Files
antifragile/antifragile-consulting/assessment-templates
..

Assessment Templates

"What gets measured gets managed. What gets managed honestly becomes antifragile."

This directory contains diagnostic tools, maturity models, and assessment resources for evaluating organizational antifragility.

Production-Ready Templates

Template Purpose
Engagement Checklist Point-in-time, regularly updated. Controls to inspect on every M365+AD engagement, organized by domain. Not scored — a structured inspection list. Review January 2027.
Adversarial Validation Checklist Phase 2 — mature estates. Every item is a test, not an inspection. Opening/closing metrics, eight detection simulations, CA ghost policy tests, attack path verification. Review January 2027.
Self-Service Cadence Client leave-behind. Monthly portal checks and quarterly tool runs (PingCastle, Purple Knight, CAExporter, PowerShell scripts) an admin can run between engagements. Includes "call us" triggers. Customise per client before handing over.
Assessment Team Guide Technical execution guide for the Brownhat Diagnostic: tool sequence (ASTRAL, PULSAR, BloodHound, Elysium, Purple Knight, CAExporter), what to look for, kill chain synthesis, report structure, common mistakes.
Findings Backlog Single source of truth for all findings across every module and diagnostic. The input queue for the housekeeping stream. Pragmatic alternative to a formal risk register for organisations that do not have one.
NIST CSF 2.0 Baseline Assessment The Brownhat Diagnostic: structured 2-half-day workshop, gap analysis, kill chain identification
Module Completion Report Completion package template for every module; includes backlog update
Antifragile Risk Register Formal risk register template; the backlog feeds into this for organisations with mature risk management
Risk Register Example 8 fully populated entries from a realistic engagement — calibration reference
M365 Project Risk Register M365-specific risk register with phase gates

Planned Assessments

1. Antifragile Maturity Model (AF-MM)

A five-level maturity model covering:

  • Level 1: Fragile — Reactive, undocumented, dependent on single vendors
  • Level 2: Robust — Documented, monitored, but static
  • Level 3: Resilient — Automated recovery, tested backups, incident response operational
  • Level 4: Adaptive — Chaos engineering, continuous learning, structural improvement from failure
  • Level 5: Antifragile — Volatility is exploited for gain, optionality is strategic, intelligence is sovereign

2. AI Sovereignty Readiness Assessment

Evaluates:

  • Current AI usage inventory completeness
  • Data classification and leakage risk
  • Local infrastructure readiness
  • Vendor dependency and exit feasibility
  • Regulatory compliance posture

3. T0 Asset Discovery Scanner

Planned scripted assessment to:

  • Enumerate critical assets across on-premises and cloud environments
  • Classify assets by tier based on dependency mapping
  • Identify gaps in protection, monitoring, and recovery
  • Generate prioritized remediation roadmap

4. Dependency Risk Mapper

Planned tool to:

  • Map vendor and technology dependencies
  • Calculate coupling depth and exit difficulty
  • Identify hidden single points of failure
  • Simulate failure cascades

5. Incident Learning Index

Measures the organization's ability to convert incidents into structural improvements:

  • Mean time to structural fix
  • Post-mortem completion rate
  • Structural changes implemented per incident
  • Repeat incident rate

Development Roadmap

Phases are sequenced by client impact, not calendar quarter. Dates are assigned at the start of each development cycle.

Phase Deliverable Format Status
1 AF-MM v1.0 — Antifragile Maturity Model questionnaire and scoring guide Markdown + spreadsheet Planned
2 AI Sovereignty Readiness Assessment v1.0 Interactive web form or CLI tool Planned
3 T0 Asset Discovery Scanner v0.1 — cloud APIs + on-premises enumeration Python script Planned
4 Dependency Risk Mapper v0.1 — vendor coupling depth and failure cascade simulation Python + network analysis Planned

Contributing

When adding new assessments:

  1. Document the purpose, methodology, and limitations
  2. Include scoring rubrics with clear criteria
  3. Provide sample outputs and interpretation guidance
  4. Version assessments and maintain changelogs
  5. Test on at least two different organizational profiles before release

Return to Repository Index