--- name: soc2-prep-78f734d79e69 description: When the user needs to prepare for SOC 2, build a compliance roadmap, assess security posture, quantify security risk, or says "we need SOC 2", "security audit", "compliance", "enterprise customer wants SOC 2", "CISO advice". related: [privacy-policy, security-review] reads: [startup-context] tags: [nontechnical, startup-founder-skills, soc2-prep, security, strategy, compliance] -------|--------|--------| | Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated / total) | > 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% | ### Trust Service Criteria Overview **Security (Common Criteria -- always in scope):** CC1-CC2 (control environment, communication), CC3 (risk assessment), CC4-CC5 (monitoring, control activities), CC6 (logical/physical access, encryption), CC7-CC8 (system ops, vulnerability mgmt, incident response, change mgmt), CC9 (vendor management, business continuity). **Optional:** Availability (A1), Processing Integrity (PI1), Confidentiality (C1), Privacy (P1-P8). ### Essential Policies (10 minimum) Information Security, Access Control (MFA, least privilege, access reviews), Change Management (code review, rollback), Incident Response (detection through post-mortem), Risk Assessment (annual, with register), Vendor Management, Data Classification, Business Continuity/DR (RTO/RPO, backup testing), Acceptable Use, HR Security (background checks, onboarding/offboarding). ### Vendor Security Assessment Tiers | Tier | Data Access | Assessment Level | |------|------------|-----------------| | Tier 1 | PII/PHI access | Full assessment annually | | Tier 2 | Business data | Questionnaire + review | | Tier 3 | No sensitive data | Self-attestation | ### Red Flags to Surface Proactively - Security budget justified by benchmarks rather than risk analysis - Certifications pursued before basic hygiene (patching, MFA, backups) - No documented asset inventory -- cannot protect what you do not know you have - IR plan exists but never tested; security reports to IT, not executive level - Security questionnaire backlog > 30 days -- silently losing enterprise deals - Vendor with sensitive data access has not been assessed ### Startup-Specific Guidance **Type I vs Type II:** Type I examines control design at a point in time (3-6 months, good for closing the first enterprise deal). Type II examines control operation over 3-12 months (what sophisticated buyers want, plan 12 months total). Start Type I immediately; begin Type II observation once controls are in place. **Right-Sizing by Stage:** Seed (5-15): foundational controls, automation-heavy, concise policies, one part-time owner. Series A (15-50): dedicated compliance owner or fractional CISO, formal access reviews. Series B+ (50+): full-time security team, internal audit, GRC platform. **Cost-Effective Tooling:** Compliance automation (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe — significantly reduces manual effort), SSO (Google Workspace or Okta), MDM (Kandji or Jamf), monitoring (Datadog, PagerDuty), vulnerability scanning (Dependabot, Snyk, Trivy). ### Timeline Templates - **Type I Aggressive (3 months):** Month 1 scope/gap/policies, Month 2 implementation, Month 3 readiness + audit. - **Type I Standard (6 months):** Months 1-2 scope/policies, 3-4 implementation, 5 evidence, 6 audit. - **Type II (12 months):** Months 1-6 complete Type I, 6-12 observation + evidence, Month 12 audit. ### Output Confidence Tagging All findings tagged before reaching decision-makers: **Verified** (confirmed against evidence), **Medium** (reported but not independently verified), **Assumed** (inferred, needs validation). ## Related Skills - `privacy-policy` — SOC 2 Privacy criteria (P1-P8) align directly with privacy policy commitments. Ensure consistency. - `security-review` — Technical security controls from security-review map to SOC 2 Common Criteria (CC6, CC7, CC8). Use findings to inform gap analysis. ## Examples ### Example 1: Enterprise deal requires SOC 2 **User:** "A prospect wants SOC 2 before signing a $200K contract. We have nothing." **Good output excerpt:** > **Business case:** This $200K deal justifies a $30-50K compliance investment. At your stage, every enterprise deal blocked by missing SOC 2 has an opportunity cost. > > | Area | Status | Key Gaps | > |------|--------|----------| > | Access Control | Partial | MFA not enforced on AWS root, no SSO, no formal reviews | > | Change Management | Partial | GitHub PRs used but no documented policy | > | Incident Response | Missing | No documented plan, no on-call rotation | > | Risk Assessment | Missing | No formal risk assessment conducted | > > **Recommended approach:** Type I in 3 months, then begin Type II observation. > **Immediate actions:** (1) Sign up for compliance automation. (2) Enforce MFA everywhere. (3) Select an auditor with startup experience. > **Interim response to prospect:** Share security questionnaire response, SOC 2 Type I commitment timeline, and a signed mutual NDA with security addendum. ### Example 2: Security posture assessment **User:** "We already use Okta for SSO and do code reviews. Where are we relative to SOC 2?" **Good output excerpt:** > **Gap Analysis Summary: 55% ready** > > **Compliant:** CC6.1 Okta SSO with MFA, CC8.1 code reviews via PRs. > **Partial:** CC6.2 no quarterly access reviews documented, CC7.2 IRP never tested, CC6.3 no formal offboarding checklist. > **Missing:** CC3.1 no annual risk assessment, CC2.1 no security training, CC9.2 no vendor management, CC4.1 no control monitoring, all 10 required policies need drafting. --- **Disclaimer:** This skill provides SOC 2 preparation guidance for planning purposes only. It does not constitute legal, audit, or professional compliance advice. SOC 2 reports can only be issued by a licensed CPA firm. Engage a qualified auditor to confirm readiness before scheduling an audit. --- Source attribution: mkurman Original project: https://github.com/mkurman/zorai/blob/d06ee7597049567dab92db22d41b2764cf89094a/skills/nontechnical/startup-founder-skills/soc2-prep/SKILL.md License: MIT License information: https://opensource.org/license/mit Original upstream instructions; downloaded from Mega AI Hub. ## Upstream license notice MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Shawn Pang 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. # Mega AI Hub resource metadata Creator / publisher: mkurman Original project: https://github.com/mkurman/zorai/blob/d06ee7597049567dab92db22d41b2764cf89094a/skills/nontechnical/startup-founder-skills/soc2-prep/SKILL.md Attribution basis: Source repository record Fields of work: Development & Engineering, Finance & Accounting, Legal, Sales Roles: Business Development, CFO / FP&A, Compliance Officer, Security Engineer Specialties: Specialty not specified Tools: Datadog, Drata, Secureframe, Vanta, PagerDuty Country applicability: Country not specified Classification basis: Source catalog labels Instruction SHA-256: e1fe4f763f0e00facf0a3d21ac06e2d4a233b5130c369c2d492c97faa8a9a7c9