384 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Offensive/hostile QA auditor. Generalist reviewer specialized in the WordPress universe. Assumes everything is wrong until proven otherwise. Audit-tier only — produces severity-ranked findings, never implements.
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 creating bug/defect reports during system testing. Use this skill when you discover a bug, need to document test failures, or want to create comprehensive bug tickets with proper reproduction steps, severity assessment, and environment details. Guides users through interactive questioning to gather all necessary information and generates professional bug ticket documents in Markdown format. Supports Japanese (default) and English.
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 audit-related documents (control design documents, bottleneck analyses, requirements definitions, etc.) for quality, scoring them 0-100 with a severity-rated findings list. Use when reviewing audit documents, checking control design quality, or verifying cross-document consistency. Supports documents governed by US GAAP, IFRS, or J-GAAP.
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。
Post-fix verification — re-scan the repo, gate on `--exploits weaponized --severity high`, recheck the specific CVE against the new installed version, write the verdict to `.vulnetix/memory.yaml`. Use when confirming a fix landed, validating a version bump did not introduce regressions, or producing a clean-scan attestation for compliance.
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。
Show what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open 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。
Audit a dataset or access rule before it joins an identity-graph build (access rules behave like datasets in NQL here). Enumerates failure modes (hub identifiers, high-degree nodes, suspicious values, over-connected identifiers), tests hypotheses in parallel, quantifies damage by rows / edges / entities, and proposes minimal filters ranked by severity. When issues are found, returns a validated `CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW` NQL the caller can run to produce a graph-ready clean source; if the data passes, says so and recommends it unchanged. Plans and authors the clean-view NQL; does not execute it. Use when: "audit this dataset before the graph build", "find bad edges in <source>", "check identity data quality", "recommend filters for the graph build", "quantify damage from <identifier_type>", "pre-graph DQ". (narrative-identity)
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。
Knowledge base from FAA-HDBK-006D (2020), the FAA's System Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) Handbook for National Airspace System (NAS) hardware and software. Use for RMA figures of merit (MTBF, MTBO, MTTR, the availability variants), the bathtub curve and probability distributions, the four-stage RMA lifecycle mapped to the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), the six-task RMA technical-management/acquisition process, service-thread criticality and the NAS-RD severity-to-target table, the RMA analysis toolbox (RBD, FMEA/FMECA, FTA, Ishikawa, Monte Carlo, Bayesian, FRACAS, ALT, reliability-growth/recovery tests), software reliability (early prediction + reliability growth), and tailorable example RMA requirements for a Program Requirements Document. Scope limits: it is FAA/NAS-specific guidance (not a requirement, by its own statement), centred on hardware-plus-software availability — it brackets out human/service/facility/communications availability, names but does not reproduce the math derivations or external standards (MIL-STDs, IEEE 1633, RTCA DO-178C/DO-278A, SAE JA1011), is thin on detailed worked numerical examples and on safety-case method, and predates any current revision beyond 006D.
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。
Knowledge base from the FAA System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).
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。
Knowledge base from MIL-STD-882E (DoD System Safety). Use for the system safety process, hazard analysis tasks (PHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA), the risk assessment matrix (severity x probability), software safety criticality, and risk acceptance. US-gov public domain.
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。
Reviews one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reviews the text and structure of a document, slide deck or web page against the accessibility rules the user supplies, or a default set covering heading structure, image alternative text, colour used as the only cue, link text, reading order, tables and language, and returns numbered findings with location, rule, severity and a ready-to-apply fix for the author, plus proposed alt text and a list of checks that need a tool or a person. Use when the user asks to "check this document for accessibility", "review the alt text in this deck", "is this page accessible", "run an accessibility check on these slides", "find accessibility issues before I publish" or "check my headings and link text". Do not use for brand or template compliance of slides, use branded-deck-builder instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reviews one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
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.
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 the user asks to "triage launch feedback", "cluster reviews, comments, and board posts into themes", or "set up a you asked, we shipped loop"; produces a feedback theme digest (frequency, severity, representative quotes per theme), an open→planned→started→completed/declined status loop with duplicate-merge and notification rules, shipped-change announcement material, and a compliant social-proof harvest protocol (never incentivized store reviews). Not for repurposing or amplifying the harvested proof — use content-amplifier; not for executing testimonial outreach threads — use outreach-manager. 反馈分诊/状态环/社证收割/评测合规
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 the user asks to "build our social crisis protocol", "mentions are exploding — what do we do first", or "when do we pause the posting queue"; produces a 1-5 severity ladder with tunable Estimated trigger thresholds (mention-velocity multiples vs the 7-day listening baseline, sentiment flip, journalist/regulator contact, employee-conduct class), the first-mechanical-action rule — pause ALL scheduled posts AND paid amplification, with dated state markers dropped to the channels proposal protocol and reconciled post-incident — a pre-approved holding-statement library with committed update cadences, when-NOT-to-post rules, a spokesperson/approval matrix, and a post-crisis retro template; re-runs the social-quality-auditor pre-publish gate before un-pausing the queue. Not for email deliverability incidents (blocklist, spam-rate spikes) — use deliverability-qa; inside a launch window launch-day-conductor owns incident handling. 社媒危机预案/暂停队列/声明库/发言人矩阵
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。
Azure AI Content Safety SDK for Python. Use for detecting harmful content in text and images with multi-severity classification.
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 working with Aws Guardduty — aWS GuardDuty finding analysis, detector management, suppression rule review, and member account oversight. Covers threat detection summary, finding severity distribution, finding type breakdown, trusted IP lists, and organization-wide security posture.
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 working with Tfsec — tfsec Terraform security scanning. Covers static analysis of Terraform code, custom rule creation, CI integration, severity filtering, module scanning, and remediation guidance. Use when scanning Terraform configurations for security issues, creating custom security rules, or integrating security checks into CI pipelines.
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。
Scans .NET code for ~50 performance anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O with tiered severity classification. Use when analyzing .NET code for optimization opportunities, reviewing hot paths, or auditing allocation-heavy patterns.
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。
Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.
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。
Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality 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。
Multi-agent autonomous startup system for Claude Code. Triggers on "Loki Mode". Orchestrates 100+ specialized agents across engineering, QA, DevOps, security, data/ML, business operations, marketing, HR, and customer success. Takes PRD to fully deployed, revenue-generating product with zero human intervention. Features Task tool for subagent dispatch, parallel code review with 3 specialized reviewers, severity-based issue triage, distributed task queue with dead letter handling, automatic deployment to cloud providers, A/B testing, customer feedback loops, incident response, circuit breakers, and self-healing. Handles rate limits via distributed state checkpoints and auto-resume with exponential backoff. Requires --dangerously-skip-permissions flag.
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。