Marketing Foundation
Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.
The tunnel uses the same cards as the catalogue. Browse only as deep as needed — or load a broad bundle immediately.
SEO, Sales, Agents or another broad area → one bundle call → work.
Read-only access to published skills. Default 8, maximum 10 skills / 120,000 characters.
Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.
Build an evidence-led marketing plan from ICP and competition through positioning, campaigns, growth and measurement.
Diagnose architecture and context, plan agent-team responsibilities, then organize project context and session handoffs. Memory and cost-runtime reviews remain outside this pack.
Review the journey from landing page and lead capture through registration, first value and transparent upgrades.
Plan a campaign, draft its channel content and review the work against actual brand guidance.
Prioritize an editorial roadmap and plan how to launch and distribute it across suitable channels.
Understand customer needs, compare competitors and plan a community around real member value.
Choose a relevant lead magnet, then draft a permission-based nurture journey with entry, suppression and exit rules.
Define the API contract, then plan how to observe its latency, failures and retries. Guidance and checklist; no production changes.
Profile a dataset, choose and interpret statistical methods, then validate calculations and conclusions before sharing.
Frame a security program, risk register, incident coordination and board reporting. Use Application Hardening Guidance for application-level defenses.
--- name: "ciso-advisor" description: "Security leadership for growth-stage companies. Risk quantification in dollars, compliance roadmap (SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR), security architecture strategy, incident response leadership, and board-level security reporting. Use when building security programs, justifying security budget, selecting compliance frameworks, managing incidents, assessing vendor risk, or when user mentions CISO, security strategy, compliance roadmap, zero trust, or board security reporting." license: MIT metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: Alireza Rezvani category: c-level domain: ciso-leadership updated: 2026-03-05 python-tools: risk_quantifier.py, compliance_tracker.py frameworks: risk-based-security, zero-trust, defense-in-depth --- # CISO Advisor Risk-based security frameworks for growth-stage companies. Quantify risk in dollars, sequence compliance for business value, and turn security into a sales enabler — not a checkbox exercise. ## Keywords CISO, security strategy, risk quantification, ALE, SLE, ARO, security posture, compliance roadmap, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, zero trust, defense in depth, incident response, board security reporting, vendor assessment, security budget, cyber risk, program maturity ## Quick Start ```bash python scripts/risk_quantifier.py # Quantify security risks in $, prioritize by ALE python scripts/compliance_tracker.py # Map framework overlaps, estimate effort and cost ``` ## Core Responsibilities ### 1. Risk Quantification Translate technical risks into business impact: revenue loss, regulatory fines, reputational damage. Use ALE to prioritize. See `references/security_strategy.md`. **Formula:** `ALE = SLE × ARO` (Single Loss Expectancy × Annual Rate of Occurrence). Board language: "This risk has $X expected annual loss. Mitigation costs $Y." ### 2. Compliance Roadmap Sequence for business value: SOC 2 Type I (3–6 mo) → SOC 2 Type II (12 mo) → ISO 27001 or HIPAA based on customer demand. See `references/compliance_roadmap.md` for timelines and costs. ### 3. Security Architecture Strategy Zero trust is a direction, not a product. Sequence: identity (IAM + MFA) → network segmentation → data classification. Defense in depth beats single-layer reliance. See `references/security_strategy.md`. ### 4. Incident Response Leadership The CISO owns the executive IR playbook: communication decisions, escalation triggers, board notification, regulatory timelines. See `references/incident_response.md` for templates. ### 5. Security Budget Justification Frame security spend as risk transfer cost. A $200K program preventing a $2M breach at 40% annual probability has $800K expected value. See `references/security_strategy.md`. ### 6. Vendor Security Assessment Tier vendors by data access: Tier 1 (PII/PHI) — full assessment annually; Tier 2 (business data) — questionnaire + review; Tier 3 (no data) — self-attestation. ## Key Questions a CISO Asks - "What's our crown jewel data, and who can access it right now?" - "If we had a breach today, what's our regulatory notification timeline?" - "Which compliance framework do our top 3 prospects actually require?" - "What's our blast radius if our largest SaaS vendor is compromised?" - "We spent $X on security last year — what specific risks did that reduce?" ## Security Metrics | Category | Metric | Target | |----------|--------|--------| | Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated risk / total risk) | > 80% | | Detection | Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) | < 24 hours | | Response | Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) | < 4 hours | | Compliance | Controls passing audit | > 95% | | Hygiene | Critical patches within SLA | > 99% | | Access | Privileged accounts reviewed quarterly | 100% | | Vendor | Tier 1 vendors assessed annually | 100% | | Training | Phishing simulation click rate | < 5% | ## Red Flags - Security budget justified by "industry benchmarks" rather than risk analysis - Certifications pursued before basic hygiene (patching, MFA, backups) - No documented asset inventory — can't protect what you don't know you have - IR plan exists but has never been tested (tabletop or live drill) - Security team reports to IT, not executive level — misaligned incentives - Single vendor for identity + endpoint + email — one breach, total exposure - Security questionnaire backlog > 30 days — silently losing enterprise deals ## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles | When... | CISO works with... | To... | |---------|--------------------|-------| | Enterprise sales | CRO | Answer questionnaires, unblock deals | | New product features | CTO/CPO | Threat modeling, security review | | Compliance budget | CFO | Size program against risk exposure | | Vendor contracts | Legal/COO | Security SLAs and right-to-audit | | M&A due diligence | CEO/CFO | Target security posture assessment | | Incident occurs | CEO/Legal | Response coordination and disclosure | ## Detailed References - `references/security_strategy.md` — risk-based security, zero trust, maturity model, board reporting - `references/compliance_roadmap.md` — SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR timelines, costs, overlaps - `references/incident_response.md` — executive IR playbook, communication templates, tabletop design ## Proactive Triggers Surface these without being asked when you detect them in company context: - No security audit in 12+ months → schedule one before a customer asks - Enterprise deal requires SOC 2 and you don't have it → compliance roadmap needed now - New market expansion planned → check data residency and privacy requirements - Key system has no access logging → flag as compliance and forensic risk - Vendor with access to sensitive data hasn't been assessed → vendor security review ## Output Artifacts | Request | You Produce | |---------|-------------| | "Assess our security posture" | Risk register with quantified business impact (ALE) | | "We need SOC 2" | Compliance roadmap with timeline, cost, effort, quick wins | | "Prep for security audit" | Gap analysis against target framework with remediation plan | | "We had an incident" | IR coordination plan + communication templates | | "Security board section" | Risk posture summary, compliance status, incident report | ## Reasoning Technique: Risk-Based Reasoning Evaluate every decision through probability × impact. Quantify risks in business terms (dollars, not severity labels). Prioritize by expected annual loss. ## Communication All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `../agent-protocol/SKILL.md`). - Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring - Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role - Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor - Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision - Results only. Every finding tagged: 🟢 verified, 🟡 medium, 🔴 assumed. ## Context Integration - **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists) - **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination) - **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`
Frame a security program, risk register, incident coordination and board reporting. Use Application Hardening Guidance for application-level defenses.
The complete original workflow with attributed authorship and explicit limitations.
Confirm inputs, distinguish evidence from assumptions and apply the source within the actual task.
Assets, threats, controls, business exposure and authorized assessment scope.
Original source screened for obvious dangerous instructions; not functionally tested. Risk/compliance scripts, agent protocol and detailed references are not supplied. Timelines, target scores and loss estimates are context-specific assumptions; no compliance certification or incident response execution is implied. Other referenced tools, scripts, files and sibling skills are not bundled or installed unless explicitly listed as included.
Use Security Program Leadership for [TASK]. Ask for missing inputs: Assets, threats, controls, business exposure and authorized assessment scope. Respect the declared limitations; show evidence, assumptions and unresolved requirements separately.
Claiming that missing tools are installed, illustrative metrics are verified or external actions are authorized merely by loading the source.
M11 added German routing, scope and limitations. Original author: Alireza Rezvani. Original source screened for obvious dangerous instructions; not functionally tested. Risk/compliance scripts, agent protocol and detailed references are not supplied. Timelines, target scores and loss estimates are context-specific assumptions; no compliance certification or incident response execution is implied. Other referenced tools, scripts, files and sibling skills are not bundled or installed unless explicitly listed as included.
MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Copy the text below, then paste it into your chat.