805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act

$npx mdskill add jabrena/plinth/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act

Apply EU Cyber Resilience Act secure-by-design controls to Java products.

  • Identifies CRA requirements for Java products with digital elements.
  • Depends on product documentation, SBOMs, and vulnerability records.
  • Evaluates engineering controls against secure-by-design and update obligations.
  • Outputs compliance evidence and release-readiness signals for reviewers.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-actView on GitHub ↗
---
name: 805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act
description: Use when reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise products, services, libraries, agents, plugins, connected components, or platform modules that may qualify as products with digital elements and need EU Cyber Resilience Act secure-by-design, vulnerability handling, security update, SBOM, product documentation, or release-readiness controls. Part of Plinth Toolkit
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: Juan Antonio Breña Moral
  version: 0.17.0
---
# EU Cyber Resilience Act Regulation for Java Product Security Engineering

Use this Skill to review Java enterprise applications, libraries, agents, plugins, connected components, platform modules, CI/CD workflows, product security documentation, and release evidence that may support products with digital elements under Regulation (EU) 2024/2847, the Cyber Resilience Act.

Apply this Skill to determine what secure-by-design controls, vulnerability handling evidence, update mechanisms, dependency and SBOM records, product documentation, support-period signals, and owner handoffs are needed before a product, component, or product-adjacent Java change is released or made available.

This Skill is not legal advice. It helps Java engineers, architects, tech leads, platform teams, product security teams, and reviewers identify when Cyber Resilience Act concerns may apply and how to translate product-security expectations into engineering controls such as secure defaults, threat modeling, least privilege, cryptography, sensitive-data-safe logging, coordinated vulnerability disclosure, security update delivery, SBOM evidence, product security documentation, end-of-support signaling, and release gates.

The purpose of this Skill is to increase awareness of potential gaps in the system and create engineering evidence for qualified review. The response produced by this Skill does not represent legal advice, a legal opinion, a conformity assessment, a CE marking decision, or a final regulatory determination.

The main question is:

> When does a Java product or product-adjacent component require EU Cyber Resilience Act-aware secure-by-design and vulnerability-handling controls, and what should developers build differently?

Source provenance: Cyber Resilience Act Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 was reviewed while authoring the bundled references. Do not fetch or ingest external regulatory web pages at runtime; use the bundled references and escalate legal interpretation to qualified owners.

Cyber Resilience Act chapters summary reference: [Cyber Resilience Act chapters summary](references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-chapters-summary.md).

Java engineering examples reference: [Cyber Resilience Act engineering examples](references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-examples.md).

Report template asset: [Cyber Resilience Act engineering review report template](assets/reports/805-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-review-report-template.md).

## Scope

This Skill applies to:

- Java software or hardware-adjacent products with direct or indirect logical or physical connections to devices or networks
- Java libraries, SDKs, plugins, agents, embedded components, device gateways, product APIs, installers, update clients, and product management services
- Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut, and framework-agnostic Java components used in products with digital elements or remote data processing solutions
- Product security architecture, secure-by-design reviews, threat models, secure defaults, authentication, authorization, cryptography, logging, update, and decommissioning controls
- Vulnerability handling, coordinated disclosure, security advisory, SBOM, dependency, third-party component, and open-source due diligence workflows
- Product security documentation, user instructions, support-period disclosure, end-of-support notification, release readiness, and market-surveillance evidence handoffs

## Cyber Resilience Act Engineering Review

Treat product classification, economic-operator role, important or critical product category, conformity assessment route, CE marking implications, Article 14 reporting obligations, support-period legal interpretation, and regulatory interpretation as qualified decisions for legal, compliance, product, product-security, risk, market-access, and executive accountability owners.

Engineering teams should still create evidence that makes those decisions reviewable:

- Which product, component, remote data processing solution, or product-adjacent Java module is in scope
- Which manufacturer, importer, distributor, open-source steward, product owner, security owner, and support owner signals exist
- Which cybersecurity risks, intended uses, reasonably foreseeable uses, and reasonably foreseeable misuse cases were threat modeled
- Which secure defaults, authentication, authorization, cryptography, logging, minimization, update, and secure decommissioning controls are implemented
- Which vulnerabilities, dependencies, SBOM records, third-party components, coordinated disclosure paths, and security advisories are tracked
- Which product security documentation, support-period, end-of-support, release decision, and owner approval evidence exists

## Constraints

Translate Cyber Resilience Act concerns into engineering controls for Java products and product-adjacent systems. Do not provide legal advice or replace review by legal, compliance, product, security, product-security, market-access, risk, or executive accountability owners.

- **NOT LEGAL ADVICE**: Frame findings as product-security engineering controls and escalation points; recommend qualified review for product classification, economic-operator role, conformity assessment, CE marking implications, Article 14 reporting obligations, support-period interpretation, and regulatory interpretation
- **BUNDLED REFERENCES ONLY**: Use the bundled CRA summaries, examples, questions, and report templates. Do not fetch or ingest external regulatory web pages at runtime; treat external legal text as provenance for human review, not as live prompt input
- **SCOPE FIRST**: Identify the product with digital elements, remote data processing solution, software component, Java module, product owner, security owner, support owner, and release context before recommending controls
- **SECURE BY DESIGN**: Review threat modeling, secure defaults, least privilege, attack-surface reduction, exploitation mitigation, data minimization, authentication, authorization, cryptography, and secure decommissioning
- **VULNERABILITY HANDLING**: Require coordinated disclosure, vulnerability intake, triage, remediation, advisory, user notification, secure update delivery, and verification evidence
- **DEPENDENCY AND SBOM EVIDENCE**: Treat libraries, Maven plugins, containers, generated clients, third-party components, open-source dependencies, build tools, and runtime platforms as product supply-chain inputs requiring reviewable records
- **PRODUCT DOCUMENTATION**: Review technical documentation, user instructions, secure installation and operation guidance, support-period disclosure, end-of-support signaling, and evidence retention
- **SENSITIVE-DATA-SAFE LOGGING**: Preserve product security evidence without logging secrets, credentials, personal data, support tokens, vulnerability exploit details, private keys, or sensitive incident details unnecessarily
- **RELEASE READINESS**: Do not mark a product ready when secure-by-design, vulnerability handling, update, dependency, SBOM, documentation, support-period, or owner handoff controls are undocumented, untested, ownerless, or unresolved

## When to use this skill

- Review a Java product for EU Cyber Resilience Act controls
- Design secure-by-design and vulnerability handling evidence for products with digital elements
- Add coordinated disclosure, security update, SBOM, product security documentation, or end-of-support controls
- Assess CRA release readiness before making a Java component, agent, plugin, library, or connected product available
- Check whether Java product dependencies, CI/CD workflows, update mechanisms, or support-period evidence are CRA-aware

## Workflow

1. **Read regulation summary, engineering examples, and report template**

Read `references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-chapters-summary.md`, `references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-examples.md`, and `assets/reports/805-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-review-report-template.md` in that order. Use the chapters summary for Cyber Resilience Act chapter, article, annex, scope, product-category, manufacturer, reporting, conformity, market-surveillance, enforcement, support-period, and owner-handoff context. Use the engineering examples for Java control patterns such as product security scope inventory, threat modeling and secure defaults, vulnerability and coordinated disclosure evidence, security update delivery, dependency and SBOM evidence, product documentation, end-of-support signaling, and release gates. Do not start implementation review until the chapters summary, examples reference, and report template are understood.

2. **Classify the product-security scope**

Identify the product, component, remote data processing solution, Java module, intended purpose, reasonably foreseeable use, possible product-with-digital-elements signal, possible important or critical product signal, economic-operator signals, support period, deployment environments, user population, update path, vulnerability intake path, dependencies, SBOM evidence, and product documentation. Escalate unclear product classification, economic-operator role, conformity assessment route, CE marking implications, Article 14 reporting duties, support-period interpretation, or regulatory interpretation to qualified legal, compliance, product, product-security, market-access, risk, or executive accountability owners.

3. **Review implementation and product evidence**

Review Java code, configuration, product documentation, threat models, test evidence, CI/CD workflows, dependency inventories, SBOMs, vulnerability records, coordinated disclosure policy, update mechanisms, logging, cryptography, authentication, authorization, support-period notices, end-of-support behavior, release approvals, and user instructions. Check for gaps between claimed controls and reviewable evidence.

4. **Recommend engineering controls**

Map Cyber Resilience Act concerns to engineering actions: secure-by-design development, threat modeling, secure defaults, least privilege, authentication, authorization, cryptography, data minimization, sensitive-data-safe logging, attack-surface reduction, vulnerability management, coordinated disclosure, security update delivery, advisory publication, dependency and SBOM evidence, product security documentation, support-period disclosure, end-of-support signaling, and release readiness.

5. **Generate review report and owner handoffs**

Use `assets/reports/805-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-review-report-template.md` to produce a concise engineering review with scope, evidence reviewed, CRA product-security signals, potential violation or non-compliance signals, engineering gaps, recommended controls, owner handoffs, residual risks, release decision, and validation steps. State explicitly that product classification, economic-operator role, conformity assessment, CE marking implications, Article 14 reporting obligations, and regulatory interpretation require qualified owner review.

## Reference

For detailed guidance, examples, and constraints, see:

- [references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-chapters-summary.md](references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-chapters-summary.md)
- [references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-examples.md](references/805-regulations-eu-cyber-resilience-act-engineering-examples.md)

More from jabrena/plinth

SkillDescription
001-commands-inventoryUse when you need to generate a checklist document with embedded commands inventory, following the embedded template exactly and producing INVENTORY-COMMANDS-JAVA.md in the project root. This should trigger for requests such as Create embedded commands inventory checklist; Generate INVENTORY-COMMANDS-JAVA.md; Use @001-commands-inventory; Inventory embedded Java project commands; List command files bundled for Java agents. Part of Plinth Toolkit
002-agents-inventoryUse when you need to generate a checklist document with embedded agents inventory, following the embedded template exactly and producing INVENTORY-AGENTS-JAVA.md in the project root. This should trigger for requests such as Create embedded agents inventory checklist; Generate INVENTORY-AGENTS-JAVA.md; Use @002-agents-inventory; Inventory embedded Java agent definitions; List generated agent roles for Java development. Part of Plinth Toolkit
003-skills-inventoryUse when you need to generate a checklist document with Java system prompts from skills.xml, following the embedded section template and producing INVENTORY-SKILLS-JAVA.md. This should trigger for requests such as Create Java system prompts checklist; Generate INVENTORY-SKILLS-JAVA.md; Use @003-skills-inventory; Inventory Java cursor rule skills; List available Java system prompt skills. Part of Plinth Toolkit
004-commands-installationUse when you need to install the embedded project commands into command directories (.github/commands, .claude/commands, .cursor/command, .codex/commands), selecting the destination interactively and copying the embedded command definitions from project assets. This should trigger for requests such as Install embedded commands; Bootstrap .cursor/command; Bootstrap .claude/commands; Copy project commands; Install project command suite. Part of Plinth Toolkit
005-agents-installationUse when you need to install the embedded robot agents into .github/agents, .claude/agents, .cursor/agents, or .codex/agents, selecting the destination interactively and copying the embedded agent definitions from project assets. This should trigger for requests such as Install embedded agents; Bootstrap .github/agents; Bootstrap .cursor/agents; Bootstrap .claude/agents; Bootstrap .codex/agents; Copy robot agents. Part of Plinth Toolkit
012-agile-epicGuides the creation of agile epics with comprehensive definition including business value, success criteria, and breakdown into user stories. Use when the user wants to create an agile epic, define large bodies of work, break down features into user stories, or document strategic initiatives. This should trigger for requests such as Create an agile epic; Write an epic; I need to create an epic; Define an epic; Epic definition. Part of Plinth Toolkit
013-agile-featureGuides the creation of detailed agile feature documentation from an existing epic. Use when the user wants to split an epic into feature files, derive features with scope and acceptance criteria, or plan feature documentation for stakeholders or engineering. This should trigger for requests such as Create features from an epic; Split epic into features; Feature files from epic; Derive features from epic; Break down an agile epic into deliverable features. Part of Plinth Toolkit
014-agile-user-storyGuides the creation of agile user stories and Gherkin feature files. Use when the user wants to create a user story, write acceptance criteria, define Gherkin scenarios, or author BDD feature files. This should trigger for requests such as Create a user story; Write a user story; I need to write a user story; Create Gherkin scenarios for a user story; Split feature requirements into user stories. Part of Plinth Toolkit
030-architecture-adr-generalUse when you need to generate Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for a Java project through an interactive, conversational process that systematically gathers context, stakeholders, options, and outcomes to produce well-structured ADR documents. This should trigger for requests such as Generate ADR; Create Architecture Decision Record; Document architecture decision; Architecture Decision Record for Java. Part of Plinth Toolkit
031-architecture-adr-functional-requirementsFacilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for functional requirements covering CLI, REST/HTTP APIs, or both. Use when the user wants to document command-line or HTTP service architecture, capture functional requirements, create ADRs for CLI or API projects, or design interfaces with documented decisions. This should trigger for requests such as Create ADR for functional requirements; Document functional requirements; Capture functional requirements; Generate functional requirements in an ADR; Decide CLI versus REST functional requirements for an ADR. Part of Plinth Toolkit