테스트·보안 스킬

Comprehensive technology stack evaluation and comparison tool with TCO analysis, security assessment, and intelligent recommendations for engineering teams

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Comprehensive Test Driven Development guide for engineering subagents with multi-framework support, coverage analysis, and intelligent test generation

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audits an existing lesson against UDL's three principles — engagement, representation, and action/expression. Identifies specific access barriers and suggests concrete modifications ranked by impact.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Design a structured protocol for auditing AI-generated text against Ennis's six CT standards. Use when students need to critically evaluate AI output in any subject.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audit a proposed assessment for construct validity, reliability, and alignment to learning objectives. Use when reviewing or quality-assuring assessments before deployment.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Takes a curriculum framework and a statutory or accreditation requirement list; produces a coverage table, gap summary, and CSV showing which framework content covers each requirement and where gaps exist.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Automatically evaluate and compare multiple AI models or agents without pre-existing test data. Generates test queries from a task description, collects responses from all target endpoints, auto-generates evaluation rubrics, runs pairwise comparisons via a judge model, and produces win-rate rankings with reports and charts. Supports checkpoint resume, incremental endpoint addition, and judge model hot-swap. Use when the user asks to compare, benchmark, or rank multiple models or agents on a custom task, or run an arena-style evaluation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants to test their LLM/agent application for safety and security vulnerabilities — jailbreaks, prompt injection, PII extraction, harmful content generation, or evaluator gaming. Also use when the user mentions security testing, adversarial testing, red teaming, safety evaluation, ASR (Attack Success Rate), or "is my app safe to deploy." Outputs ASR paired with over-refusal rate and an audit document.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Detect whether an API endpoint is backed by genuine Claude (not a wrapper, proxy, or impersonator) using 9 weighted rule-based checks that mirror the claude-verify project. Also extracts injected system prompts from providers that override Claude's identity. Fully self-contained — copy the code below and run, no extra packages beyond httpx. Use when the user wants to verify a Claude API key or endpoint, check if a third-party Claude service is authentic, audit API providers for Claude authenticity, test multiple models in parallel, or discover what system prompt a provider has injected.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user has run multiple evaluation skills and wants a comprehensive analysis — maturity assessment, cross-skill signals, trends, prioritized actions, and an executive summary. Also use when the user mentions eval health check, evaluation audit, ship readiness, evaluation maturity, or "how good is my evaluation system itself." This is a read-only analysis skill.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants to build an evaluation system for an LLM/agent application but doesn't know where to start — they have traces, prompts, RAG pipelines, or nothing at all. Also use when the user mentions evaluation, eval, benchmarking, testing LLM quality, measuring agent performance, assessing RAG accuracy, or wants to compare prompts/models. This skill is the entry router: it asks diagnostic questions then recommends which sub-skill (local workflow) to use next.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Conseiller expert en conformité PCI DSS v4.0.1 (seule version active depuis le 31 décembre 2024). Utiliser pour toute question sur PCI DSS, la sécurité des paiements par carte, les données de titulaires, le périmètre du CDE, les types de SAQ (A, A-EP, B, B-IP, C, C-VT, P2PE, D), le ROC, l'AOC, les évaluations QSA, les scans ASV, les niveaux de marchands et de prestataires, la segmentation réseau, les tests d'intrusion, la tokenisation, le chiffrement du PAN, ou l'une des 12 exigences. Couvre la révision SAQ A de janvier 2025 (critère d'éligibilité r1, FAQ 1588), les exigences v4.0 obligatoires depuis le 31 mars 2025, et l'articulation avec DSP2, RGPD, NIS2 et DORA via les connecteurs MCP LibreJustice et EUR-Lex. Déclencheurs : « sommes-nous conformes PCI ? », « quel SAQ s'applique ? », « qu'est-ce qui a changé en v4.0 ? », « comment préparer un audit QSA ? ».

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers from model memory.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Orchestrateur multi-rôles en droit du travail français (salarié, employeur, audit, conseil, veille, formation). Charger pour toute consultation prud'homale, rédaction d'actes (non-concurrence, transaction, avertissement), audit de contrat ou d'accord d'entreprise, calcul d'indemnités, conformité CCN, CSE, CDD, harcèlement, temps de travail, veille chambre sociale ou audit social, avec traçabilité obligatoire des sources.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific CVE triggers legally. Maps a product with digital elements to CRA scope, product classification, Annex I vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting obligations — every legal claim cited from official regulation text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector, joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence from the same connector.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Guide for (a) auditing an existing whistleblower system or (b) drafting a compliant reporting policy from a provided template. Covers EU Directive 2019/1937, the amended Sapin II law (Waserman 2022), Decree 2022-1284, CNIL guidelines, public sector requirements, and duty of vigilance.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Expert WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 — the W3C international accessibility standards. Use this skill whenever a user asks about WCAG success criteria, conformance levels (A/AA/AAA), accessibility audits, POUR principles, accessibility statements, ARIA patterns, colour contrast, keyboard accessibility, screen reader compatibility, mobile accessibility, cognitive accessibility, WCAG 2.2 new criteria, WCAG 3.0 preview, legal requirements referencing WCAG (EN 301 549, EAA, ADA, Section 508), or mapping WCAG to accessibility laws. Trigger for any web or digital content accessibility question — even if the user doesn't say "skill" or "WCAG".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audit Terms of Service, user agreements, and privacy policies for consumer risks, producing a structured report that flags unfair clauses, data traps, and liability issues. Trigger when a user asks to review, audit, or analyze a ToS, privacy policy, or user agreement, or mentions specific concerns like auto-renewal or data authorization.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds compliance checklists for business scenarios involving GDPR, PIPL, or advertising/data laws. Outputs a structured checklist with check items, legal basis, risk levels, and actionable recommendations. Triggered by requests like "run a compliance check," "GDPR/PIPL compliance," "pre-launch review," "privacy impact assessment (PIA/DPIA)," or asking if a feature is compliant.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audits legal AI skills, prompts, workflows, MCP/tool instructions, and agent packages for prompt injection, malicious instructions, unsafe scripts, suspicious metadata, credential exposure, exfiltration paths, persistence mechanisms, and supply-chain risk. Use before installing, importing, publishing, promoting, modifying, or trusting third-party or generated AI skills and legal workflows. Do not use as a generic code review unless skill trust, workflow safety, prompt injection, or supply-chain hygiene is in scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.