Mmcp.market

achieving-cmmc-level-2-compliance skill

by mukul975·mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills·34k stars·Apache-2.0

Prepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.

A100/100content scan

Is the achieving-cmmc-level-2-compliance skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 5 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the achieving-cmmc-level-2-compliance skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills/skills/achieving-cmmc-level-2-compliance ~/.claude/skills/achieving-cmmc-level-2-compliance
available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

Achieving CMMC Level 2 Compliance

When to Use

  • When an organization in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) stores, processes, or transmits Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract.
  • When a contract includes DFARS 252.204-7012 (safeguarding/incident reporting), -7019/-7020 (NIST 800-171 self-assessment + SPRS), or the new -7021 (CMMC requirement).
  • When preparing for a C3PAO third-party assessment or a DoD-led assessment.
  • When you must compute, post, or improve an SPRS score based on the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology.
  • When authoring or remediating a System Security Plan (SSP) and POA&M for the 110 requirements.
  • When scoping which assets fall inside the CUI/FCI boundary (CUI assets, security-protection assets, contractor risk-managed assets, out-of-scope).

Prerequisites

  • Knowledge of which contracts carry CUI and the CUI categories involved (check the contract and the DoD CUI Registry).
  • An asset inventory and network diagram so you can define the CMMC assessment scope before assessing controls.
  • The NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 requirements and the DoD Assessment Methodology scoring weights.
  • A documented SSP (its absence is itself a failed requirement — 3.12.4).
  • Identification of any External Service Providers (ESPs) / cloud services touching CUI, and whether they meet FedRAMP Moderate (or equivalency).

Workflow

1. Determine applicability and CUI categories

Confirm the contract requires CMMC Level 2 (CUI present, not just FCI). FCI-only contracts are Level 1 (the 15 FAR 52.204-21 requirements). Identify CUI categories from the contract and the DoD CUI Registry.

2. Scope the environment

Classify every asset into one of the CMMC scoping categories:

  • CUI Assets — process/store/transmit CUI (in scope, assessed against all applicable controls).
  • Security Protection Assets — provide security to the CUI environment (in scope).
  • Contractor Risk Managed Assets — could but are not intended to handle CUI; managed by policy.
  • Specialized Assets (IoT/OT, GFE, test equipment) — documented, limited assessment.
  • Out-of-Scope — physically/logically isolated from CUI.

Minimize scope deliberately — a smaller, well-segmented CUI enclave is far cheaper to certify than a flat network.

3. Implement the 110 requirements (NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2)

Work the 14 families (3.1–3.14). For each requirement, implement, then write the how in the SSP. High-leverage early wins: MFA (3.5.3), FIPS-validated cryptography (3.13.11), audit logging (3.3.x), access control + least privilege (3.1.x), and incident response (3.6.x).

4. Score with the DoD Assessment Methodology (SPRS)

Start at 110 and subtract the weighted value (1, 3, or 5 points) of each unmet requirement; partial credit applies to a small number of controls (e.g., MFA, FIPS crypto). The result is the SPRS score (maximum 110; the methodology floor is −203). Post the score, the SSP date, and the assessment scope to SPRS (or eMASS for higher assessments).

5. Build a compliant POA&M

Document every unmet requirement with owner, remediation, and milestone. Constraints under the CMMC rule: a Conditional status requires a score of at least 80% (≥ 88 of 110), only POA&M-eligible requirements may be deferred (the highest-weighted security requirements must be fully met — verify eligibility against 32 CFR Part 170), and all POA&M items must be closed within 180 days to convert Conditional → Final.

6. Assess (self or C3PAO)

Assessors evaluate each objective as MET / NOT MET / N/A with evidence (examine/interview/test). A senior official files the annual affirmation of continued compliance.

  • Level 1 and a subset of Level 2 = annual self-assessment with an affirmation in SPRS.
  • Level 2 (most CUI contracts) = triennial C3PAO certification assessment.
  • Level 3 = DoD (DIBCAC) assessment on top of Level 2, adding SP 800-172 enhanced requirements.

7. Maintain certification

Certification is valid three years with annual affirmations. Maintain the SSP, re-score on change, keep evidence current, and feed significant changes back into the assessment.

Key Concepts

Tools & Systems

  • NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 — the 110 requirements (and 800-171A for assessment objectives).
  • DoD NIST SP 800-171 Assessment Methodology — the scoring weights.
  • 32 CFR Part 170 (CMMC Program rule) and 48 CFR / DFARS 252.204-7021 (acquisition rule).
  • SPRS — score posting; SAM.gov for registration.
  • SP 800-172 / 800-172A — enhanced requirements for Level 3.
  • GRC / compliance tooling — to manage the SSP, POA&M, and evidence (e.g., Xacta, RegScale, FutureFeed-style trackers).

Common Scenarios

  • Prime flows CUI to a sub. The sub needs its own Level 2 scope, SSP, SPRS score, and (most likely) C3PAO certification.
  • Score is below 88. Prioritize the highest-weighted unmet requirements (5-point, then 3-point) to clear the conditional threshold and shrink the POA&M.
  • Cloud holds CUI. Confirm the service is FedRAMP Moderate authorized or meets equivalency; document the responsibility split.
  • Flat network. Re-scope into a segmented CUI enclave to cut the assessment surface before spending on controls.
  • Annual affirmation due. A senior official affirms continued compliance in SPRS; let it lapse and you risk contract eligibility.

Output Format

Produce a CMMC Level 2 Readiness Report using assets/template.md, containing:

  1. Applicability & CUI categories — why Level 2 applies.
  2. Scope — assets by scoping category and the CUI boundary diagram reference.
  3. Control status by family — met / not met / N/A across the 14 families.
  4. SPRS score — computed score, deductions, and the gap to 110 and to the 88 threshold.
  5. POA&M — unmet requirements, eligibility check, owners, 180-day milestones.
  6. Assessment path — self vs C3PAO, target date, affirmation owner.
  7. Remediation roadmap — sequenced by point value and effort.

Use scripts/process.py to compute the SPRS score from a control-status JSON, flag POA&M-eligibility concerns, and report the gap to the conditional-certification threshold.

More skills from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

  • Aabusing-dpapi-for-credential-accessExtract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.
  • Aabusing-shadow-credentials-for-privescTake over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.
  • Aacquiring-disk-image-with-dd-and-dcflddCreate forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.
  • Aanalyzing-active-directory-acl-abuseDetect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3
  • Aanalyzing-android-malware-with-apktoolPerform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.
  • Danalyzing-api-gateway-access-logs'Parses API Gateway access logs (AWS API Gateway, Kong, Nginx) to detect
  • Aanalyzing-apt-group-with-mitre-navigatorQuery ATT&CK data with attackcti, mitreattack-python, and stix2, then build MITRE ATT&CK Navigator layers and multi-layer heatmap overlays mapping one or more APT groups' TTPs for detection-gap analysis. Use to compare threat-actor technique coverage, find gaps in detection engineering, or produce Navigator visualizations for threat-intel reporting.
  • Aanalyzing-azure-activity-logs-for-threats'Queries Azure Monitor activity logs and sign-in logs via azure-monitor-query
  • Aanalyzing-bootkit-and-rootkit-samples'Analyzes bootkit and advanced rootkit malware infecting the Master
  • Aanalyzing-browser-forensics-with-hindsightParse Chromium-based browser databases with Hindsight to extract and correlate browsing history, downloads, cookies, cached content, autofill data, saved passwords, and extensions from Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi into a unified timeline (XLSX, JSON, or SQLite output). Use during incident response, insider-threat investigations, or criminal cases when you need to reconstruct a user's web activity from a browser profile.
  • Aanalyzing-campaign-attribution-evidenceSystematically evaluate cyber-campaign evidence to attribute an operation to a threat actor, using the Diamond Model and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to weigh infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarity, and timing/language artifacts into confidence-weighted attribution assessments. Use when an incident investigation needs a defensible attribution confidence level.
  • Aanalyzing-certificate-transparency-for-phishingMonitor Certificate Transparency logs using crt.sh and Certstream to

All agent skills → · MCP servers