soc2-evidence-collector
Build-an-X for SOC 2 Type II evidence collection and auditor-facing packaging - per-Trust-Services-Criterion test artifacts (Common Criteria CC1.1 - CC9.2; plus Availability A1, Confidentiality C1, Processing Integrity PI1, Privacy P1 - P9 if in scope); auto-collection from CI logs + audit trails + access logs + change-management records; alignment with Vanta / Drata / Secureframe evidence shapes; observation-period sampling. Cross-framework evidence packaging (control-evidence matrix, timestamped bundles, chain-of-custody notes per NIST SP 800-72 - also for ISO 27001 / HIPAA / PCI DSS / GDPR / FedRAMP) lives in references/evidence-packaging.md. Use when the team is preparing for SOC 2 Type II audit and needs continuous evidence collection, or when any audit engagement requires auditor-ready evidence packages built from automated test output.
Install with skills.sh (any agent)
npx skills add testland/qa --skill soc2-evidence-collectorsoc2-evidence-collector
Overview
Scope decision - which Trust Services Criteria (TSC) this collector must cover:
| Category | TSC sections | Required? |
|---|---|---|
| Common Criteria | CC1 - CC9 (35 sub-criteria) | Always required |
| Availability | A1 | Optional (recommended for SaaS uptime claims) |
| Confidentiality | C1 | Optional (typical for B2B SaaS) |
| Processing Integrity | PI1 | Optional (common for transaction-processing SaaS) |
| Privacy | P1 - P9 | Optional (common when handling PII at scale) |
Type II is assessed over a 3 - 12 month observation period, so every in-scope control needs continuous evidence available for auditor sampling, not a point-in-time snapshot.
This is a build-an-X workflow - the per-criterion evidence collection script, not a standalone tool. Pair with Vanta / Drata / Secureframe (commercial GRC platforms) for evidence storage + auditor-facing dashboards.
When to use
Step 1 - Identify in-scope criteria
Most SaaS engagements include CC + Availability + Confidentiality. Privacy criteria add when GDPR/CCPA also in scope. Processing Integrity adds for fintech / data-processing SaaS. The full per-criterion scope-decision table is in references/evidence-source-map.md.
Step 2 - Auto-collect evidence per criterion
Map each control to one or more automatable evidence sources; the full control-to-evidence-source table is in references/evidence-source-map.md.
okta_client, aws_iam, github_org, and slack in the examples are injected client interfaces - thin wrappers you provide over the vendor SDKs (okta-sdk-python, boto3, PyGithub, slack_sdk), not pip-importable modules.
Example collector script:
# evidence/cc6_1_logical_access.py
import okta_client, datetime, json
def collect_cc6_1_evidence(start_date, end_date):
"""Per CC6.1: collect user-access audit events for the period."""
events = okta_client.get_audit_events(
type='user.session.start',
start_date=start_date,
end_date=end_date,
)
evidence = {
'control_id': 'CC6.1',
'period_start': start_date.isoformat(),
'period_end': end_date.isoformat(),
'evidence_type': 'user_access_logs',
'sample_size': len(events),
'events': events[:100], # auditor sample
'collected_at': datetime.datetime.utcnow().isoformat(),
'collector': 'soc2-evidence-collector v1.0',
}
with open(f'evidence/cc6_1_{start_date.date()}_{end_date.date()}.json', 'w') as f:
json.dump(evidence, f, indent=2)Step 3 - Per-control test patterns
Beyond raw evidence collection, write tests that verify the control operates correctly:
def test_cc6_3_offboarded_user_has_no_active_sessions():
"""CC6.3: deprovisioned users must lose all access immediately."""
user = User.objects.get(email='alice@example.com')
deprovision(user)
# Verify across all systems:
assert not okta_client.user_has_active_sessions(user)
assert not aws_iam.user_exists(user.aws_username)
assert not github_org.is_member(user)
assert not slack.is_member(user)
# Audit log records the deprovisioning event:
assert AuditLog.objects.filter(
actor='hr-system',
action='deprovision',
subject=user.email,
).exists()These tests run in CI; their pass/fail history is itself evidence for the auditor.
Step 4 - GRC platform alignment
Default: Vanta - the broadest native-integration coverage (AWS / Okta / GitHub / GSuite / etc.) means the auto-collected evidence (Step 2) only needs to fill gaps the integrations don't cover. Use the alternatives when Vanta doesn't fit:
| Platform | Use when |
|---|---|
| Vanta (default) | Standard SaaS stack with mainstream identity / cloud / source-control providers |
| Drata | Multi-framework engagement (SOC 2 + ISO 27001 + HIPAA) where Drata's templates lead |
| Secureframe | Budget-constrained engagement where Vanta's pricing is prohibitive |
Across all three, evidence ingest format is platform-specific but the auto-collected JSON (Step 2) feeds the platform's manual-upload UI when no native integration exists for your tooling.
Step 5 - Observation period sampling
Type II auditors typically request:
Your evidence collector should support both:
Step 6 - Continuous-monitoring controls
Some controls are continuous (e.g., CC7.1 threat detection) - the evidence is an alert-history feed, not point-in-time samples.
Pattern: daily collector cron job that:
Continuity gaps in collector runs are themselves audit findings - make collector failures alert-worthy.
Step 7 - Package evidence for the auditor
Raw collected evidence (Steps 2 - 6) still needs assembling into the deliverable an auditor or GRC platform receives: the control-evidence matrix, bounded log excerpts, chain-of-custody notes (SHA-256 hashed, per NIST SP 800-72), and a deterministic archive. The full cross-framework packaging workflow - it also handles ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, and FedRAMP control IDs - is in references/evidence-packaging.md; GRC-platform delivery and CI automation of the whole run is in references/grc-delivery-and-ci-automation.md.
Step 8 - End-to-end recipe
For each in-scope criterion:
Worked example
The observation period opens and CC6.3 (access deprovisioning) is in scope. The collector exports offboarding tickets daily; the per-control test test_cc6_3_offboarded_user_has_no_active_sessions runs in CI. A mock auditor sample pulls one departed employee: the ticket and the Okta session-revoke event line up, but the test fails because the ex-employee is still an org member in github_org. GitHub was never wired into the deprovisioning job. The team adds it, the test goes green, and the passing run plus the daily offboarding export becomes the CC6.3 evidence the auditor samples.
Anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Manual evidence collection only | Doesn't scale across observation period; misses sampling intervals | Automated collector (Step 2) |
| Trust the auditor will only sample what we expect | Audit fails on unexpected sample request | Continuous full-population collection (Step 6) |
| Evidence stored in mutable storage | Tampering risk; audit invalidated | Append-only / immutable storage (Step 6) |
| Test pass-history not preserved | Loses control-effectiveness evidence | Persist test results for the period |
| Skip mock-audit dry runs | First real audit reveals gaps | Mock-audit before observation period (Step 8) |
Limitations
References
Evidence packaging - auditor-facing evidence packages
View source (opens in new window)Evidence packaging - auditor-facing evidence packages
Companion reference for soc2-evidence-collector. The host skill harvests raw per-criterion evidence; this workflow assembles that output (from any framework - SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, FedRAMP) into auditor-ready packages: control-evidence matrix, timestamped bundles, chain-of-custody notes.
Overview
Auditors need more than passing tests. They require structured artifacts that map each control to verified outcomes, carry timestamps, and establish chain of custody. Per the NIST Computer Security Resource Center glossary (csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/chain_of_custody, sourced NIST SP 800-72), chain of custody is "a process that tracks the movement of evidence through its collection, safeguarding, and analysis lifecycle by documenting each person who handled the evidence, the date/time it was collected or transferred, and the purpose for the transfer."
Per ISACA's Interactive Glossary (isaca.org/resources/glossary), an artifact is "a form of objective evidence that is an output of the work being performed and the process being followed." Both definitions anchor this skill: the output is objective, output-of-work artifacts with documented custody - not raw logs and not mere coverage reports.
This workflow differs from its neighbors:
| Component | Scope |
|---|---|
soc2-evidence-collector (host skill) | SOC 2 TSC-specific: harvests raw Okta/IDP/CI logs per TSC criterion |
audit-trail-test-author | Authors tamper-evident audit-log tests per framework |
compliance-coverage-scoring | Read-only gap analysis: scores coverage without producing artifacts |
| This reference | Cross-framework: assembles auditor-ready packages from any test output |
When to use
Step 1 - Build the control-to-test map
Start by resolving which test (or test suite) owns each in-scope control. Controls come from the applicable framework:
| Framework | Control catalog |
|---|---|
| SOC 2 | AICPA Trust Services Criteria 2017 (rev. 2022 points of focus) - CC1-CC9, A1, C1, PI1, P1-P9 |
| ISO 27001:2022 | Annex A controls (cited by ID: A.5 through A.8) |
| PCI DSS v4.0.1 | Requirements 1-12 and associated testing procedures |
| HIPAA Security Rule | 45 CFR Part 164 Subpart C safeguards (Administrative, Physical, Technical) |
| GDPR | Art. 5(2), Art. 24, and Art. 30 accountability obligations per gdpr-info.eu |
| FedRAMP / NIST 800-53 Rev 5 | AU, AC, CM, SI, IR, and other control families |
Produce a YAML or JSON mapping file, not a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets cannot be diff-reviewed or version-controlled cleanly:
# control-map.yaml
controls:
- id: CC6.1 # SOC 2 Trust Services Criterion
framework: soc2
description: "Logical and physical access controls"
tests:
- suite: access_control_tests
test_id: test_mfa_enforced_for_all_admin_accounts
- suite: access_control_tests
test_id: test_offboarded_user_revoked_within_sla
- id: "ISO-A.8.3" # ISO 27001:2022 Annex A
framework: iso27001
description: "Information access restriction"
tests:
- suite: rbac_tests
test_id: test_role_least_privilege_enforced
- id: PCI-10.2.1 # PCI DSS v4.0.1 Requirement 10
framework: pci_dss
description: "Audit log entries generated per 10.2.1"
tests:
- suite: audit_log_tests
test_id: test_all_required_event_types_loggedOne control may reference multiple tests. One test may satisfy multiple controls. Both are valid; record them.
Step 2 - Run tests and capture structured results
Test output must be machine-readable. Ad-hoc terminal output is not evidence. Accepted formats: JUnit XML, pytest JSON report (via pytest-json-report), Jest JSON (via --json), or any format parseable by the evidence assembler in Step 4.
# pytest with JSON output (pytest-json-report)
pytest --json-report --json-report-file=results/test-run-$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ).json
# Jest with JSON output
npx jest --json --outputFile=results/test-run-$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ).json
# JUnit XML (e.g., from Maven / Gradle / Robot Framework)
# output path depends on build tool - pass to Step 4 parserTimestamp the file name at collection time (UTC). The collection timestamp is the first chain-of-custody data point.
Step 3 - Collect supporting evidence artifacts
Automated test results are the primary evidence. Supporting artifacts provide auditors with context:
Screenshots (UI controls tests)
# In Playwright / Selenium tests, save on pass as well as failure:
def capture_evidence_screenshot(page, control_id, test_name):
path = f"evidence/{control_id}/{test_name}_{datetime.utcnow().isoformat()}.png"
page.screenshot(path=path)
return pathLog excerpts (access / audit / system logs)
Excerpts must be bounded and labeled. Unbounded log dumps are noise that increases auditor workload, not evidence:
def extract_log_excerpt(log_source, start_utc, end_utc, control_id):
"""Extract the log window relevant to a control test run."""
return {
"control_id": control_id,
"log_source": log_source,
"window_start": start_utc.isoformat(),
"window_end": end_utc.isoformat(),
"lines": fetch_log_lines(log_source, start_utc, end_utc),
"collected_at": datetime.utcnow().isoformat(),
"collector": "evidence-packaging",
}CI pipeline exports
Export the CI run as a permanent artifact (GitHub Actions: actions/upload-artifact, GitLab: artifacts:paths, CircleCI: store_artifacts). The artifact URL or download reference goes into the chain-of-custody record (Step 5).
Step 4 - Assemble the control-evidence matrix
The matrix is the auditor's index. It maps every in-scope control to its evidence files with pass/fail status and collection metadata.
import json, datetime, pathlib
def build_evidence_matrix(control_map_path, test_results_path, artifact_dir):
control_map = load_yaml(control_map_path)
test_results = load_json(test_results_path)
matrix = []
for control in control_map["controls"]:
row = {
"control_id": control["id"],
"framework": control["framework"],
"description": control["description"],
"status": "PASS",
"tests": [],
"artifacts": [],
}
for test_ref in control["tests"]:
result = find_test_result(test_results, test_ref["suite"], test_ref["test_id"])
row["tests"].append({
"test_id": test_ref["test_id"],
"outcome": result["outcome"], # PASS / FAIL / SKIP / ERROR
"duration_ms": result["duration"],
"run_at": result["timestamp"],
})
if result["outcome"] != "PASS":
row["status"] = "FAIL"
# Attach any per-test artifact files
for artifact in glob_artifacts(artifact_dir, test_ref["test_id"]):
row["artifacts"].append(str(artifact))
matrix.append(row)
output = {
"generated_at": datetime.datetime.utcnow().isoformat() + "Z",
"generator": "evidence-packaging",
"controls": matrix,
}
pathlib.Path("evidence/control-evidence-matrix.json").write_text(
json.dumps(output, indent=2)
)
return outputRender the matrix as both JSON (machine-readable for GRC platform upload) and Markdown (human-readable for auditor review):
def render_matrix_markdown(matrix):
lines = [
"# Control-Evidence Matrix",
f"Generated: {matrix['generated_at']}",
"",
"| Control ID | Framework | Description | Status | Tests | Artifacts |",
"|---|---|---|---|---|---|",
]
for c in matrix["controls"]:
tests = ", ".join(t["test_id"] for t in c["tests"])
artifacts = ", ".join(c["artifacts"])
lines.append(
f"| {c['control_id']} | {c['framework']} | {c['description']} "
f"| {c['status']} | {tests} | {artifacts} |"
)
pathlib.Path("evidence/control-evidence-matrix.md").write_text("\n".join(lines))Step 5 - Write chain-of-custody notes
NIST SP 800-72 (the source of the chain-of-custody definition used above) requires documenting each person who handled the evidence, the date/time of collection or transfer, and the purpose of the transfer. Apply this to each evidence file:
{
"evidence_file": "evidence/CC6.1/test_mfa_enforced_20260604T143000Z.json",
"control_id": "CC6.1",
"collected_at": "2026-06-04T14:30:00Z",
"collected_by": "ci-runner:github-actions:run-12345",
"collection_method": "automated-test-result-export",
"ci_run_url": "https://github.com/org/repo/actions/runs/12345",
"artifact_url": "https://github.com/org/repo/actions/runs/12345/artifacts/67890",
"transferred_to": "GRC platform evidence upload",
"transferred_at": "2026-06-04T15:00:00Z",
"transferred_by": "alice@example.com",
"purpose": "SOC 2 Type II audit evidence submission - observation period Q2 2026",
"hash_sha256": "abc123...",
"notes": "Test run triggered by merge to main; no manual intervention."
}Hash each artifact file (SHA-256) and record the hash in the custody note. Any tampering after collection breaks the hash and invalidates the artifact. This is the automated-evidence equivalent of the forensic-evidence integrity requirement in NIST SP 800-72.
Step 6 - Bundle the evidence package
The evidence package is the deliverable the auditor or GRC platform receives. Standard layout:
evidence-package-<engagement>-<date>/
README.txt # engagement context, collection period, contacts
control-evidence-matrix.json # Step 4 machine-readable matrix
control-evidence-matrix.md # Step 4 human-readable matrix
chain-of-custody/
custody-<control-id>.json # Step 5 per-control custody notes
artifacts/
<control-id>/
<test-name>_<timestamp>.json # test result excerpt
<test-name>_<timestamp>.png # screenshot (if applicable)
<test-name>_<timestamp>.log # log excerpt (if applicable)
raw/
test-run-<timestamp>.json # full test results export (Step 2)Produce the bundle as a deterministic archive (tar + gzip or zip with stable sort order) so the archive hash is reproducible from the same inputs. Record the archive hash in the final custody note.
# Reproducible archive (GNU tar with --sort)
tar --sort=name -czf \
"evidence-package-${ENGAGEMENT}-$(date -u +%Y%m%d).tar.gz" \
evidence-package-*/
sha256sum "evidence-package-${ENGAGEMENT}-$(date -u +%Y%m%d).tar.gz" \
> "evidence-package-${ENGAGEMENT}-$(date -u +%Y%m%d).tar.gz.sha256"Delivery and CI automation - deep reference
Once the package is bundled (Step 6), deliver it to the GRC platform and automate the whole run in CI. Both operational steps - the per-platform manual upload paths (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe) and the CI workflow with its PCI DSS 12-month retention window - live in grc-delivery-and-ci-automation.md (opens in new window).
GDPR accountability note
GDPR Art. 5(2) (gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr) places the burden of proof on the controller: it "shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1." Art. 24 (gdpr-info.eu/art-24-gdpr) requires controllers to "implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation." Art. 30 (gdpr-info.eu/art-30-gdpr) requires maintaining a written record of processing activities available to supervisory authorities on request. The evidence package is the primary mechanism for satisfying all three provisions when controls are tested by automated means.
Anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Attaching full CI logs instead of excerpts | High noise, low signal; auditors reject | Bound log excerpts to the test window (Step 3) |
| No control-ID mapping | Auditor cannot match evidence to controls | Build control-map.yaml before collecting (Step 1) |
| Evidence in mutable storage | Tampering risk; custody note hash breaks | Use immutable store or append-only artifact (Step 6) |
| Evidence package without README | Auditor lacks engagement context | Always include README.txt with dates, scope, contacts (Step 6) |
| Manual collection only | Does not scale for Type II observation periods | Automate in CI with a nightly schedule (delivery reference) |
| Generating evidence for every control manually | Misses the point of test automation | Map controls to existing tests first (Step 1) |
Limitations
References
SOC 2 evidence source map
View source (opens in new window)SOC 2 evidence source map
In-scope criteria decision
Most SaaS engagements include CC + Availability + Confidentiality. Privacy criteria add when GDPR/CCPA also in scope. Processing Integrity adds for fintech / data-processing SaaS.
| Criterion category | Typical scope decision |
|---|---|
| CC1 Control Environment | Always |
| CC2 Communication & Information | Always |
| CC3 Risk Assessment | Always |
| CC4 Monitoring | Always |
| CC5 Control Activities | Always |
| CC6 Logical & Physical Access | Always |
| CC7 System Operations | Always |
| CC8 Change Management | Always |
| CC9 Risk Mitigation | Always |
| A1 Availability | If uptime SLA committed |
| C1 Confidentiality | Typical for B2B SaaS |
| PI1 Processing Integrity | If data-processing accuracy matters |
| P1 - P9 Privacy | If handling PII at scale |
Control to evidence source
Map each control to one or more automatable evidence sources:
| Control | Evidence source | Collector pattern |
|---|---|---|
| CC6.1 Logical access | IDP audit logs (Okta/Auth0/Keycloak) | Daily export of user-access events |
| CC6.2 Access provisioning | Onboarding workflow logs | Per-hire ticket + access-grant audit |
| CC6.3 Access deprovisioning | Offboarding workflow logs | Per-departure ticket + access-revoke audit |
| CC7.1 Threat detection | SIEM (Datadog, Splunk) alert logs | Continuous alert-history feed |
| CC7.2 System monitoring | APM (Datadog, New Relic) uptime data | Daily uptime report |
| CC8.1 Change management | Git PR history + CI deploy logs | Per-PR audit (reviewer attribution) |
| A1.1 Availability monitoring | SLO dashboards | Monthly availability report |
| C1.1 Encryption at rest | Cloud KMS audit logs | Quarterly attestation |
| C1.2 Encryption in transit | TLS config audit | Quarterly attestation |
GRC-platform delivery and CI automation
View source (opens in new window)GRC-platform delivery and CI automation
Deep reference for soc2-evidence-collector's evidence-packaging workflow (evidence-packaging.md (opens in new window)). Consult once the evidence package is bundled (evidence-packaging Step 6) and you need to deliver it to a GRC platform and automate the whole run in CI.
Upload to the GRC platform
The assembled package feeds into whichever GRC platform the engagement uses. All three major platforms accept manual evidence upload when no native integration covers the control:
| Platform | Manual upload path |
|---|---|
| Vanta | Controls -> Select control -> "Add evidence" -> upload file |
| Drata | Controls -> Control detail -> Evidence tab -> Upload |
| Secureframe | Controls -> Evidence -> Attach |
For controls with native integrations (e.g., Vanta's GitHub integration for CC8.1 change management), prefer the integration over manual upload. Use this skill only to fill gaps the integration cannot cover, or when the GRC platform is not yet in use.
CI integration
Evidence generation should run automatically on every merge to main (or nightly for continuous-monitoring controls):
# .github/workflows/compliance-evidence.yml
name: Compliance Evidence
on:
push:
branches: [main]
schedule:
- cron: "0 2 * * *" # nightly UTC
jobs:
evidence:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- name: Run compliance test suite
run: pytest compliance_tests/ --json-report --json-report-file=results/test-run.json
- name: Build evidence package
run: python scripts/build_evidence_package.py
- name: Upload evidence artifact
uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
with:
name: compliance-evidence-${{ github.run_id }}
path: evidence-package-*/
retention-days: 365 # retain for full observation period + bufferSet retention-days to cover the audit's observation period plus a buffer. PCI DSS v4.0.1 Requirement 10 requires log and evidence retention of at least 12 months with the most recent 3 months immediately available (source: pcisecuritystandards.org).
Related skills
audit-trail-test-author
Build-an-X for audit-log tests across compliance frameworks - required-events catalog (auth events / privilege change / data access / admin action / config change / export / impersonation); structured-log-format assertions per OWASP A09:2021; tamper-evident chain (hash-chain + signed-batch patterns) for HIPAA §164.312(b) + PCI Req 10 + SOC 2 CC7.3; immutability + retention per framework; query-replay tests for forensic reconstruction. Use when authoring audit log tests for any compliance framework (HIPAA / PCI / SOC 2 / GDPR / etc.).
compliance-coverage-scoring
Scores existing tests and evidence against a named compliance framework's criteria list (GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria, HIPAA Security Rule, PCI DSS, ISO/IEC 27001), marking every criterion met, partial, not met, or not applicable with a stated evidence requirement per state, and recording each scope exclusion with its criterion reference, reason, named approver, and re-review date. Includes an adversarial readiness-review mode with hard refusal rules (never "ready" with an unjustified gap), and the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A per-control test-pattern catalog in references/iso27001.md. Produces a readiness self-assessment only: not certification, not an audit opinion, not legal advice. Use when a framework version has been named and an evidence set already exists, and someone needs a per-criterion readiness score before an observation period opens, before a qualified assessor arrives, or in response to a regulator inquiry.
gdpr-test-patterns
Reference catalog of GDPR-aligned test patterns - data-subject-rights workflows (Art. 15 access, Art. 16 rectification, Art. 17 erasure / "right to be forgotten", Art. 18 restriction, Art. 20 portability, Art. 21 objection); consent recording + revocation per Art. 7; data-residency assertions per Art. 44 - 50 international transfers; breach-notification timing tests per Art. 33 (72 hours); data-minimization assertions in fixtures per Art. 5(1)(c). The California analogue - CCPA/CPRA patterns by Cal. Civ. Code section, including Global Privacy Control (GPC) opt-out, right-to-know, deletion, right-to-correct, and sensitive-PI limits - lives in references/ccpa.md. Use when authoring GDPR- or CCPA/CPRA-readiness tests for any product processing EU or California personal data.
hipaa-test-patterns
Reference catalog of HIPAA Security Rule-aligned test patterns - administrative safeguards (45 CFR §164.308: workforce training, access management, contingency planning), physical safeguards (§164.310: facility access, workstation security, device disposal), technical safeguards (§164.312: access control, audit logs, integrity, transmission security); PHI handling assertions in fixtures; minimum-necessary tests per §164.502(b); BAA-scope boundary verification. Use when authoring HIPAA-readiness tests for any product handling Protected Health Information.
pci-dss-control-test-author
Build-an-X for PCI DSS v4.0 scope verification - cardholder data environment (CDE) boundary tests, segmentation tests (PCI Req 1), prohibited-data-storage assertions per Req 3 (no full track data, no CVV/CAV2/CVC2/CID, no PIN/PIN block post-authorization), key-management tests per Req 3.6, encryption-of-transmissions per Req 4; includes the scope catalog (SAQ A / A-EP / D levels, PAN-storage rules, hosted-fields / tokenization scope-reduction patterns) in references/pci-scope.md. Use when authoring PCI DSS scope-reduction + control tests for any system handling payment-card data, or when determining a payment integration's SAQ level.