「findings」の検索結果

Record a vetted Hex package version in hex_vet.exs after a security review — manages the audit ledger, not the scanner. Use to approve a dep after phx-deps-audit findings or to initialize hex_vet.exs.

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 an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.

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。

Deep qualitative analysis of high-signal sessions. Spawns subagents with v2 template, synthesizes patterns, compares against known findings. Use after /session-scan.

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 trends across session metrics. Computes windowed aggregates, deltas, and compares against MEMORY.md findings. Use periodically for progress tracking.

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。

Record a vetted Hex package version in hex_vet.exs after a security review — manages the audit ledger, not the scanner. Use to approve a dep after /phx:deps-audit findings or to initialize hex_vet.exs.

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。

Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request 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。

Agents should invoke this skill for academic or technical papers, arXiv/PubMed/IEEE/ACM links, PDFs, methodology review, limitations, practical implications, or extracting findings for engineering decisions.

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。

Parses and processes SARIF files from static analysis tools like CodeQL, Semgrep, or other scanners. Triggers on "parse sarif", "read scan results", "aggregate findings", "deduplicate alerts", or "process sarif output". Handles filtering, deduplication, format conversion, and CI/CD integration of SARIF data. Does NOT run scans — use the Semgrep or CodeQL skills for that.

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。

Find similar vulnerabilities across a codebase after discovering one instance. Uses pattern matching, AST search, Semgrep/CodeQL queries, and manual tracing to propagate findings. Adapted from Trail of Bits. Use after finding a bug to check if the same pattern exists elsewhere.

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。

Ethical security testing methodology - 5-phase pipeline, OWASP checklist, proof levels, structured findings

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。

Deep behavioral code analysis agent for Bug Hunter. Performs multi-phase scanning to find logic errors, security vulnerabilities, race conditions, and runtime bugs. Uses doc-lookup (Context Hub + Context7) for framework verification. Reports structured JSON findings.

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。

Persistent file-based planning for multi-step AI-agent work. Keeps task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md on disk; lifecycle hooks inject selected project planning context. Automatic recovery reads project planning files only. Explicit session-catchup.py --metadata reads same-project local agent session records and emits aggregate counts only; --replay may emit bounded nonce-framed excerpts. Optional gated mode can request continuation only when the host supports it and never runs commands declared in Markdown. The skill has no network upload path. Use for research or work needing 5+ tool calls.

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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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 wants to turn bullet points, rough notes, research findings, or a page outline into an image-only consulting-grade PPT deck, especially standalone report exhibits, live-presentation concept slides, full-slide PNGs, or PNG plus image-only PPTX. Use when editable PPTX or code-rendered slide pages are not allowed.

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 compelling data-driven narratives. Use when presenting analysis results, creating stakeholder reports, or transforming a set of findings into a story that drives a specific decision or action.

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, reproducible analysis documentation. Use when documenting analysis findings, creating analysis notebooks, ensuring reproducibility, or building analysis archives for future reference.

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。

Translate technical analysis into business language. Use when explaining statistical concepts to non-analysts, simplifying technical findings, or bridging communication between data teams and business stakeholders.

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 the user asks for "deep research", "research team", "comprehensive analysis", "research report", "investigate thoroughly", "compare X vs Y in depth", or needs synthesis across multiple sources with verification. It spawns a coordinated team of researcher agents across multiple rounds, with the lead triaging findings and creating targeted follow-up tasks. Scales from Focused (2 researchers, 1-2 rounds) to Comprehensive (4 researchers, 3-4 rounds with cross-verification). Do NOT use for simple lookups, debugging, or questions answerable with 1-2 searches.

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 you need to refactor Java code based on trusted profiling analysis findings — including reviewing repository-owned or maintainer-sanitized docs/profiling-problem-analysis and docs/profiling-solutions files, identifying specific performance bottlenecks, and implementing targeted code changes to address CPU, memory, or threading issues. This should trigger for requests such as Refactor the code with profiling; Apply profiling; Optimize hot path; Reduce allocations found in profiling; Fix CPU bottlenecks from profiling analysis. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。

Trigger for: finding federal opportunities; capture and bid screening; competitor or incumbent intelligence; recompete pipelines; teaming partner research; agency, customer, or market intelligence; federal labor-rate or pricing context; or refreshing prior GovCon research. Always begin with the complete workflow menu and obtain the user's selection before research, preflight, file generation, web search, or MCP calls. Produce sourced chat findings or an optional validated GovCon Growth Brief without making a bid decision from public data alone.

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。

Connect to a hospital's FHIR R4 server (Epic, Oracle Health/Cerner, MEDITECH, athenahealth, or any SMART-on-FHIR endpoint), pull a patient's clinical data and notes, and extract structured findings. Use when users say "connect to the EHR", "connect to Epic/Cerner", "pull notes for patient X", "what do the last 6 months of notes say about Y", or any task that starts from a live EHR rather than pasted text.

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。

Map your security posture against the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover). Produce a gap analysis, current/target tier assessment, and roadmap in the governance language that boards, auditors, and CISOs actually use. Use when the user mentions 'NIST CSF,' 'CSF 2.0,' 'cybersecurity framework,' 'security posture,' 'governance mapping,' 'CSF gap analysis,' 'CSF tiers,' 'cybersecurity maturity,' 'security roadmap,' 'CISO report,' 'board reporting,' 'security program,' or needs to translate technical findings into governance language.

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。

Translate technical security work into the language of non-security audiences — board, executives, engineering, customer success, customers, legal, procurement, sales. Covers incident communication, post-mortem narrative, audit-findings-for-stakeholders, risk justification, security spend justification, and customer-facing breach disclosure. Use when the user mentions 'security comms,' 'communicate this finding,' 'explain to my boss,' 'board update,' 'executive summary,' 'incident communication,' 'breach notification,' 'customer disclosure,' 'security memo,' 'post-mortem narrative,' 'risk justification,' 'why this matters to the business,' 'translate this finding,' 'stakeholder update,' or has technical security work that needs to land with a non-security audience.

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 a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to "review my plan", "check my plan", "critique my plan", or wants feedback on a plan.

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。