AbuseIPDB API reference. IP reputation and abuse report lookups.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when surfacing the assumptions underlying an analytical judgment, the user asks "what are we assuming?" / "are these assumptions still valid?", or before publishing a high-impact assessment. Standard SAT applied during major assessments.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Every analytical judgment rests on assumptions — often unstated. This technique surfaces them and evaluates whether the analysis holds if assumptions are wrong.
Write the current assessment or conclusion in one clear sentence.
Brainstorm every assumption underlying the assessment. Include:
If the assessment was built on graded evidence items from /quality-of-information-check, go through the claim table row by row. Assumptions are usually hiding in judgements that the analysis treats as observations. If there is no claim table, skip this step and leave the Claim column as "n/a".
For each claim, compare its claim_type with how the analytical line uses it:
| In the claim table | How the analysis uses it | Assumption to record |
|---|---|---|
assessment | Stated as fact, or as a premise for a further judgement | That the source's judgement about intent, capability or future behaviour is correct |
attribution | Actor named without the source's hedge | That the attribution holds. Quote stated_confidence verbatim |
actor_claim | Scale, victim or data figures repeated as fact | That the actor is telling the truth |
Any type, flagged caveats_dropped_in_chain | Outlet's stronger wording used | That the claim is as strong as the outlet made it, not as the primary wrote it |
Any type, flagged single_source or with corroboration unchecked | Relied on without qualification | That the one primary is right |
Any type, flagged stale or superseded | Used as current | That nothing has changed since publication |
Rules:
assessment and attribution claim with load_bearing: true gets a row in the matrix, even when the assumption looks safe.claim_id into the matrix. One claim can produce more than one assumption, and an assumption can rest on several claims.| Assumption | Claim | Importance | Confidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Assumption 1] | C01 | High | High | Validated |
| [Assumption 2] | C04 | High | Low | FLAG |
| [Assumption 3] | none | Medium | Medium | Monitor |
| [Assumption 4] | C02, C06 | Low | High | Accepted |
Importance: How much does the conclusion depend on this assumption?
Confidence: How sure are we this assumption is correct?
Any assumption that is High Importance + Low Confidence is critical. These are the assumptions most likely to invalidate your analysis.
For each flagged assumption:
## Key Assumptions Check: [Assessment Title]
### Analytical Line
[The assessment being checked]
### Assumptions Matrix
| # | Assumption | Claim | Claim type | Access level | Claim support | Importance | Confidence | Status |
|---|-----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| 1 | ... | C04 | attribution | indirect | tentative | H/M/L | H/M/L | ... |
### Flagged Assumptions (High Importance + Low/Medium Confidence)
1. **[Assumption]** (C04): If wrong, [impact on conclusion]. Collection gap: [what would validate this].
### Impact on Assessment
[Does the assumptions check change the confidence level? Should the conclusion be qualified?]
### Recommended Actions
- [Validate assumption X through Y collection]
- [Lower confidence from High to Moderate because of assumption Z]
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
AbuseIPDB API reference. IP reputation and abuse report lookups.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses — structured technique for evaluating multiple explanations against evidence. Use when facing ambiguous attribution or multiple plausible scenarios. Prefers graded evidence items from /quality-of-information-check and runs that skill first when handed raw URLs or text. Runs on ungraded evidence when asked, labelled as such, unweighted, and capped at Moderate confidence.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when documenting a named campaign across time and victims, the user asks to start or update a campaign record, or another skill identified a multi-incident cluster that warrants formal tracking. Provides the template (timeline, attribution, victimology, attack chain, Diamond Model mapping, IOC clusters) and the lifecycle from active to historical.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when the user asks about carding, BIN attacks, payment-card breach markets, fullz/CVV2 trade, autoshops (BidenCash, Brian's Club, Russianmarket, B1ack's Stash), or financial-fraud TTPs. Self-updating knowledge cell.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Censys API v2 reference. Host reconnaissance and certificate data.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when the user asks about Chinese state-sponsored cyber operations or specific PRC-aligned actors (APT41, Volt Typhoon, Mustang Panda, APT10, APT31, Salt Typhoon, etc.), MSS/PLA-attributed campaigns, or PRC sector targeting. Self-updating knowledge cell.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.