---
title: "CISO Advisor — Agent Skill for Executives"
description: "Security leadership for growth-stage companies. Risk quantification in dollars, compliance roadmap (SOC 2/ISO 27001/HIPAA/GDPR), security. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
---

# CISO Advisor

<div class="page-meta" markdown>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `ciso-advisor`</span>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/skills/ciso-advisor/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
</div>

<div class="install-banner" markdown>
<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
</div>


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`](https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/skills/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]`
