Building Identity Governance Lifecycle ProcessSAFE
817 structured cybersecurity skills for AI agents · Mapped to 6 frameworks: MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF & MITRE F3 (Fight Fraud) · agentskills.io standard · Works with Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI & 20+ platforms · 29 security domains ·
Overview
817 structured cybersecurity skills for AI agents · Mapped to 6 frameworks: MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF & MITRE F3 (Fight Fraud) · agentskills.io standard · Works with Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI & 20+ platforms · 29 security domains ·
6c59587be632OBSERVED · 2026-10-07What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
---
name: building-identity-governance-lifecycle-process
description: Design identity governance and lifecycle (IGA) programs on platforms like SailPoint, Saviynt, or Entra ID Governance, covering joiner-mover-leaver (JML) automation, role mining, access requests, periodic recertification, and orphaned-account remediation sourced from an HR feed. Use when automating cross-system JML provisioning, remediating former-employee access, or building lifecycle processes for SOX, HIPAA, or GDPR compliance.
domain: cybersecurity
subdomain: identity-access-management
tags:
- identity-governance
- lifecycle-management
- JML
- access-provisioning
- RBAC
- IGA
version: '1.0'
author: mahipal
license: Apache-2.0
nist_ai_rmf:
- GOVERN-1.1
- GOVERN-1.7
- MAP-1.1
nist_csf:
- PR.AA-01
- PR.AA-02
- PR.AA-05
- PR.AA-06
mitre_attack:
- T1098
- T1136
- T1078
- T1531
- T1087
mitre_f3:
version: '1.1'
tactics:
- positioning
- defense-impairment
- initial-access
techniques:
- id: F1005
name: Account Manipulation
tactic: positioning
source: f3
- id: F1005.002
name: 'Account Manipulation: Add Authorized User'
tactic: positioning
source: f3
- id: F1033
name: Insider Access Abuse
tactic: initial-access
source: f3
- id: F1042
name: Reactivate Account
tactic: positioning
source: f3
- id: F1006
name: Account Takeover
tactic: initial-access
source: f3
---
# Building Identity Governance Lifecycle Process
## When to Use
- Organization lacks automated joiner-mover-leaver (JML) processes for identity management
- Access provisioning is manual and takes days, creating productivity loss and security gaps
- Former employees retain access to systems after termination (orphaned accounts)
- Role explosion has created thousands of roles with unclear ownership and overlapping entitlements
- Compliance requirements mandate documented identity lifecycle processes (SOX, HIPAA, GDPR)
- No centralized visibility into who has access to what across the enterprise
**Do not use** for single-application user management; identity governance addresses cross-system lifecycle management requiring correlation of authoritative HR sources with downstream application provisioning.
## Prerequisites
- Authoritative HR system (Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, BambooHR) as identity source of truth
- IGA platform (SailPoint, Saviynt, One Identity) or Microsoft Entra ID Governance
- Active Directory and/or Azure AD as primary directory services
- Application connectors for target systems requiring automated provisioning
- Defined organizational role structure and reporting hierarchy
- Stakeholder buy-in from HR, IT, security, and business unit managers
## Workflow
### Step 1: Define Identity Lifecycle States and Transitions
Map the identity lifecycle from hire to termination:
```python
"""
Identity Lifecycle State Machine
Defines all identity states and valid transitions with automated actions.
"""
IDENTITY_LIFECYCLE = {
"states": {
"PRE_HIRE": {
"description": "Identity created from HR feed before start date",
"automated_actions": [
"Create identity record in IGA platform",
"Generate unique employee ID",
"Create mailbox reservation",
"Assign birthright roles based on job code",
"Initiate background check workflow"
],
"valid_transitions": ["ACTIVE", "CANCELLED"]
},
"ACTIVE": {
"description": "Employee has started, full access provisioned",
"automated_actions": [
"Create Active Directory account",
"Create email mailbox",
"Provision birthright application access",
"Assign department-specific roles",
"Add to distribution groups",
"Issue MFA token/security key",
"Create VPN account if remote worker"
],
"valid_transitions": ["ROLE_CHANGE", "LEAVE_OF_ABSENCE", "TERMINATED"]
},
"ROLE_CHANGE": {
"description": "Employee transferred, promoted, or changed departments",
"automated_actions": [
"Recalculate role assignments based on new job code",
"Remove access from previous department applications",
"Provision access for new department applications",
"Update group memberships",
"Transfer manager in directory",
"Trigger access review for retained entitlements",
"Notify new manager of inherited access"
],
"valid_transitions": ["ACTIVE", "LEAVE_OF_ABSENCE", "TERMINATED"]
},
"LEAVE_OF_ABSENCE": {
"description": "Employee on extended leave (medical, parental, sabbatical)",
"automated_actions": [
"Disable interactive login (preserve account)",
"Suspend VPN access",
"Set out-of-office auto-reply",
"Delegate mailbox to manager",
"Preserve all role assignments for return",
"Set reactivation date from HR feed"
],
"valid_transitions": ["ACTIVE", "TERMINATED"]
},
"TERMINATED": {
"description": "Employee has left the organization",
"automated_actions": [
"Disable AD account immediately",
"Revoke all application access",
"Revoke VPN and remote access",
"Convert mailbox to shared (manager access for 90 days)",
"Transfer OneDrive files to manager",
"Remove from all security and distribution groups",
"Revoke OAuth tokens and API keys",
"Wipe corporate data from mobile devices",
"Archive identity record",
"Schedule account deletion after retention period"
Trust audit
SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | PASS |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- declared (4 observation(s))
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (2)
"description": "Employee has started, full access provisioned",
"description": "Sensitive data access or elevated permissions",
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
6c59587be632full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/mukul975__building-identity-governance-lifecycle-process.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-07 | 6c59587be632 | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Building Identity Governance Lifecycle Process skill do?
817 structured cybersecurity skills for AI agents · Mapped to 6 frameworks: MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF & MITRE F3 (Fight Fraud) · agentskills.io standard · Works with Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI & 20+ platforms · 29 security domains ·
Is Building Identity Governance Lifecycle Process safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can Building Identity Governance Lifecycle Process access on my machine?
The audit observed that it reaches the network. Each of those is consistent with what it says it does. Secrets in the source: none found.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (6c59587be632), read on 2026-10-07. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.