–A.8.22Req 1SC familyControls 12, 13

Procedure

  1. Define scope: framework, assets (agent ids / groups), period.
  2. Run the relevant checks; collect pass/fail counts and failing items.
  3. For incidents: identify which controls failed or worked (e.g. detection worked →

monitoring control effective; unpatched CVE exploited → vulnerability management gap).

  1. Write evidence statements and gaps.

Evidence statement format

Control: ISO 27001:2022 A.8.16 Monitoring activities
Status: Effective | Partially effective | Not effective | Not assessed
Evidence: Wazuh agents active on 142/145 in-scope hosts (get_wazuh_agents, 2026-03-24);
INC-0042 detected within 4 minutes of initial access.
Gap: 3 hosts without active agents (list); no alerting on log-collector errors
(ask platform-engineer for ingestion health evidence).
Recommendation: <action + owner role>

Be factual: cite tool, date, and numbers. "Not assessed" beats guessing.

Output

  • save_report(kind="compliance", title, body_md) for audits: scope, summary score per

framework, control table, gaps with priority.

  • On incidents, add_finding titled Compliance impact listing affected controls and

any notification obligations a human must review (e.g. PCI incident response, breach-notification regimes). standard_refs: e.g. ISO-27001:A.8.16, PCI-DSS-4:10, NIST-800-53r5:SI-4, CIS-v8.1:8.

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewNot runA model review is scheduled for the next rescan.

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

Source

Popularity

Repository stars
60
Repository forks
15
7-day trend score
0

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/gensecaihq/wazuh-autopilot/compliance-mapping/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/gensecaihq/wazuh-autopilot/compliance-mapping)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.