Results for “gap-analysis”

Use when a Research Pilot project needs read-only gap detection or Evidence Need extraction from the Project Understanding Graph.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Audit an existing Quarkus + LangChain4j project against this stack's agentic conventions — a read-only conformance or gap-analysis review. Use when the user asks to audit, review, check, assess, or validate a Quarkus project against the LangChain4j agentic conventions, or wants to know whether an existing project conforms to (or is ready to adopt) this stack. User-invoked only.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when you need to answer "which attacker techniques do our controls actually stop, and how well?", "what controls should I have for this threat?", or "what telemetry should I collect to detect it?" — joining a customer's or your own security control baseline to ATT&CK techniques using a public, versioned evidence base of 9,545 control-to-technique mappings from six sources. Produces four ranked lists (addressed strongly, addressed weakly, real gaps, and techniques no control anywhere addresses). Use for control gap analysis, security programme prioritisation, board reporting on coverage, or the Resistance Strength side of a FAIR risk assessment. Invoke after /threat-actor-profiling or /lookup-liberty91 has produced a technique list.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Identify gaps between current and desired state. Use when the user says "gap analysis", "what's missing", "current vs future state", "where are the gaps", "capability gap", "maturity assessment", "fit-gap analysis", "what needs to change", "compare current to target", "readiness assessment" - even if they don't explicitly say "gap analysis".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

将新 AI 法规或监管要求与现有治理状态进行差距分析，输出修复计划。 本 skill 仅覆盖中国大陆 AI 治理法规——其他法域 AI 治理请走当地服务或律所。

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

PM-mode brainstorm helper. Captures the requirement via Socratic dialogue before any entry phase (`/intake`, `/spec`, `/tdd`) drafts its artifact. Stage 0 skip-check, Stage 1 gap-analysis, Stage 2 probe-loop, Stage 3 confirm-and-persist. Output lives at `docs/brief/<slug>.md`. Never proposes solutions — Stage 2 dialogue discipline is structurally enforced via `discipline.mjs`.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when auditing a repository for evidence-backed gaps between code, SPECs, architecture, and documentation — before a release, after a review, or when the user asks what is missing or divergent. Confirmed gaps become Draft SPECs via write-specs, a tracked GitHub Epic via create-issues, and orchestrated execution via orchestrator, with an explicit approval gate before any external action.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Identifies missing information required to complete qualification, segmentation, or outreach preparation. Use when the user provides records and a goal and wants prioritized research gaps with sources.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use this skill when a bank, payment or e-money institution, investment firm, insurer, crypto-asset service provider or other financial entity in scope of DORA needs to know whether its ICT risk management setup holds up, or when someone asks "DORA gap analysis", "are we DORA compliant on ICT risk", "check our ICT risk management framework", "prepare for the supervisor's DORA review", "does our ISO 27001 ISMS cover DORA" or "audit our Article 6 framework". Confirms the entity type and whether the simplified regime applies, maps the entity's own documents and records against the ICT risk management articles, and writes a gap list with owners, evidence and priorities.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use this skill when a team suspects its policies describe a company that does not exist, before an audit or customer review, or asks "do our policies match what we actually do", "check the policy against reality", "paper versus practice", "will the auditor find gaps in our policies", "our policy says quarterly but we never do it" or "align policies with how we work". Turns each policy into testable statements, samples the systems and records that show the practice, classifies every gap and proposes whether to fix the policy or the practice, with owners and priorities.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use this skill when a company starts a compliance programme and needs to know how far it is from a framework, and asks "run a gap analysis", "how ready are we for the audit", "baseline us against the framework", "what do we have and what is missing", "readiness assessment before we hire an auditor" or "how long until we can certify". Baselines what exists against the chosen framework from documents and records, rates each item by evidence rather than opinion, sizes every gap by effort and audit risk, and writes a gap register plus a prioritised summary with the long-lead items first.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "build programmatic SEO pages", "generate pages at scale", "rank on a high-authority third-party site", "borrow domain authority", "build a vs / alternative page", "do local SEO", "optimize a Google Business Profile", or "fix NAP" — one page-build router with four modes: programmatic (template × dataset systems), parasite (barnacle publishing on Medium/Reddit/LinkedIn/GitHub), comparison (vs / alternative pages in four formats), and local (GBP + NAP + citations + location pages), each with its own thin/duplicate, honesty, or reputation-abuse guardrail. Not for finding what to target — use keyword-research or content-gap-analysis; not for drafting one standalone article — use content-writer; not for scoring a page for publish — use content-quality-auditor. 程序化SEO/批量页面/寄生SEO/借势权重/对比页/vs页/替代页/本地SEO/谷歌商家档案/NAP一致性

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "find keywords", "挖词", or "搜什么词"; prioritizes search volume, keyword difficulty, intent, and topic clusters from provided or connected data. Not for competitor-relative coverage gaps — use content-gap-analysis. 关键词研究/内容选题

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "find content gaps", "竞品写了什么", or "还应该写什么"; builds a competitor-relative coverage map of missing topics, keyword gaps, and editorial-calendar opportunities. Not for raw keyword demand discovery — use keyword-research. 内容缺口/选题规划

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "analyze competitors" or "竞品分析"; benchmarks competitor keywords, content, backlinks, AI citations, and traffic share into strengths, weaknesses, and an action plan. Not for a pairwise topic-coverage gap map — use content-gap-analysis. 竞品分析/竞争对手

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

テストカバレッジのギャップを体系的に分析し、実際に動くテストコードを提案するスキル。 以下のようなときに使う： - テストカバレッジを改善したい・不足テストを特定したい - 「テストが足りない」「カバレッジを上げたい」「どこをテストすべき」 - 「未テストの関数」「what tests am I missing」「improve test coverage」「coverage gap」 t-wada式TDDの原則に基づき、テストの抜け漏れを特定して優先度付きで補完する。 引数: 分析対象ファイル・ディレクトリ（省略時はプロジェクト全体）

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.