'coverage' 검색 결과

Performs security-focused differential review of code changes. Adapts analysis depth to codebase size, uses git blame for context, calculates blast radius by counting callers, checks test coverage of modified code, and generates a markdown report. Use when reviewing a PR, commit, or diff for security vulnerabilities, checking whether a change re-introduces a previously fixed bug, asking what else a change could break, or finding which modified code has no test covering it.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Design and implement unit, conformance, integration, timing, boot, trace, video, audio, and regression tests for EMULATORS processors, chips, peripherals, and complete machines. Use when creating a verification strategy for a new emulator, converting hardware documentation into tests, adding diagnostic programs or golden artifacts, measuring behavioral coverage, or proving that components interact correctly.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generate the weekly "🧹 Housekeeping" digest — a render-only report of repo drift that needs a human eye (stale unmerged branches, mislabeled issues, stuck in-progress tickets, epics ready to close, idle PRs, label-coverage gaps). Reports only, never mutates. Use when asked for a "housekeeping report", "repo drift", "what's stale", or to run the weekly sweep by hand.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

How to actually run every kind of test in nuxt-crouton (unit/e2e/typecheck/lint, verified commands) plus the HONEST coverage picture — which packages have real tests vs zero, the dormant skipped/todo cases behind three mocking walls, and what CI truly gates vs what CLAUDE.md claims. Use when asked "how do I run the tests", "is X covered by tests", "what does CI actually check", "why is this suite skipped", "where do I add a test", or before trusting a green build as evidence that something works.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when developing code using Test-Driven Development (TDD) methodology. Use this skill when the user wants to write tests first before implementation, needs guidance on the red-green-refactor cycle, or explicitly requests TDD-style development. Triggers include requests like "develop this feature using TDD", "write tests first", "help me with test-driven development", or "implement this following TDD practices". The skill guides through writing failing tests, implementing minimal code to pass, and refactoring while maintaining test coverage.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Design test viewpoints and test cases from code changes using ISO 25010. Use when writing test plans for plan.md, reviewing PR test coverage, or when asked to 'テスト設計', 'テスト観点洗い出し', 'design test cases'. Do NOT use for writing test code or TDD workflows (use /bugfix).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Write a test that can fail. Use when adding a test, creating a suite, raising coverage, or claiming behavior is covered.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Deploy cloud-native deception across AWS, Azure, and GCP using decoy (honey) resources whose only purpose is to generate a high-fidelity alert the instant an attacker touches them: canary IAM access keys, permission-less decoy users/roles/service principals, honey object-storage buckets, and decoy secrets in Secrets Manager / Key Vault / Secret Manager. Wires detection through CloudTrail + EventBridge, Azure Sentinel honeytoken watchlists + Defender, and GCP Cloud Audit Logs, so any use of a decoy is routed to the SOC with near-zero false positives. Use when protecting cloud accounts and data stores, when an org has only on-prem honeypots and needs cloud coverage, when seeding fake AWS keys to catch credential theft and code-leak exposure, or when detecting cloud reconnaissance and lateral movement. Keywords: cloud deception, canary token AWS, honey S3 bucket, decoy IAM credentials, CloudTrail alert, GuardDuty, Sentinel honeytoken, decoy secret, honey service account, cloud honeypot, breach detection.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Deploys and configures CrowdStrike Falcon EDR agents across enterprise endpoints to enable real-time threat detection, behavioral analysis, and automated response. Use when onboarding endpoints to EDR coverage, configuring detection policies, or integrating Falcon telemetry with SIEM platforms. Activates for requests involving CrowdStrike deployment, Falcon sensor installation, EDR policy configuration, or endpoint detection and response.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds SOC performance metrics and KPI tracking dashboards measuring Mean Time to Detect (MTTD), Mean Time to Respond (MTTR), alert quality ratios, analyst productivity, and detection coverage using SIEM data. Use when SOC leadership needs operational visibility, continuous improvement tracking, or executive-level reporting on security operations effectiveness.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Structured clarification workflow for underspecified requirements. Use before planning to resolve ambiguities through coverage-based questioning. Records answers in spec clarifications section.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Summarise the unit and e2e tests a branch/PR adds, run only those, and produce a paste-ready report (e.g. for a Linear card). Use when asked to 'summarise added tests', 'run the new tests', 'what tests did this PR add', or to prove a card's test coverage.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when writing unit/integration tests for Vite projects - provides Vitest configuration, test APIs, mocking patterns, and coverage setup

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds one DRAFT message house for a product, service, programme or initiative from the source material the user provides: an umbrella statement, two to four pillars and graded proof points under each, with every proof point that lacks a source flagged, a claim sensitivity table, an audience coverage check and open questions. Use when the user asks to "build a message house", "write our messaging framework", "what are the key messages for this launch", "turn this research into messaging pillars" or "test our current messaging against the evidence". Do not use for a campaign one-pager, use campaign-brief-builder instead; to check whether a written document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review product designs before engineering handoff or release for flow and state coverage, business-rule alignment, implementation clarity, accessibility, responsiveness, analytics, and testability.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Compare your data to a partner's data in the marketplace. Given a dataset you already own with person/edge data, this skill walks you through picking a partner data source to match against, choosing which identifier types to match on, optionally selecting which enrichment attributes to attach, and then submits the report — returning overlap, match counts, and demographic coverage. Use when: "how does my data compare to your marketplace", "compare my data to [partner]", "how much overlap do I have with [supplier]", "run a match report", "match my customers against 3P data", "see what enrichment is available for my dataset", or any open-ended question about marketplace overlap. (narrative-identity)

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reconstructed reference notes on US FAA approval guidance for airborne software and airborne electronic hardware, built from four public-domain sources (FAA Order 8110.49A, AC 20-115D, AC 20-152A, AC 00-69; documents dated 2017-07-21 to 2022-10-07, pinned 2026-10-12). Use for how FAA certification staff plan and conduct software reviews (certification liaison, desk versus on-site review, review planning agreements), how the level of FAA involvement (LOI) is picked and scored with the Appendix A worksheets, how software conformity inspection works (software part and installation conformity, ASE and ASI tasks, Form 8120-10), what AC 20-115D recognizes and how DO-178B processes and tool qualification transition to DO-178C/DO-330 (supplements, FLS, UMS, legacy software changes), and what AC 20-152A adds for airborne electronic hardware (simple versus complex custom devices, robustness and HDL code coverage, tool assessment, previously developed hardware, COTS IP, COTS devices, circuit board assemblies), and what AC 00-69 adds as best practices for change impact analysis, data and control coupling, and design-level error handling (best practices, not guidance and not a means of compliance). SCOPE LIMITS: FAA guidance only, and guidance is not regulation (ACs are acceptable means, not the only means); no RTCA DO-178C or DO-254, EUROCAE ED-12C or ED-80, supplement, or SAE ARP text, which are copyrighted and named only (see the avionics-signpost pack); no AC 00-72 (named, not packed); no DO-178C software-level objective tables; no EASA AMC 20-115D or AMC 20-152A content (use easa-rules); reflects the pinned source dates, not later FAA actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal advice and not a substitute for the source documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. 105).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build or review an external integration QA lab with official surface snapshots, coverage matrices, fixtures, opt-in live lanes, and safe credential handling.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Design verification strategy: diagnose observability, select oracle families, map to loop tiers, surface blind spots. Use after ln-plan when frontier items or scoped slices need oracle design — especially for LLM, visual, or compositional work — or when verification coverage has drifted.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Author a completed-spec fixture — a seeded intent graph plus a believable four-phase interview transcript — for a brunch feature, so it can feed any downstream tooling that consumes a completed spec or dogfood the UI. Use when you need a real completed specification in .brunch/brunch.db for testing or demo: pick a feature from memory/SPEC.md (or a free description), choose a stress profile (coverage|clean), and produce a registered scenario seed + an interview-questions doc that match exactly.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.