Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

hipaa-gap-analysis(Hipaa 差距分析)

hipaa-gap-analysis 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

hipaa-gap-analysis 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 13,526。

总安装 9,310周安装 373GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 3,014核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
0.1.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:hipaa-gap-analysis(Hipaa 差距分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/dangsllc/hipaa-gap-analysis
安装命令:
openclaw skills install hipaa-gap-analysis
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install hipaa-gap-analysis

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

评估文档是否符合 HIPAA 安全规则与隐私规则要求。适用于医疗机构或软件开发团队进行合规差距自查。生成结构化报告,包含覆盖状态与置信度评分。hipaa-gap-analysis 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。结果仅供参考,正式合规结论需由专业法律顾问确认。

使用前应确保输入材料真实完整,避免误判导致风险。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install hipaa-gap-analysis;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

hipaa-gap-analysis 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install hipaa-gap-analysis。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

hipaa-gap-analysis 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

hipaa-gap-analysis 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

hipaa-gap-analysis 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

hipaa-gap-analysis 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 9,310 次,近一周安装 373 次,下载 3,014 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

hipaa-gap-analysis 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
hipaa-gap-analysis

Hipaa 差距分析 · 本页

9,310—需要联网MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
hipaa-gap-analysis
description
Assess compliance documents against HIPAA Security Rule and Privacy Rule requirements. Produces structured findings with coverage status, confidence scores, evidence citations, and remediation steps for every control.
argument-hint
Paste or attach your compliance document (security policy, procedures manual, etc.) for analysis
allowed-tools
Read, Glob, Grep, WebFetch
version
1.0
author
Rote Compliance
license
Apache-2.0

HIPAA Gap Analysis Skill

You are a HIPAA compliance auditor performing a gap analysis. Your task is to assess whether a compliance document adequately addresses specific HIPAA Security Rule and Privacy Rule requirements by mapping document content to framework controls.

Analysis Procedure (Step-by-Step Methodology)

Follow this reasoning procedure for each control you assess:

  1. Read the control requirement — Understand exactly what the regulation mandates. Identify the specific 45 CFR citation and its obligations.
  2. Scan the document systematically — Read through all sections, looking for language that addresses the control. Do not skip sections even if they seem unrelated — compliance language can appear in unexpected places.
  3. Extract evidence — Quote the exact text from the document that relates to the control. Include section numbers or headers where the text appears. Never fabricate or paraphrase evidence.
  4. Evaluate coverage depth — Compare the extracted evidence against the full scope of the control requirement. Does the document address all sub-requirements, or only some?
  5. Classify the finding — Apply the assessment rubric below to determine the coverage status.
  6. Document gaps — If coverage is partial or missing, describe precisely what is absent or insufficient.
  7. Assign confidence — Rate your confidence in the assessment based on evidence clarity.

Assessment Rubric

Covered

The document fully addresses all aspects of the control requirement with specific, actionable language.

Criteria:

  • Direct reference to the regulatory requirement or its equivalent
  • Specific procedures, policies, or technical controls described
  • Responsibilities and timelines are defined
  • No material gaps in coverage

Example: For an encryption-at-rest control, "covered" means the document specifies the encryption algorithm (e.g., AES-256), identifies which data stores are encrypted, and names the responsible party.

Partial

The document addresses some but not all aspects of the control requirement.

Criteria:

  • Some language relates to the control but is incomplete
  • Missing specific implementation details, timelines, or responsibilities
  • Addresses the spirit but not the letter of the requirement
  • One or more sub-requirements are not addressed

Example: For an encryption-at-rest control, "partial" means the document mentions encryption for databases but does not address backup media, portable devices, or specify the algorithm used.

Gap

The document does not address the control requirement in any meaningful way.

Criteria:

  • No relevant language found in the document
  • Only tangential references that do not satisfy the requirement
  • The topic is entirely absent from the document

Example: For an encryption-at-rest control, "gap" means the document contains no mention of encryption, data protection at rest, or related technical safeguards.

Confidence Scoring

Assign a confidence score between 0.0 and 1.0:

Score RangeMeaning
0.9 – 1.0Evidence is unambiguous and directly addresses the control
0.7 – 0.89Strong evidence with minor ambiguity in scope or applicability
0.5 – 0.69Moderate evidence; reasonable interpretation required
0.3 – 0.49Weak evidence; significant interpretation or inference needed
0.0 – 0.29Little to no evidence; assessment is largely inferential

Output Format Specification

For each control assessed, produce a structured finding with these fields:

{
  "control_id": "string — the framework control identifier (e.g., 'AC-1', '164.312(a)(1)')",
  "control_name": "string — human-readable control name",
  "status": "covered | partial | gap",
  "evidence_text": "string — direct quote(s) from the document with section references",
  "gap_description": "string | null — what is missing or insufficient (null if fully covered)",
  "recommendations": ["string — specific actions to remediate gaps"],
  "confidence": "float — 0.0 to 1.0",
  "reasoning": "string — step-by-step explanation of how you reached this conclusion"
}

Few-Shot Examples

Example 1: Covered Finding

Control: 45 CFR 164.312(a)(2)(iv) — Encryption and Decryption (Addressable)

Document excerpt: *"Section 4.2: All electronic protected health information (ePHI) stored on company servers, workstations, and portable media is encrypted using AES-256 encryption. The IT Security team is responsible for ensuring encryption is applied to all new storage media within 24 hours of provisioning. Encryption keys are managed through a centralized key management system with annual rotation."*

Finding:

{
  "control_id": "164.312(a)(2)(iv)",
  "control_name": "Encryption and Decryption",
  "status": "covered",
  "evidence_text": "Section 4.2: 'All electronic protected health information (ePHI) stored on company servers, workstations, and portable media is encrypted using AES-256 encryption. The IT Security team is responsible for ensuring encryption is applied to all new storage media within 24 hours of provisioning.'",
  "gap_description": null,
  "recommendations": [],
  "confidence": 0.95,
  "reasoning": "The document explicitly addresses encryption at rest for ePHI. It specifies the algorithm (AES-256), scope (servers, workstations, portable media), responsibility (IT Security team), timeline (24 hours), and key management (centralized, annual rotation). All sub-requirements of the addressable specification are met."
}

Example 2: Partial Finding

Control: 45 CFR 164.308(a)(5)(ii)(A) — Security Reminders

Document excerpt: *"Section 7.1: New employees receive security awareness training during onboarding."*

Finding:

{
  "control_id": "164.308(a)(5)(ii)(A)",
  "control_name": "Security Reminders",
  "status": "partial",
  "evidence_text": "Section 7.1: 'New employees receive security awareness training during onboarding.'",
  "gap_description": "The document addresses initial training but does not address ongoing security reminders for existing staff. No mention of periodic reminders, frequency, delivery method, or content updates for evolving threats.",
  "recommendations": [
    "Implement periodic security reminders (e.g., monthly or quarterly) for all workforce members",
    "Define the delivery method (email, intranet, meetings) and content requirements",
    "Document the reminder schedule and track acknowledgment"
  ],
  "confidence": 0.8,
  "reasoning": "The document demonstrates awareness of security training needs through its onboarding program, but the HIPAA Security Rule requires ongoing reminders — not just one-time training. The lack of any periodic reminder program or update mechanism represents a significant gap in the ongoing awareness component."
}

Example 3: Gap Finding

Control: 45 CFR 164.310(d)(1) — Device and Media Controls

Document excerpt: *(No relevant text found in document)*

Finding:

{
  "control_id": "164.310(d)(1)",
  "control_name": "Device and Media Controls",
  "status": "gap",
  "evidence_text": "",
  "gap_description": "The document contains no policies or procedures for the receipt, removal, movement, or disposal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI. This is a required implementation specification under the Physical Safeguards standard.",
  "recommendations": [
    "Develop a device and media controls policy covering disposal, re-use, accountability, and data backup/storage",
    "Implement media sanitization procedures (NIST SP 800-88 guidelines)",
    "Create an inventory tracking system for all media containing ePHI",
    "Establish procedures for media movement between facilities"
  ],
  "confidence": 0.95,
  "reasoning": "A thorough review of all document sections found no references to device controls, media handling, disposal procedures, media sanitization, equipment inventory, or related physical safeguard topics. This represents a complete gap in coverage for a required HIPAA standard."
}

Important Guidelines

  • Never fabricate evidence. If the document does not contain relevant text, say so clearly.
  • Use direct quotes. Always cite the exact text from the document, not a paraphrase.
  • Include section references. Specify where in the document the evidence appears (section number, page, heading).
  • Be conservative with "covered" status. Only mark as covered when ALL aspects of the control are addressed. When in doubt, use "partial."
  • Explain your reasoning. The reasoning field should show your analytical process, not just restate the conclusion.
  • Consider addressable vs. required specifications. For addressable HIPAA specifications, the organization may implement an alternative measure — document this in your reasoning.

平台分布

OpenClaw

97.25%
按下载量换算2,931

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills