Draft answers to a vendor security questionnaire (SIG, CAIQ, or a custom sheet) from your real controls — fast, consistent, and honest about gaps. Use when asked to fill out a security questionnaire, answer a SIG/CAIQ, respond to a customer's security review, or complete a vendor risk assessment. Produces drafted answers grounded in your stated controls, a gap list of questions you can't truthfully answer yet, and reusable answer snippets for next time — never fabricated compliance.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use security-questionnaire-autofill to draft evidence-backed answers for [questionnaire] using [control documents] for [customer/framework], explicitly flagging gaps and decisions rather than inferring compliance.
Required inputs
[questionnaire]
[control documents]
[customer/framework]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: security-questionnaire-autofilldescription: "Draft answers to a vendor security questionnaire (SIG, CAIQ, or a custom sheet) from your real controls — fast, consistent, and honest about gaps. Use when asked to fill out a security questionnaire, answer a SIG/CAIQ, respond to a customer's security review, or complete a vendor risk assessment. Produces drafted answers grounded in your stated controls, a gap list of questions you can't truthfully answer yet, and reusable answer snippets for next time — never fabricated compliance."
Security Questionnaire Autofill
A single enterprise deal can arrive with a 300-question security questionnaire, and answering it by hand is a week no one has. This drafts the answers from your actual security posture, keeps the wording consistent across questions, and — critically — refuses to invent a control you don't have. What it can't answer truthfully, it flags, so you close the real gap instead of papering over it.
Answers must reflect reality. A fabricated "yes" on a security questionnaire is a misrepresentation that can void a contract — this skill flags gaps, it does not invent controls.
What This Skill Produces
Drafted answers — one per question, grounded in your stated controls, in consistent language
The gap list — questions you can't currently answer "yes" to, with what closing them would take
Reusable snippets — a growing answer library so the next questionnaire is faster
Evidence pointers — which policy/doc backs each answer (so reviewers can verify)
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
The questionnaire — the questions (SIG, CAIQ, or custom), pasted or attached
Your controls — your security posture: policies, certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001), encryption, access control, MFA, backups, incident process — whatever's real
Your posture doc / prior answers — if you have a security whitepaper or past questionnaire, feed it for consistency
Honesty stance — confirm: flag gaps rather than best-case them (default: yes)
Framework: Answer From Truth
Map question → control. Each question is answered from a real control or marked a gap. No control, no "yes."
Consistent voice. The same control answered the same way every time it's asked (questionnaires repeat).
Evidence-anchored. Every substantive answer names the policy/doc/cert that proves it.
Gaps are findings, not failures. A flagged gap is an action item; a fabricated answer is a liability.
Scope honestly. "Yes, for production; not yet for the sandbox" beats a misleading blanket yes.
Output Format
Security Questionnaire — [customer] · [framework]
Summary: [N answered · G gaps · C need a human decision]
Answers
#
Question
Answer
Evidence
Confidence
1
…
Yes — [detail]
[policy/cert]
High
2
…
GAP — not in place; would require [x]
—
—
Gaps to close (ranked)
[control] — effort to close, and whether it blocks this deal
Snippets saved for reuse
[control] → [reusable answer text]
Quality Checks
Every "yes" traces to a real, named control — none inferred or invented
Gaps are flagged explicitly, not softened into misleading answers
Repeated questions get consistent answers
Scope is honest where a control is partial
Anything requiring a business/legal decision is escalated, not guessed
Anti-Patterns
Fabricating a "yes" to speed the deal — the single thing this skill must never do.
Inconsistent answers to the same control across the sheet — reviewers notice.
Vague answers with no evidence — "we take security seriously" fails a review.
Hiding a partial scope behind a blanket claim.
Example Trigger Phrases
"Fill out this security questionnaire from our controls."
"Answer this SIG/CAIQ for a customer security review."
"Respond to the vendor risk assessment — flag anything we can't truthfully claim."
"Draft answers to this security review and list our gaps."