sox-testing

anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill sox-testing
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

skill.md

SOX Compliance Testing

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

Important: This command assists with SOX compliance workflows but does not provide audit or legal advice. All testing workpapers and assessments should be reviewed by qualified financial professionals before use in audit documentation.

Generate sample selections, create testing workpapers, document control assessments, and provide testing templates for SOX 404 internal controls over financial reporting.

Usage

/sox <control-area> <period>

Arguments

  • control-area — The control area to test:
    • revenue-recognition — Revenue cycle controls (order-to-cash)
    • procure-to-pay or p2p — Procurement and AP controls (purchase-to-pay)
    • payroll — Payroll processing and compensation controls
    • financial-close — Period-end close and reporting controls
    • treasury — Cash management and treasury controls
    • fixed-assets — Capital asset lifecycle controls
    • inventory — Inventory valuation and management controls
    • itgc — IT general controls (access, change management, operations)
    • entity-level — Entity-level and monitoring controls
    • journal-entries — Journal entry processing controls
    • Any specific control ID or name
  • period — The testing period (e.g., 2024-Q4, 2024, 2024-H2)

Workflow

1. Identify Controls to Test

Based on the control area, identify the key controls. Present the control matrix:

Control # Control Description Type Frequency Key/Non-Key Risk Assertion
[ID] [Description] Manual/Automated/IT-Dependent Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Quarterly/Annual Key High/Medium/Low [CEAVOP]

Control types:

  • Automated: System-enforced controls with no manual intervention
  • Manual: Controls performed by personnel with judgment
  • IT-dependent manual: Manual controls that rely on system-generated data

Assertions (CEAVOP):

  • Completeness — All transactions are recorded
  • Existence/Occurrence — Transactions actually occurred
  • Accuracy — Amounts are correctly recorded
  • Valuation — Assets/liabilities are properly valued
  • Obligations/Rights — Entity has rights to assets, obligations for liabilities
  • Presentation/Disclosure — Properly classified and disclosed

2. Determine Sample Size

Calculate sample sizes based on control frequency and risk:

Control Frequency Population Size (approx.) Recommended Sample
Annual 1 1 (test the instance)
Quarterly 4 2
Monthly 12 2-4 (based on risk)
Weekly 52 5-15 (based on risk)
Daily ~250 20-40 (based on risk)
Per-transaction Varies 25-60 (based on risk and volume)

Adjust for:

  • Risk level: Higher risk controls require larger samples
  • Prior year results: Controls with prior deficiencies need larger samples
  • Reliance: Controls relied upon by external auditors may need larger samples

3. Generate Sample Selection

Select samples from the population using the appropriate method:

Random selection (default for transaction-level controls):

  • Generate random numbers to select specific items from the population
  • Ensure coverage across the full period

Systematic selection (for periodic controls):

  • Select items at fixed intervals with a random start point
  • Ensure representation across all sub-periods

Targeted selection (supplement to random, for risk-based testing):

  • Select items with specific risk characteristics (high dollar, unusual, period-end)
  • Document rationale for targeted selections

Present the sample:

SAMPLE SELECTION
Control: [Control ID] — [Description]
Period: [Testing period]
Population: [Count] items, $[Total value]
Sample size: [N] items
Selection method: [Random/Systematic/Targeted]

| Sample # | Transaction Date | Reference/ID | Amount | Selection Basis |
|----------|-----------------|--------------|--------|-----------------|
| 1        | [Date]          | [Ref]        | $X,XXX | Random          |
| 2        | [Date]          | [Ref]        | $X,XXX | Random          |
| ...      | ...             | ...          | ...    | ...             |

4. Create Testing Workpaper

Generate a testing template for each control:

SOX CONTROL TESTING WORKPAPER
==============================
Control #: [ID]
Control Description: [Full description of the control activity]
Control Owner: [Role/title — to be filled by tester]
Control Type: [Manual/Automated/IT-Dependent Manual]
Frequency: [How often the control operates]
Key Control: [Yes/No]
Relevant Assertion(s): [CEAVOP]
Testing Period: [Period]

TEST OBJECTIVE:
To determine whether [control description] operated effectively throughout the testing period.

TEST PROCEDURES:
1. [Step 1 — What to inspect, examine, or re-perform]
2. [Step 2 — What evidence to obtain]
3. [Step 3 — What to compare or verify]
4. [Step 4 — How to evaluate completeness of performance]
5. [Step 5 — How to assess timeliness of performance]

EXPECTED EVIDENCE:
- [Document type 1 — e.g., signed approval form]
- [Document type 2 — e.g., system screenshot showing review]
- [Document type 3 — e.g., reconciliation with preparer sign-off]

TEST RESULTS:

| Sample # | Ref | Procedure 1 | Procedure 2 | Procedure 3 | Result | Exception? | Notes |
|----------|-----|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------|------------|-------|
| 1        |     | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail | Y/N    |       |
| 2        |     | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail   | Pass/Fail | Y/N    |       |

EXCEPTIONS NOTED:
| Sample # | Exception Description | Root Cause | Compensating Control | Impact |
|----------|----------------------|------------|---------------------|--------|
|          |                      |            |                     |        |

CONCLUSION:
[ ] Effective — Control operated effectively with no exceptions
[ ] Effective with exceptions — Control operated effectively; exceptions are isolated
[ ] Deficiency — Control did not operate effectively
[ ] Significant Deficiency — Deficiency is more than inconsequential
[ ] Material Weakness — Reasonable possibility of material misstatement not prevented/detected

Tested by: ________________  Date: ________
Reviewed by: _______________  Date: ________

5. Provide Common Control Templates

Based on the control area, provide pre-built test step templates:

Revenue Recognition:

  • Verify sales order approval and authorization
  • Confirm delivery/performance evidence
  • Test revenue recognition timing against contract terms
  • Verify pricing accuracy to contract/price list
  • Test credit memo approval and validity

Procure to Pay:

  • Verify purchase order approval and authorization limits
  • Confirm three-way match (PO, receipt, invoice)
  • Test vendor master data change controls
  • Verify payment approval and segregation of duties
  • Test duplicate payment prevention controls

Financial Close:

  • Verify account reconciliation completeness and timeliness
  • Test journal entry approval and segregation of duties
  • Verify management review of financial statements
  • Test consolidation and elimination entries
  • Verify disclosure checklist completion

ITGC:

  • Test user access provisioning and de-provisioning
  • Verify privileged access reviews
  • Test change management approval and testing
  • Verify batch job monitoring and exception handling
  • Test backup and recovery procedures

6. Document Control Assessment

Classify any identified deficiencies:

Deficiency: A control does not allow management or employees to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. Consider:

  • Likelihood of misstatement
  • Magnitude of potential misstatement
  • Whether compensating controls exist

Significant Deficiency: A deficiency (or combination) that is less severe than a material weakness but important enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight.

Material Weakness: A deficiency (or combination) such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

7. Output

Provide:

  1. Control matrix for the selected area
  2. Sample selections with methodology documentation
  3. Testing workpaper templates with pre-populated test steps
  4. Results documentation template
  5. Deficiency evaluation framework (if exceptions are identified)
  6. Suggested remediation actions for any noted deficiencies
how to use sox-testing

How to use sox-testing on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add sox-testing
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill sox-testing

The skills CLI fetches sox-testing from GitHub repository anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/sox-testing

Reload or restart Cursor to activate sox-testing. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /sox-testing) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

Task Automation & Efficiency

Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort

Example

Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications

Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks

Knowledge Enhancement

Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance

Example

Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources

Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x

Quality Improvement

Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements

Example

Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors

Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
  • Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
  • Willingness to iterate and refine outputs

Time Estimate

15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install skill using provided installation command
  2. 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
  3. 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
  4. 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
  5. 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable

Common Pitfalls

  • Expecting perfect results without iteration
  • Not providing enough context in prompts
  • Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
  • Accepting outputs without review and validation

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Start with clear, specific prompts
  • +Provide relevant context and constraints
  • +Review and refine all outputs before using
  • +Iterate to improve output quality
  • +Document successful prompt patterns

✗ Don't

  • Don't use without understanding skill limitations
  • Don't skip validation of outputs
  • Don't share sensitive information in prompts
  • Don't expect skill to replace human judgment

💡 Pro Tips

  • Be specific about desired format and style
  • Ask for multiple options to choose from
  • Request explanations to understand reasoning
  • Combine AI efficiency with human expertise

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.

Learning Path

  1. 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
  2. 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
  3. 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
  4. 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.743 reviews
  • Isabella Dixit· Dec 28, 2024

    Keeps context tight: sox-testing is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • Chaitanya Patil· Dec 16, 2024

    Registry listing for sox-testing matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Kwame Abbas· Dec 4, 2024

    Registry listing for sox-testing matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Fatima Thomas· Nov 27, 2024

    sox-testing is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Ama Johnson· Nov 23, 2024

    sox-testing reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Layla Verma· Nov 19, 2024

    I recommend sox-testing for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Piyush G· Nov 7, 2024

    sox-testing reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Benjamin Srinivasan· Nov 3, 2024

    sox-testing fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Shikha Mishra· Oct 26, 2024

    I recommend sox-testing for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Benjamin Perez· Oct 22, 2024

    sox-testing is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

showing 1-10 of 43

1 / 5