v1.0.0 to v1.0.0

---

name: compliance-claim-checker

id: compliance-claim-checker

version: "1.0.0"

title: "Compliance Claim Checker"

type: skill

description: "Review documentation and PRs for federal compliance claims (FedRAMP, NIST, OWASP, Section 508) and flag uncited or overclaimed statements — without asserting compliance itself"

status: experimental

owners:

- "@GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-team"

primary_personas:

- developers

- security

requires:

anchors: []

output:

format: markdown

contract:

required_sections:

- "Summary"

- "Findings"

prohibited_content:

- "Secrets"

- "Real PII"

- "Real CUI"

- "Internal URLs"

- "New Compliance Assertions"

quality_gates:

readability_max_grade: 10

citations_required: false

triggers:

- "compliance claim"

- "FedRAMP"

- "NIST"

- "Section 508"

- "authorized"

- "compliant"

- "overclaim"

tags:

- "security"

- "compliance"

- "documentation"

- "citations"

categories:

- "security"

- "compliance"

- "documentation"

risk_tier: low

human_review_required: true

allowed_tools: []

network_policy: deny

write_policy: deny

script_policy: deny

portability:

opencode: true

cursor: true

claude_projects: true

chatgpt: true

generic_llm: true

scope:

intended_use:

- "Review docs, READMEs, and PR descriptions for compliance claims"

- "Flag compliance statements that lack a citation to an authoritative source"

- "Flag overclaiming (e.g. 'FedRAMP certified', 'NIST compliant') beyond what evidence supports"

- "Point authors at the playbook's federal source registry for correct citations"

exclusions:

- "Does NOT determine or assert whether something is actually compliant"

- "Not a substitute for an ATO, assessor, or authorizing official"

- "Not legal advice; does not interpret regulation"

- "Does not scan code for vulnerabilities (see secure-code-review)"

source_inspiration: [] # No external source; grounded in the playbook's own registry.

changelog:

- version: "1.0.0"

date: "2026-07-01"

change_type: minor

summary: "Initial version — flags uncited/overclaimed federal compliance statements, verifies citations against the playbook federal-ai-landscape registry, asserts no compliance itself."

---

# Skill: Compliance Claim Checker

Review documentation, READMEs, and pull-request text for **federal compliance

claims** — statements asserting alignment with FedRAMP, NIST (SP 800-53, AI RMF,

SSDF), OWASP, Section 508, or similar — and flag claims that are **uncited** or

**overclaimed**.

> **This skill checks claims; it does not certify compliance.** It never asserts

> that anything *is* compliant, authorized, or certified. Authoritative policy

> and control content live in the

> [agentic-coding-playbook](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook);

> this skill points authors there and defers all determinations to it. It is not

> legal advice.

## When to Use

- Reviewing a README, doc, or PR that claims compliance ("FedRAMP authorized",

"meets NIST 800-53", "508 compliant", "OWASP Top 10 covered")

- Before publishing federal-facing documentation that references standards

- When an author cites a framework and you need to confirm the citation is real,

current, and not overstated

## When NOT to Use

- To *decide* whether a system is compliant — that is an assessor / authorizing

official function, not this skill's

- As evidence for an ATO package

- To interpret a regulation's meaning (not legal advice)

## Prerequisites

- Access to the text being reviewed (doc, README, or PR body)

- Access to the playbook's federal source registry for citation verification:

[`FEDERAL-AI-LANDSCAPE.md`](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook/blob/main/docs/FEDERAL-AI-LANDSCAPE.md)

and its machine-readable source

[`data/federal-ai-landscape.yaml`](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook/blob/main/data/federal-ai-landscape.yaml)

## Procedure

### 1. Extract compliance claims

Scan the text for statements that assert alignment with, or authorization under,

a standard or authority. Treat these claim-signal phrases as triggers:

- Authorization/certification: "authorized", "certified", "accredited", "has an

ATO", "FedRAMP authorized", "in the FedRAMP marketplace"

- Conformance: "compliant with", "meets", "conforms to", "aligned with",

"satisfies", "fully implements"

- Framework names: FedRAMP, NIST SP 800-53, NIST AI RMF, NIST SSDF (800-218/218A),

FISMA, Section 508, OWASP (LLM/Agentic/Top 10), OMB memoranda (M-YY-NN), ISO 42001

### 2. Classify each claim

For each extracted claim, classify it:

| Class | Definition |

|-------|------------|

| **Cited & scoped** | Names a specific source AND scopes the claim (e.g. "implements the AC-6 least-privilege control per NIST SP 800-53") |

| **Uncited** | Asserts alignment but names no source, control, or version |

| **Overclaimed** | Asserts more than evidence supports — e.g. "certified"/"authorized"/"fully compliant" where only *alignment with practices* is shown, or a whole-framework claim from partial coverage |

| **Stale/incorrect citation** | Cites a source that is superseded, rescinded, or misidentified |

### 3. Verify citations against the playbook registry

For every cited framework/memo, confirm against the playbook's

`federal-ai-landscape.yaml` registry that:

- The source **exists** and is identified correctly (right document number/title)

- Its **status** is current — flag citations to entries marked `rescinded`,

`revoked`, or `superseded` (e.g. a doc citing a rescinded OMB memo as live

guidance)

- The claim doesn't misattribute a control or requirement to the wrong source

If a cited source is **not in the registry**, do not assume it is wrong — flag it

as "unverified against the registry" and note the registry may need the entry

added (a tracker gap), rather than asserting the citation is invalid.

### 4. Distinguish "certified" from "aligned"

Apply this bright line, which is the most common overclaim:

- **"Certified" / "authorized" / "accredited" / "has an ATO"** are *status*

claims granted by an external authority (a 3PAO, an AO, the FedRAMP PMO). A

document MUST NOT assert these unless it cites the authorizing artifact.

- **"Aligned with" / "implements the practices of" / "designed to meet"** are

*effort* claims and are acceptable when scoped and cited.

Recommend downgrading status claims to effort claims when no authorizing artifact

is cited.

### 5. Report — never assert compliance

Produce the output below. The report:

- **Flags** problems and **suggests** citations or rewordings

- **Never** states that the subject *is* compliant/authorized/certified

- Points the author to the playbook for authoritative policy and to the registry

for correct citations

- When unsure whether a claim is overstated, flags it for human judgment rather

than clearing it

## Output Contract

```markdown

## Summary

<1-3 sentences: how many claims found, how many flagged, overall risk of overclaiming.>

## Findings

For each flagged claim:

- **Claim (quoted):** "<the exact text>"

- **Location:** <file/section/line>

- **Class:** uncited | overclaimed | stale-citation | unverified-against-registry

- **Why flagged:** <one sentence>

- **Suggested fix:** <add citation to <source> | downgrade "certified" → "aligned with" | correct/refresh the citation | remove the claim>

## Notes

- Registry gaps: <any cited source not found in federal-ai-landscape.yaml that may need adding>

- This review checks claims only; it does not determine compliance. See the playbook for authoritative policy.

```

## Verification

- Every flagged claim quotes the original text and names a class and a fix

- The report makes **no** new compliance assertion of its own (check the output

against the `New Compliance Assertions` prohibited-content rule)

- Every "verify against the registry" step names the specific registry entry

(or explicitly notes the source is absent from the registry)

## Examples

### Example 1 — overclaim (status vs effort)

Input: `> This service is FedRAMP compliant and NIST 800-53 certified.`

Finding:

- **Class:** overclaimed

- **Why:** "FedRAMP compliant" and "800-53 certified" are authorization/status

claims with no cited authorizing artifact (ATO letter, FedRAMP marketplace

listing). "Certified" is not a status NIST 800-53 confers.

- **Suggested fix:** downgrade to "designed to align with NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

controls" and, if an ATO exists, cite it; otherwise remove the FedRAMP status

claim.

### Example 2 — uncited claim

Input: `Our pipeline follows secure software development best practices.`

Finding:

- **Class:** uncited

- **Suggested fix:** cite the source if a specific one is meant (e.g. "follows

NIST SP 800-218 SSDF practices") or reword to avoid implying a standard.

### Example 3 — stale citation

Input: `Per OMB M-24-10, our agency's AI governance…`

Finding:

- **Class:** stale-citation

- **Why:** the registry marks M-24-10 as rescinded/superseded; the live OMB AI

governance memo is M-25-21.

- **Suggested fix:** cite M-25-21 as the current governance memo; reference

M-24-10 only historically.

### Example 4 — well-formed claim (not flagged)

Input: `Access control follows the least-privilege principle described in NIST

SP 800-53 AC-6.`

Finding: none — the claim is scoped (AC-6, least privilege) and cited (SP 800-53),

and it describes an *effort/design* alignment, not a certification.

## References

- Federal source registry (citation verification):

[`FEDERAL-AI-LANDSCAPE.md`](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook/blob/main/docs/FEDERAL-AI-LANDSCAPE.md)

- Authoritative policy (never restated here):

[playbook `AGENTS.md`](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook/blob/main/AGENTS.md),

[`SECURITY-CONTROLS.md`](https://github.com/GSA-TTS/agentic-coding-playbook/blob/main/docs/SECURITY-CONTROLS.md)

- Governance model for security skills:

[`docs/security-skill-governance.md`](../../docs/security-skill-governance.md)