bmad-plus 0.7.4 → 0.8.0

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-shield/categories/industry-compliance/fedramp-agent.md

@@ -1,247 +1,247 @@
-# FedRAMP Compliance Agent
-
-> **Pack:** Shield (GRC Audit) -- Industry Compliance
-> **Framework:** Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program
-> **Version:** 1.0.0
-> **Based on:** Claude Skills for GRC by Hemant Naik (Sushegaad) -- MIT License
-> **Upstream:** https://github.com/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance
-> **Adapted for BMAD+ by:** Laurent Rochetta -- https://github.com/lrochetta/BMAD-PLUS
-
----
-
-# FedRAMP Certification Skill
-
-A comprehensive guide for helping users navigate FedRAMP authorization — from initial
-readiness through ATO and ongoing continuous monitoring.
-
-## Quick Reference: What Does the User Need?
-
-Identify the user's goal and jump to the appropriate section:
-
-| User Goal | Go To |
-|---|---|
-| "Are we ready for FedRAMP?" / gap assessment | → [Readiness & Gap Assessment](#1-readiness--gap-assessment) |
-| Writing SSP, POA&M, SAR, SAP, or other docs | → [ATO Documentation](#2-ato-documentation) |
-| "Which controls apply to us?" / control mapping | → [NIST 800-53 Control Mapping](#3-nist-800-53-control-mapping) |
-| Cloud architecture / AWS/Azure/GCP config | → [Architecture Guidance](#4-architecture-guidance) |
-| Already authorized, ongoing compliance | → [Continuous Monitoring](#5-continuous-monitoring) |
-
----
-
-## Current FedRAMP State (as of 2025–2026)
-
-- **Baseline**: NIST SP 800-53 **Rev 5** (approved May 2023, fully in effect)
-- **Control counts** (Rev 5): Low = ~156, Moderate = 323, High = 421
-- **OSCAL mandate**: RFC-0024 requires all CSPs to transition to machine-readable OSCAL packages by **September 2026**
-- **Security Inbox**: As of January 5, 2026, all authorized CSPs must maintain a dedicated Security Inbox for urgent vulnerability directives (no CAPTCHAs or barriers)
-- **FedRAMP 20x**: A modernization initiative in progress; introduces continuous authorization and modular/API-driven submissions. Traditional SSP/SAP/SAR templates remain required for non-20x paths.
-- **Key templates updated**: SSP, SAR, SAP, POA&M, CIS/CRM, IIW, ISCP — all updated to align with Rev 5 (Dec 2024 releases)
-
----
-
-## 1. Readiness & Gap Assessment
-
-### Approach
-1. **Clarify scope** — Ask the user: What is the CSO (Cloud Service Offering)? IaaS/PaaS/SaaS? Target impact level?
-2. **Identify authorization path** — Agency Authorization (sponsor needed) vs. JAB P-ATO (Joint Authorization Board — effectively suspended since 2024; verify current status with FedRAMP PMO) vs. FedRAMP 20x pilot
-3. **Run through the readiness checklist** — See `references/readiness-checklist.md`
-4. **Surface gaps** — Map current state to required controls; flag missing documentation, unimplemented controls, and architectural deficiencies
-5. **Prioritize** — Group gaps by: (a) blockers for readiness review, (b) items addressable before 3PAO assessment, (c) POA&M candidates
-
-### Key Readiness Questions to Ask the User
-- What cloud platform (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCP, on-prem hybrid)?
-- Are you leveraging any existing FedRAMP-authorized IaaS/PaaS (e.g., AWS GovCloud FedRAMP High)?
-- Do you have FIPS 140-2/3 validated encryption in place?
-- Is your authorization boundary defined and documented?
-- Do you have a vulnerability scanning program (OS, DB, web app, container)?
-- Are security policies and procedures documented?
-- Do you have an Incident Response Plan (IRP) and Contingency Plan (CP) that have been tested?
-
-### Output Format
-- Produce a **gap table**: Control Family | Current State | Gap | Priority | Owner
-- Summarize top 5–10 high-priority gaps as prose
-- Recommend whether to pursue Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) first
-
----
-
-## 2. ATO Documentation
-
-The core FedRAMP authorization package consists of:
-
-```
-Authorization Package
-├── System Security Plan (SSP) + Appendices A–Q
-├── Security Assessment Plan (SAP) + Appendices A–D  [3PAO-prepared]
-├── Security Assessment Report (SAR) + Appendices A–F  [3PAO-prepared]
-└── Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)  [SSP Appendix O]
-```
-
-> **Important**: CSPs must use official FedRAMP PMO templates. Reviewers are trained on
-> standardized formats; non-standard submissions risk rejection or delays.
-> Templates: https://www.fedramp.gov/rev5/documents-templates/
-
-### Document Guidance
-
-For detailed guidance on each document type, read the appropriate reference file:
-
-- **SSP** → `references/ssp-guide.md`
-- **POA&M** → `references/poam-guide.md`
-- **SAP / SAR** → `references/sap-sar-guide.md`
-- **Supporting appendices** → `references/appendices-guide.md`
-
-### General Writing Principles for All ATO Docs
-1. **Describe only what is implemented** — Do not document planned or aspirational controls; these trigger findings and must go in POA&M instead
-2. **Be specific** — Reference exact tools, filenames, section numbers, policy names; vague language causes findings
-3. **Mind the verbs** — Each control requirement uses specific verbs (track, document, enforce, test). Address each verb explicitly
-4. **Shared responsibility** — For any customer-configurable or shared control, create a clear "Customer Responsibility" section
-5. **Keep it consistent** — Architecture diagrams, data flows, inventory, and control statements must all be internally consistent
-
----
-
-## 3. NIST 800-53 Control Mapping
-
-### Control Families (Rev 5)
-
-| ID | Family | Notes |
-|---|---|---|
-| AC | Access Control | IAM, RBAC, least privilege, remote access |
-| AT | Awareness & Training | Security + **privacy** training (new in Rev 5) |
-| AU | Audit & Accountability | Log retention, SIEM, audit review |
-| CA | Assessment, Authorization & Monitoring | ConMon, 3PAO, ATO |
-| CM | Configuration Management | Baselines, change control, CMDB |
-| CP | Contingency Planning | BCP/DR, tested annually |
-| IA | Identification & Authentication | MFA, PIV, FIPS 140-2/3 crypto |
-| IR | Incident Response | IRP, tested annually, reporting SLAs |
-| MA | Maintenance | Remote maintenance controls |
-| MP | Media Protection | Data at rest, media sanitization |
-| PE | Physical & Environmental | Datacenters; often inherited from IaaS |
-| PL | Planning | SSP, rules of behavior |
-| PM | Program Management | Enterprise-level security program |
-| PS | Personnel Security | Screening, termination procedures |
-| PT | PII Processing & Transparency | **New family in Rev 5** — privacy controls |
-| RA | Risk Assessment | Vulnerability scanning, MITRE ATT&CK scoring |
-| SA | System & Services Acquisition | SDLC, supply chain |
-| SC | System & Communications Protection | Encryption in transit, network segmentation |
-| SI | System & Information Integrity | Patching, malware, integrity monitoring |
-| SR | Supply Chain Risk Management | **New family in Rev 5** — SCRM |
-
-### Impact Level Mapping
-
-When the user describes their system, recommend the impact level:
-
-- **LI-SaaS** (Low-Impact SaaS): No PII, no sensitive federal data, limited scope — uses a simplified template combining SSP + assessment
-- **Low**: Federal information where loss of CIA has limited adverse effect
-- **Moderate**: Most common — federal information where loss has serious adverse effect; covers the majority of CSPs handling non-classified government data
-- **High**: Federal information where loss has severe or catastrophic effect (e.g., law enforcement, financial, health data)
-
-### Mapping Workflow
-1. Ask: What types of federal data will the system process/store/transmit?
-2. Run FIPS 199 categorization (Confidentiality / Integrity / Availability × Impact)
-3. Select baseline (Low/Moderate/High) based on high-water mark
-4. Cross-reference with FedRAMP parameter requirements (FedRAMP often sets stricter parameters than base NIST)
-5. For inherited controls, identify which are fully/partially inherited from leveraged FedRAMP IaaS/PaaS and document in CIS/CRM workbook
-
-### Rev 4 → Rev 5 Key Changes to Highlight
-- **New control families**: PT (Privacy), SR (Supply Chain)
-- **Password controls revised**: No more forced rotation schedules; now requires compromised-password lists and password strength meters (NIST 800-63b alignment)
-- **Privacy integrated**: AT-3 now mandates privacy training; many families have privacy-specific enhancements
-- **Threat-based methodology**: MITRE ATT&CK framework now informs control prioritization
-- **Moved/merged controls**: Some Rev 4 controls were merged — don't assume 1:1 mapping
-
----
-
-## 4. Architecture Guidance
-
-### Authorization Boundary
-The boundary defines what is IN scope for FedRAMP. This is one of the most common sources of findings and delays.
-
-Key principles:
-- **Everything that processes, stores, or transmits federal data** must be inside the boundary
-- External services connected to in-scope systems must be FedRAMP-authorized OR documented with compensating controls
-- Boundary must be depicted in a clear **network/data flow diagram** (required in SSP)
-
-### Cloud Platform Considerations
-
-**AWS GovCloud (US)**
-- AWS GovCloud is FedRAMP High authorized — most PE and some SC controls are fully inherited
-- Use AWS Config, CloudTrail, GuardDuty, Security Hub to satisfy AU, RA, SI controls
-- Ensure use of GovCloud region endpoints (not standard commercial) to stay in boundary
-- FIPS endpoints available for IA controls
-
-**Azure Government**
-- Azure Government is FedRAMP High authorized
-- Azure Policy + Defender for Cloud maps well to CM, RA, SI
-- Use Azure Blueprints / Policy Initiatives aligned to FedRAMP Moderate/High
-
-**Google Cloud (FedRAMP-authorized regions)**
-- Assured Workloads for FedRAMP compliance
-- Chronicle SIEM for AU controls
-
-### Architecture Patterns That Support FedRAMP
-- **Zero Trust** — aligns directly with AC, IA, SC control families
-- **Immutable infrastructure** — simplifies CM (configuration drift is a common finding)
-- **Centralized logging** — SIEM/log aggregation addresses AU family comprehensively
-- **Automated vulnerability scanning** — Required; must cover OS, DB, web app, and containers (if used)
-- **Container security** — FedRAMP has specific container scanning guidance; image signing and runtime protection are expected
-
-### Common Architecture Findings
-- Undocumented external connections leaving the boundary
-- FIPS-non-compliant encryption algorithms in transit or at rest
-- Overly broad IAM roles / lack of least privilege
-- Missing MFA on privileged accounts
-- Vulnerability scans not covering all boundary components
-- Logging gaps (not all components sending logs to centralized SIEM)
-
----
-
-## 5. Continuous Monitoring
-
-Once authorized, CSPs must maintain compliance through ConMon activities:
-
-### Monthly Requirements
-- Vulnerability scan results submitted to agency AOs
-- POA&M updates (open findings, remediation progress)
-- Inventory updates (new/removed assets)
-- ConMon Monthly Executive Summary (template updated Nov 2024)
-
-### Annual Requirements
-- Full security assessment by 3PAO using Annual Assessment Controls Selection Worksheet
-- Updated SSP and appendices
-- Tested IRP and CP
-- SAR and updated POA&M
-
-### POA&M Management
-- All open findings must have: risk level, owner, milestone dates, remediation plan
-- Vendor Dependencies (VDs): when a finding depends on a third-party fix — document and track
-- Deviation Requests (DRs): false positives and risk adjustments require AO approval
-- SLA for remediation: Critical = 30 days, High = 90 days, Moderate = 180 days, Low = 365 days (FedRAMP standard)
-
----
-
-## Output Formatting Guide
-
-Match output format to request type:
-
-| Request Type | Preferred Format |
-|---|---|
-| Gap assessment | Table + prose summary |
-| SSP control narrative | Prose paragraphs (one per control/enhancement) |
-| POA&M entry | Structured table row with all required fields |
-| Architecture review | Bullet findings + recommended remediations |
-| Control mapping question | Table: Control ID \| Requirement \| How to Implement |
-| Readiness overview | Executive summary prose + priority action list |
-
-When generating document content, always note: *"Use official FedRAMP templates from fedramp.gov — this content should be inserted into the appropriate template section."*
-
----
-
-## Reference Files
-
-Load these when more depth is needed:
-
-- `references/readiness-checklist.md` — Full readiness checklist (75+ items)
-- `references/ssp-guide.md` — SSP section-by-section writing guide
-- `references/poam-guide.md` — POA&M structure, field definitions, SLA table
-- `references/sap-sar-guide.md` — SAP/SAR overview and review tips for CSPs
-- `references/appendices-guide.md` — Guide to all SSP appendices (A–Q)
-- `references/control-families.md` — Deep-dive on each of the 20 control families
+# FedRAMP Compliance Agent
+
+> **Pack:** Shield (GRC Audit) -- Industry Compliance
+> **Framework:** Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program
+> **Version:** 1.0.0
+> **Based on:** Claude Skills for GRC by Hemant Naik (Sushegaad) -- MIT License
+> **Upstream:** https://github.com/Sushegaad/Claude-Skills-Governance-Risk-and-Compliance
+> **Adapted for BMAD+ by:** Laurent Rochetta -- https://github.com/lrochetta/BMAD-PLUS
+
+---
+
+# FedRAMP Certification Skill
+
+A comprehensive guide for helping users navigate FedRAMP authorization — from initial
+readiness through ATO and ongoing continuous monitoring.
+
+## Quick Reference: What Does the User Need?
+
+Identify the user's goal and jump to the appropriate section:
+
+| User Goal | Go To |
+|---|---|
+| "Are we ready for FedRAMP?" / gap assessment | → [Readiness & Gap Assessment](#1-readiness--gap-assessment) |
+| Writing SSP, POA&M, SAR, SAP, or other docs | → [ATO Documentation](#2-ato-documentation) |
+| "Which controls apply to us?" / control mapping | → [NIST 800-53 Control Mapping](#3-nist-800-53-control-mapping) |
+| Cloud architecture / AWS/Azure/GCP config | → [Architecture Guidance](#4-architecture-guidance) |
+| Already authorized, ongoing compliance | → [Continuous Monitoring](#5-continuous-monitoring) |
+
+---
+
+## Current FedRAMP State (as of 2025–2026)
+
+- **Baseline**: NIST SP 800-53 **Rev 5** (approved May 2023, fully in effect)
+- **Control counts** (Rev 5): Low = ~156, Moderate = 323, High = 421
+- **OSCAL mandate**: RFC-0024 requires all CSPs to transition to machine-readable OSCAL packages by **September 2026**
+- **Security Inbox**: As of January 5, 2026, all authorized CSPs must maintain a dedicated Security Inbox for urgent vulnerability directives (no CAPTCHAs or barriers)
+- **FedRAMP 20x**: A modernization initiative in progress; introduces continuous authorization and modular/API-driven submissions. Traditional SSP/SAP/SAR templates remain required for non-20x paths.
+- **Key templates updated**: SSP, SAR, SAP, POA&M, CIS/CRM, IIW, ISCP — all updated to align with Rev 5 (Dec 2024 releases)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Readiness & Gap Assessment
+
+### Approach
+1. **Clarify scope** — Ask the user: What is the CSO (Cloud Service Offering)? IaaS/PaaS/SaaS? Target impact level?
+2. **Identify authorization path** — Agency Authorization (sponsor needed) vs. JAB P-ATO (Joint Authorization Board — effectively suspended since 2024; verify current status with FedRAMP PMO) vs. FedRAMP 20x pilot
+3. **Run through the readiness checklist** — See `references/readiness-checklist.md`
+4. **Surface gaps** — Map current state to required controls; flag missing documentation, unimplemented controls, and architectural deficiencies
+5. **Prioritize** — Group gaps by: (a) blockers for readiness review, (b) items addressable before 3PAO assessment, (c) POA&M candidates
+
+### Key Readiness Questions to Ask the User
+- What cloud platform (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCP, on-prem hybrid)?
+- Are you leveraging any existing FedRAMP-authorized IaaS/PaaS (e.g., AWS GovCloud FedRAMP High)?
+- Do you have FIPS 140-2/3 validated encryption in place?
+- Is your authorization boundary defined and documented?
+- Do you have a vulnerability scanning program (OS, DB, web app, container)?
+- Are security policies and procedures documented?
+- Do you have an Incident Response Plan (IRP) and Contingency Plan (CP) that have been tested?
+
+### Output Format
+- Produce a **gap table**: Control Family | Current State | Gap | Priority | Owner
+- Summarize top 5–10 high-priority gaps as prose
+- Recommend whether to pursue Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) first
+
+---
+
+## 2. ATO Documentation
+
+The core FedRAMP authorization package consists of:
+
+```
+Authorization Package
+├── System Security Plan (SSP) + Appendices A–Q
+├── Security Assessment Plan (SAP) + Appendices A–D  [3PAO-prepared]
+├── Security Assessment Report (SAR) + Appendices A–F  [3PAO-prepared]
+└── Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)  [SSP Appendix O]
+```
+
+> **Important**: CSPs must use official FedRAMP PMO templates. Reviewers are trained on
+> standardized formats; non-standard submissions risk rejection or delays.
+> Templates: https://www.fedramp.gov/rev5/documents-templates/
+
+### Document Guidance
+
+For detailed guidance on each document type, read the appropriate reference file:
+
+- **SSP** → `references/ssp-guide.md`
+- **POA&M** → `references/poam-guide.md`
+- **SAP / SAR** → `references/sap-sar-guide.md`
+- **Supporting appendices** → `references/appendices-guide.md`
+
+### General Writing Principles for All ATO Docs
+1. **Describe only what is implemented** — Do not document planned or aspirational controls; these trigger findings and must go in POA&M instead
+2. **Be specific** — Reference exact tools, filenames, section numbers, policy names; vague language causes findings
+3. **Mind the verbs** — Each control requirement uses specific verbs (track, document, enforce, test). Address each verb explicitly
+4. **Shared responsibility** — For any customer-configurable or shared control, create a clear "Customer Responsibility" section
+5. **Keep it consistent** — Architecture diagrams, data flows, inventory, and control statements must all be internally consistent
+
+---
+
+## 3. NIST 800-53 Control Mapping
+
+### Control Families (Rev 5)
+
+| ID | Family | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| AC | Access Control | IAM, RBAC, least privilege, remote access |
+| AT | Awareness & Training | Security + **privacy** training (new in Rev 5) |
+| AU | Audit & Accountability | Log retention, SIEM, audit review |
+| CA | Assessment, Authorization & Monitoring | ConMon, 3PAO, ATO |
+| CM | Configuration Management | Baselines, change control, CMDB |
+| CP | Contingency Planning | BCP/DR, tested annually |
+| IA | Identification & Authentication | MFA, PIV, FIPS 140-2/3 crypto |
+| IR | Incident Response | IRP, tested annually, reporting SLAs |
+| MA | Maintenance | Remote maintenance controls |
+| MP | Media Protection | Data at rest, media sanitization |
+| PE | Physical & Environmental | Datacenters; often inherited from IaaS |
+| PL | Planning | SSP, rules of behavior |
+| PM | Program Management | Enterprise-level security program |
+| PS | Personnel Security | Screening, termination procedures |
+| PT | PII Processing & Transparency | **New family in Rev 5** — privacy controls |
+| RA | Risk Assessment | Vulnerability scanning, MITRE ATT&CK scoring |
+| SA | System & Services Acquisition | SDLC, supply chain |
+| SC | System & Communications Protection | Encryption in transit, network segmentation |
+| SI | System & Information Integrity | Patching, malware, integrity monitoring |
+| SR | Supply Chain Risk Management | **New family in Rev 5** — SCRM |
+
+### Impact Level Mapping
+
+When the user describes their system, recommend the impact level:
+
+- **LI-SaaS** (Low-Impact SaaS): No PII, no sensitive federal data, limited scope — uses a simplified template combining SSP + assessment
+- **Low**: Federal information where loss of CIA has limited adverse effect
+- **Moderate**: Most common — federal information where loss has serious adverse effect; covers the majority of CSPs handling non-classified government data
+- **High**: Federal information where loss has severe or catastrophic effect (e.g., law enforcement, financial, health data)
+
+### Mapping Workflow
+1. Ask: What types of federal data will the system process/store/transmit?
+2. Run FIPS 199 categorization (Confidentiality / Integrity / Availability × Impact)
+3. Select baseline (Low/Moderate/High) based on high-water mark
+4. Cross-reference with FedRAMP parameter requirements (FedRAMP often sets stricter parameters than base NIST)
+5. For inherited controls, identify which are fully/partially inherited from leveraged FedRAMP IaaS/PaaS and document in CIS/CRM workbook
+
+### Rev 4 → Rev 5 Key Changes to Highlight
+- **New control families**: PT (Privacy), SR (Supply Chain)
+- **Password controls revised**: No more forced rotation schedules; now requires compromised-password lists and password strength meters (NIST 800-63b alignment)
+- **Privacy integrated**: AT-3 now mandates privacy training; many families have privacy-specific enhancements
+- **Threat-based methodology**: MITRE ATT&CK framework now informs control prioritization
+- **Moved/merged controls**: Some Rev 4 controls were merged — don't assume 1:1 mapping
+
+---
+
+## 4. Architecture Guidance
+
+### Authorization Boundary
+The boundary defines what is IN scope for FedRAMP. This is one of the most common sources of findings and delays.
+
+Key principles:
+- **Everything that processes, stores, or transmits federal data** must be inside the boundary
+- External services connected to in-scope systems must be FedRAMP-authorized OR documented with compensating controls
+- Boundary must be depicted in a clear **network/data flow diagram** (required in SSP)
+
+### Cloud Platform Considerations
+
+**AWS GovCloud (US)**
+- AWS GovCloud is FedRAMP High authorized — most PE and some SC controls are fully inherited
+- Use AWS Config, CloudTrail, GuardDuty, Security Hub to satisfy AU, RA, SI controls
+- Ensure use of GovCloud region endpoints (not standard commercial) to stay in boundary
+- FIPS endpoints available for IA controls
+
+**Azure Government**
+- Azure Government is FedRAMP High authorized
+- Azure Policy + Defender for Cloud maps well to CM, RA, SI
+- Use Azure Blueprints / Policy Initiatives aligned to FedRAMP Moderate/High
+
+**Google Cloud (FedRAMP-authorized regions)**
+- Assured Workloads for FedRAMP compliance
+- Chronicle SIEM for AU controls
+
+### Architecture Patterns That Support FedRAMP
+- **Zero Trust** — aligns directly with AC, IA, SC control families
+- **Immutable infrastructure** — simplifies CM (configuration drift is a common finding)
+- **Centralized logging** — SIEM/log aggregation addresses AU family comprehensively
+- **Automated vulnerability scanning** — Required; must cover OS, DB, web app, and containers (if used)
+- **Container security** — FedRAMP has specific container scanning guidance; image signing and runtime protection are expected
+
+### Common Architecture Findings
+- Undocumented external connections leaving the boundary
+- FIPS-non-compliant encryption algorithms in transit or at rest
+- Overly broad IAM roles / lack of least privilege
+- Missing MFA on privileged accounts
+- Vulnerability scans not covering all boundary components
+- Logging gaps (not all components sending logs to centralized SIEM)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Continuous Monitoring
+
+Once authorized, CSPs must maintain compliance through ConMon activities:
+
+### Monthly Requirements
+- Vulnerability scan results submitted to agency AOs
+- POA&M updates (open findings, remediation progress)
+- Inventory updates (new/removed assets)
+- ConMon Monthly Executive Summary (template updated Nov 2024)
+
+### Annual Requirements
+- Full security assessment by 3PAO using Annual Assessment Controls Selection Worksheet
+- Updated SSP and appendices
+- Tested IRP and CP
+- SAR and updated POA&M
+
+### POA&M Management
+- All open findings must have: risk level, owner, milestone dates, remediation plan
+- Vendor Dependencies (VDs): when a finding depends on a third-party fix — document and track
+- Deviation Requests (DRs): false positives and risk adjustments require AO approval
+- SLA for remediation: Critical = 30 days, High = 90 days, Moderate = 180 days, Low = 365 days (FedRAMP standard)
+
+---
+
+## Output Formatting Guide
+
+Match output format to request type:
+
+| Request Type | Preferred Format |
+|---|---|
+| Gap assessment | Table + prose summary |
+| SSP control narrative | Prose paragraphs (one per control/enhancement) |
+| POA&M entry | Structured table row with all required fields |
+| Architecture review | Bullet findings + recommended remediations |
+| Control mapping question | Table: Control ID \| Requirement \| How to Implement |
+| Readiness overview | Executive summary prose + priority action list |
+
+When generating document content, always note: *"Use official FedRAMP templates from fedramp.gov — this content should be inserted into the appropriate template section."*
+
+---
+
+## Reference Files
+
+Load these when more depth is needed:
+
+- `references/readiness-checklist.md` — Full readiness checklist (75+ items)
+- `references/ssp-guide.md` — SSP section-by-section writing guide
+- `references/poam-guide.md` — POA&M structure, field definitions, SLA table
+- `references/sap-sar-guide.md` — SAP/SAR overview and review tips for CSPs
+- `references/appendices-guide.md` — Guide to all SSP appendices (A–Q)
+- `references/control-families.md` — Deep-dive on each of the 20 control families