「evidence」の検索結果

Create forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images using dd and dcfldd while preserving evidence integrity through hash verification.

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。

Campaign attribution analysis involves systematically evaluating evidence to determine which threat actor or group is responsible for a cyber operation. This skill covers collecting and weighting attr

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。

設計文書、分析レポート、報告書などを批判的な視点で徹底レビューするスキル。 6つの異なる立場（開発者、PM、顧客、QA、セキュリティ、運用）のペルソナを持つサブエージェントが並列でレビューを実行し、 「本当にそうか？」「根拠は何か？」「テストできるか？」「運用できるか？」という視点で 曖昧さ、根拠不足、論理飛躍、テスト不能、セキュリティリスク、運用懸念を検出する。 Use when reviewing design documents, analysis reports, incident reports, or any document requiring rigorous validation of claims and evidence.

工程ごとの完了判定、品質ゲート、証跡、標準検証コマンド、例外運用を設計するスキル。 実装完了・テスト実施・品質確認完了・出荷可能を分離し、再利用可能な gate matrix を作る。 「全OK」「完了」などの曖昧な完了表現を排除し、証跡に基づく退出条件を定義する。 Use when defining Definition of Done, quality gates, exit criteria, release readiness gates, evidence requirements, exception handling, or standardized verification commands. Covers: definition of done, quality gate, exit criteria, release readiness, 完了判定, 品質ゲート. Distinct from project-completeness-scorer (which scores) -- this skill designs the gates and criteria themselves.

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

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。

Android device offensive security, forensic extraction, and mobile app exploitation. Use this whenever the user needs to: break into or bypass the lock screen of an Android phone, extract data from a seized Android device for evidence, analyze or reverse-engineer an APK to find vulnerabilities, intercept communications on an Android device, exploit Android apps via deeplinks, steal crypto wallets or app data, set up rogue WiFi to target a phone, or plan any mobile device investigation or penetration test. Also trigger when the user mentions Android forensics, mobile pentesting, law enforcement phone extraction, device exploitation, WhatsApp or Telegram extraction from a phone, Android app reversing, CVE research for Android, or needing a chain of custody for mobile evidence. Even if the user describes the scenario casually or in another language, if they need to gain access to or pull data from an Android phone, use this 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。

Brutally honest AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md review backed by real A/B test evidence. Not just opinions — actual proof that your rules are dead weight. Roasts instruction files for bloat, slop, and redundancy, then proves it by running evals. Use when user says "roast my agents.md", "roast my CLAUDE.md", "prove my rules are useless", "eval roast", or wants entertaining evidence-based feedback on their AI config files. Also triggers on "audit my instructions" or "are my rules helping".

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。

Project-first Research pipeline with live gates, source/PDF evidence, claim boundaries, compute and publication controls; includes an optional PubMed/arXiv standard-library helper.

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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter 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。

Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。

Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. 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。

Turns a set of questions (form exports, helpdesk logs, meeting Q and A, chat threads, a plain list) plus the source documents the user supplies into a DRAFT FAQ grouped by theme: every answer quoted or paraphrased from a named source with a reference, verbatim quotes for dates, figures, eligibility and obligations, UNKNOWN where the sources are silent, a source register with precedence, a conflicts table and a routing list of unanswered questions to owners. Use when the user asks to "build an FAQ from these documents", "answer these questions from the policy", "turn the Q and A into an FAQ page", "group these questions and answer them from the guide" or "what do our documents say about these questions". Do not use for the manager FAQ of a changed HR policy, use policy-change-briefing instead; for checking whether a document's own claims are evidenced, use claims-evidence-map. 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。

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.

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。

Synthesises training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis. 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 DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. 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 "build my brand-safety exclusion lists", "set placement / topic / content exclusions before launch", "add network and audience exclusions", or "prep the A1 brand-safety evidence for the auditor"; produces a placement/network exclusion list, a content-suitability & sensitive-topic block list, an audience/negative-audience exclusion set, and a packaged A1 brand/placement-safety evidence file for the gate. Not for building the audiences you target — use audience-segment-builder; not for computing the RQS or issuing the A1 verdict — use ad-account-auditor. 品牌安全/排除位置/否定受众列表

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。

TDD を主張する実装の RED/GREEN/REFACTOR VERIFY 証跡（tdd-ledger）の妥当性を検査し、フェーズ順序・exitCode・test-cases との対応の欠落や偽装を検知する

テストは存在するがアサーションが実質何も検証しておらず、実装が壊れても落ちない（常に PASS する）構造を diff-time で検出する。Check 1 missing assertion（テスト本体にアサーションが無い）、Check 2 tautological assertion（定数同士・入力自身・mock の戻り値自身を assert し SUT に依存しない）、Check 3 nonexistent expected literal（assertDontSee / assertNotContains 等の期待文字列が対象ファイルに実在しない）、Check 4 stale expected value（同一 diff で対象の出力が変わったのに期待値が据え置き）、Check 5 unscoped expectation（汎用的な属性・クラスを応答全体に対して assert し対象要素にスコープされていない）、Check 6 swallowed failure（例外の握り潰しや到達しない位置のアサーションで判定が成立しない）、の 6 Check を対象とする report-only。テストの有無は test-existence、未テスト経路の量は coverage-gap、非決定性は flaky-test、命名は test-naming、JS/TS の un-awaited resolves / rejects は vitest-mock-isolation、tdd-ledger artifact ベースの RED/GREEN 検証は plangate-tdd-evidence、.only / .skip / xit / @ts-ignore と空の catch は heuristic-review.mjs の決定論検出器へ委譲する

Repository または subsystem を対象に、source-only で明示的なセキュリティ監査を行う entry skill。 通常の PR セキュリティレビューとは分離し、reconnaissance、scope 固定、既存 security skill への委譲、 evidence と unresolved hypothesis、observe-only SecurityAuditCoverage、coverage critic、 structured audit artifact と repeat-run coverage を扱う。target-controlled code は実行しない。

Exploratory QA — web apps, bugs, evidence, reports, systematic 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。

Prepare Korean interview follow-up questions and evidence-backed answer points from resume.md, JD analysis, cover letter text, and an evidence map. Use after HR review or final cover letter drafting when the user wants 면접 준비, 꼬리질문, interview defense, or claim verification before manual submission.

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。

Build or improve a job seeker's resume.md source file from conversational career input. Use when the user wants to create resume.md, organize new-grad or experienced career history, convert raw experiences into STAR/CAR evidence, add missing metrics, or prepare reusable career evidence for cover letters and job applications. 한국어 요청도 포함합니다 - 이력서 작성, 이력서 정리, 경력기술서, 경력 정리, 커리어 정리, 자소서 소재 정리, 내 경험 정리해줘, 신입 이력서, 경력직 이력서.

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。

Automates SOC 2 Type II audit preparation including gap assessment against AICPA Trust Services Criteria (CC1-CC9), evidence collection from cloud providers and identity systems, control testing validation, remediation tracking, and continuous compliance monitoring. Covers all five TSC categories (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy) with automated evidence gathering from AWS, Azure, GCP, Okta, GitHub, and Jira. Use when preparing for or maintaining SOC 2 Ty...

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。