Compliance Readiness (Cross-Framework)
The orchestrator skill for organizations pursuing multiple compliance frameworks. Reduces duplication, accelerates certification, and shares evidence across SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST CSF, GDPR, HIPAA, and others.
When to use this skill vs. framework-specific audit-prep:
- This skill: 2+ frameworks pursued in parallel; need shared-evidence strategy
- Framework-specific (
soc2-audit-prep,gdpr-audit-prep, etc.): single-framework sprint
When to use this skill
| Situation | Skill applies | |-----------|---------------| | Pursuing SOC 2 + ISO 27001 + NIST CSF in parallel | Yes — start here | | Healthcare org pursuing SOC 2 + HIPAA + ISO 27001 | Yes | | Building shared-evidence platform | Yes — see shared evidence strategy | | Mapping one control to multiple frameworks | Yes — scripts/shared_evidence_finder.py | | Deciding which framework to certify first | Yes — see sequencing decisions | | Generating multi-framework roadmap | Yes — scripts/readiness_roadmap_generator.py | | Single-framework audit prep | Use framework-specific skill |
The strategic insight
Most controls are shared across compliance frameworks. A well-designed control catalog satisfies multiple frameworks simultaneously. Without coordination, you build separate evidence + procedures per framework — 3x the work, 3x the maintenance, 3x the auditor confusion.
Common shared controls:
| Control area | SOC 2 | ISO 27001 | NIST CSF | NIS2 | DORA | PCI-DSS | HIPAA | GDPR | |--------------|-------|-----------|----------|------|------|---------|-------|------| | Access control | CC6.1 | A.8.5 | PR.AA | Art.21.2.j | Art.9.4 | Req 7-8 | §164.312(d) | Art.32 | | Encryption | CC6.7 | A.8.24 | PR.DS | Art.21.2.h | Art.9.2 | Req 3-4 | §164.312(a)(2)(iv) | Art.32 | | Incident response | CC7.4 | A.5.24 | RS.MA | Art.23 | Art.17 | Req 12.10 | §164.308(a)(6) | Art.33 | | Risk assessment | CC3.1 | Cl.6.1 | ID.RA | Art.21.1 | Art.6 | Req 12.2 | §164.308(a)(1) | Art.35 | | Logging | CC7.2 | A.8.15 | DE.CM | Art.21.2.b | Art.10 | Req 10 | §164.312(b) | Art.30 | | Vendor management | CC9.2 | A.5.19 | GV.SC | Art.21.2.d | Art.28 | Req 12.8 | §164.308(b) | Art.28 |
See [references/control-mapping-soc2-iso27001-nist.md](references/control-mapping-soc2-iso27001-nist.md) for the full mapping.
Sequencing decisions
Which framework to pursue first?
Common patterns
SaaS / Tech (B2B enterprise customers):
- SOC 2 Type I first (3-6 months) — customer-demanded entry ticket
- SOC 2 Type II (next 6-12 months after Type I)
- ISO 27001 (often after SOC 2 Type II; substantial overlap)
- NIST CSF (as internal framework; supports SOC 2 / ISO 27001)
- GDPR (separately, ongoing)
Healthcare (US):
- HIPAA (immediately if covered entity / BA)
- SOC 2 (for tech-side customer requirements)
- ISO 27001 (for international expansion)
FinTech / financial services (EU):
- DORA (mandatory effective Jan 2025)
- NIS2 (mandatory)
- PCI-DSS (if handling card data)
- ISO 27001 (standard)
- SOC 2 (for B2B customers)
Medical devices:
- ISO 13485 / 14971 / MDR / FDA (industry mandatory)
- ISO 27001 (for digital health components)
- SOC 2 (for SaaS components)
Sequencing factors
- Customer demand — what blocks deals?
- Regulatory mandate — what's required by law?
- Time to certify — SOC 2 Type I (3-6 mo) vs ISO 27001 (6-12 mo)
- Shared-evidence opportunity — frameworks that overlap (SOC 2 + ISO 27001)
- Cost — certification + ongoing surveillance
Shared evidence strategy
Strategy 1: Common control catalog
Build one control catalog covering all in-scope frameworks. Each control maps to multiple frameworks. One implementation; one evidence trail.
Control: Access Reviews (Quarterly)
- SOC 2: CC6.3
- ISO 27001: A.5.18
- NIST CSF: PR.AA-04
- HIPAA: §164.308(a)(4)
- GDPR: Art.32 (security of processing)
Evidence: Quarterly access-review records, signed by team lead
Frequency: Quarterly
Owner: IT SecurityOne artifact satisfies five frameworks.
Strategy 2: Unified evidence collection
Single source-of-truth for evidence (Drata / Vanta / Thoropass / Sprinto / homegrown):
- Configurations + access reviews + change records auto-collected
- Tagged per framework
- Auditor (per framework) gets relevant subset
Strategy 3: Single management review
Annual management review covers all frameworks:
- SOC 2 management review
- ISO 27001 management review (Clause 9.3)
- ISO 42001 management review (if AIMS)
- Internal audit findings
- Risk register update
- Continual improvement decisions
Strategy 4: Single internal audit
Plan internal audit to cover overlapping clauses:
- ISO 27001 Clause 9.2 internal audit
- SOC 2 controls testing
- NIST CSF self-assessment
- All produce one audit report; distributed per framework
Multi-framework readiness sprint
16-week sprint (initial: SOC 2 + ISO 27001 in parallel)
Weeks 1-4: Common control catalog build; gap analysis per framework
Weeks 5-8: Gap remediation (technical + procedural)
Weeks 9-12: Evidence collection + walkthroughs
Weeks 13-14: SOC 2 audit
Weeks 15-16: ISO 27001 Stage 1
(then ISO 27001 Stage 2 ~4-8 weeks later)12-week sprint (annual: SOC 2 + ISO 27001 surveillance)
Weeks 1-2: Audit readiness assessment per framework
Weeks 3-6: Gap remediation
Weeks 7-9: Walkthroughs + evidence finalization
Weeks 10-12: Audits (sequential or parallel depending on auditor capacity)Quick start
- Score multi-framework readiness:
python3 scripts/multi_framework_scorer.py --config controls.yaml - Find shared evidence opportunities:
python3 scripts/shared_evidence_finder.py --frameworks SOC2,ISO27001 - Generate roadmap:
python3 scripts/readiness_roadmap_generator.py --target-frameworks SOC2,ISO27001,GDPR - Execute sprint per [references/multi-framework-readiness-matrix.md](references/multi-framework-readiness-matrix.md)
Common multi-framework readiness failures
- Separate teams per framework — duplicates work, inconsistent decisions, wasted time
- Separate evidence collection — same screenshot taken 3x for 3 frameworks
- Auditor doesn't accept overlap — push back; most accept SOC 2 evidence for ISO 27001 controls
- Framework-specific tooling — one tool per framework instead of unified GRC platform
- No control owner — control exists across frameworks but no single owner
- Mapping not maintained — control changes; mappings go stale
- Auditor cycles cause crunches — schedule auditors not to overlap (or do overlap by design)
Tooling
| Script | Purpose | |--------|---------| | scripts/multi_framework_scorer.py | Score readiness across multiple frameworks | | scripts/shared_evidence_finder.py | Identify shared controls; map evidence to frameworks | | scripts/readiness_roadmap_generator.py | Generate multi-framework readiness roadmap |
References
- [multi-framework-readiness-matrix.md](references/multi-framework-readiness-matrix.md) — per-framework requirements + cadences + cost
- [shared-evidence-strategy.md](references/shared-evidence-strategy.md) — implementation patterns for shared evidence
- [control-mapping-soc2-iso27001-nist.md](references/control-mapping-soc2-iso27001-nist.md) — detailed control mapping
Related skills
ra-qm-team/soc2-compliance-expert— deep SOC 2 programra-qm-team/information-security-manager-iso27001— deep ISO 27001 programra-qm-team/nist-csf-specialist— deep NIST CSF programra-qm-team/gdpr-dsgvo-expert— deep GDPR programra-qm-team/fda-consultant-specialist— deep FDA programra-qm-team/infrastructure-compliance-auditor— cross-framework infra auditra-qm-team/audit-prep/*— framework-specific audit-prep skills