「code analysis」の検索結果

Network traffic analysis, PCAP parsing, IDS/IPS rule creation, firewall configuration auditing, and network anomaly detection

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Proof-of-concept development, payload crafting, shellcode analysis, and exploitation technique research for authorized security testing

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when analyzing binary structure, disassembling code, or decompiling functions. Deep static analysis via radare2 (r2) and Ghidra headless - function enumeration, cross-references (xrefs), decompilation, control flow graphs. Keywords - "disassemble", "decompile", "what does this function do", "find functions", "analyze code", "r2", "ghidra", "pdg", "afl"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill should be used when analyzing binaries, executables, or bytecode to understand what they do or how they work. Triggers on "binary", "executable", "ELF", "what does this do", "reverse engineer", "disassemble", "decompile", "pyc file", "python bytecode", "analyze binary", "figure out", "marshal". Routes to sub-skills for triage, static analysis, dynamic analysis, synthesis, or tool setup.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

General principles for exploring, developing, editing, and refactoring code. Use for codebase analysis, implementation tasks, and code quality improvements.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt", "review technical debt", "what should we refactor", "find refactoring candidates", "where is the code rot", "what's our worst code", "find low-value tests", or "which tests can we delete". Analysis-only — does not modify code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes Claude Code usage patterns and provides comprehensive recommendations. Runs usage analysis, discovers GitHub community resources, suggests CLAUDE.md improvements, and fetches latest docs on-demand. Use when user wants to optimize their Claude Code workflow, create configurations (agents/skills/commands), or set up project documentation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze code snippets before committing, or understand SonarQube rules. Triggers on "sonarqube", "sonarcloud", "quality gate", "sonar issues", "analyze with sonar", "check sonar", "sonar rule", "pre-push analysis".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detects codebase bloat via dead code, duplication, complexity, and doc bloat scans. Use when codebase feels large or before a release.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use to run real static analysis over a diff or repo before shipping — Semgrep, CodeQL, secret scanning, dependency CVEs — and triage the findings into what must be fixed now versus noise. Trigger before a release or PR merge, during a security review, or when the user asks to scan the code for vulnerabilities.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Recover and review local human-AI conversations from Claude Code, Codex, opencode, Grok Build, and Cursor. Use when the user wants to revisit, search, extract, summarize, or compare work across Agent session stores, time ranges, projects, or named conversations. Follow the user's requested output; question clustering, problem-space mapping, artifact review, drift analysis, and insights are optional lenses.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Autonomous AI code generation safety guardrail register: static AST analysis, forbidden import filters, and zero-day vulnerability checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Code intelligence over repositories Guaardvark has indexed: semantic code search, exact-text search, file listing, PageRank repository map, import dependency graph, reading one class or function, analysis and generated rewrites, plus the System Mapper and self-improvement status. Use when the user asks where something is implemented, how modules depend on each other, or wants an architecture map of an indexed repo.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Identifies bug-introducing commits using SZZ-style analysis based on bug-fixing commits, commit history, and code blame information. Use this skill when you need to trace bugs back to their origin, identify which commits introduced bugs, analyze bug-fix commits to find root causes, perform software repository mining for bug analysis, or conduct empirical studies on software defects. Triggers when users ask to find bug-introducing commits, identify when a bug was introduced, trace bug origins, perform SZZ analysis, or analyze bug-fixing commits.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate targeted test inputs to reach specific code paths and hard-to-reach behaviors in Python code. Use when: (1) Targeting uncovered branches or specific execution paths, (2) Need coverage-guided test generation, (3) Want to leverage LLM understanding of code semantics for meaningful test inputs, (4) Testing boundary conditions and edge cases systematically, (5) Combining symbolic reasoning with fuzzing. Provides path analysis, constraint solving, coverage-guided strategies, and LLM-driven semantic generation for comprehensive test input creation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze existing test suites and source code to suggest additional unit tests that improve test coverage. Use this skill when working with test files and source code to identify untested code paths, missing edge cases, uncovered branches, untested error conditions, and gaps in test coverage. Supports major testing frameworks (pytest, Jest, JUnit, Go testing, etc.) and generates targeted test suggestions based on coverage analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes and optimizes code for better performance, memory usage, and efficiency. Use when code is slow, memory-intensive, or inefficient. Supports Python and Java optimization including execution speed improvements, memory reduction, database query optimization, and I/O efficiency. Provides before/after examples with detailed explanations of why optimizations work, complexity analysis, and measurable performance improvements.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Automatically instruments source code to collect runtime information such as function calls, branch decisions, variable values, and execution traces while preserving original program semantics. Use when users need to: (1) Add logging or tracing to code for debugging, (2) Collect runtime execution data for analysis, (3) Monitor function calls and control flow, (4) Track variable values during execution, (5) Generate execution traces for testing or profiling. Supports Python, Java, JavaScript, and C/C++ with configurable instrumentation levels.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate code (especially LLM-generated) for structural simplicity using Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" framework. Use this skill whenever reviewing a PR, diff, or code snippet for accidental complexity — particularly when the code was generated by an AI coding assistant and line-by-line review isn't feasible. Also use when the user asks about complecting, simplicity vs. easiness, structural coupling, or concept deduplication. Trigger on phrases like "is this simple", "does this complect", "review for complexity", "structural analysis", or any reference to Hickey, Simple Made Easy, or grey-box review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Cross-agent self-inspection of your AI-agent stack. Audits skills, MCP servers, hooks, plugins, commands, credentials, and memory files across Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, and NanoClaw. Produces a structured inventory and narrative briefing with cross-ecosystem risk analysis. Use when the user asks to audit their own setup, check what they have installed, review their agent stack security posture, or understand cross-tool interactions. Use when a user has accumulated skills/plugins/MCP servers over time and wants visibility into their attack surface. Use after installing new skills or plugins. Do NOT use for vetting external code before install (that is repo-forensics). Do NOT use for incident response during active attacks. Do NOT use for fixing or patching vulnerabilities (forensify is read-only).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze escaped defects and test suite health through blameless postmortems. Covers bug pattern analysis, test suite health reviews, 5 Whys root cause analysis, process improvement cycles, and postmortem/retro meeting templates with action item tracking. Use when: "QA retro," "escaped bugs," "postmortem," "quality incident," "defect analysis," "improvement cycle." Not for: live release go/no-go decisions — use release-readiness. Not for ongoing metric dashboards — use qa-metrics. Not for reviewing existing test code quality — use ai-qa-review. Related: qa-metrics, test-reliability, test-strategy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use AI to write NEW test code from specs, PRDs, user stories, code diffs, bug reports, or OpenAPI specs. Staged pipeline: requirements extraction → risk analysis → coverage matrix → scenario generation → oracle design → test code → human review, with guardrails against hallucinated APIs and weak assertions. Use when: "generate tests from spec," "tests from PRD," "tests from user story," "auto-generate test cases," "AI write tests for me." Not for: testing AI/LLM features in your product — use ai-system-testing. Not for: auditing a pre-existing test suite you did not just generate — use ai-qa-review (Step 7 here only reviews tests THIS pipeline produced). Related: playwright-automation, unit-testing, api-testing, qa-project-context.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review EXISTING test code for quality, smells, and testability issues. Detects test smells across six dimensions — readability, reliability, diagnostic value, design, AI-generated, and coverage — analyzes testability of application code, and backs the qualitative smells with mutation testing. Use when: "review my tests," "test quality audit," "test smells," "testability analysis," "are these tests any good." Not for: generating new tests — use `ai-test-generation`. Not for: testing AI features in your product — use `ai-system-testing`. Related: unit-testing, shift-left-testing, coverage-analysis, ai-test-generation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。