7,083 件 ・ 関連度順
Run convex-doctor static analysis, interpret findings, and fix issues across security, performance, correctness, schema, and architecture categories. Use when running convex-doctor, fixing convex-doctor warnings or errors, improving the convex-doctor score, or when asked about Convex code quality, static analysis, or linting Convex functions.
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。
Read the Convex deployment's 72h insights (read limits, OCC contention), root-cause each event in code, report evidence-backed perf/cost findings with 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。
Audits Convex performance for reads, subscriptions, write contention, and function limits. Use for slow features, insights findings, OCC conflicts, or read amplification.
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。
Enables ultra-granular, line-by-line code analysis to build deep architectural context before vulnerability or bug finding.
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 and evaluate influencers for brand partnerships, verify authenticity, and track collaboration performance across Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok.
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 to "test API security", "fuzz APIs", "find IDOR vulnerabilities", "test REST API", "test GraphQL", "API penetration testing", "bug bounty API testing", or needs guidance on API security assessment techniques.
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。
Semantic + keyword search and connection-discovery across the user's own Apple Notes via the apple-notes MCP server. Use when the user wants to find, recall, or synthesize something from their notes, or surface non-obvious bridges/related notes. macOS, on-device.
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 and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.
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。
Detecting data exfiltration attempts from AWS S3 buckets by analyzing CloudTrail S3 data events, VPC Flow Logs, GuardDuty findings, Amazon Macie alerts, and S3 access patterns to identify unauthorized bulk downloads and cross-account data transfers.
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 teaches security teams how to deploy and operationalize Amazon GuardDuty for continuous threat detection across AWS accounts and workloads. It covers enabling protection plans for S3, EKS, EC2 runtime monitoring, and Lambda, interpreting finding severity levels, and building automated response workflows using EventBridge and Lambda.
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 teaches security teams how to detect and respond to unauthorized cryptocurrency mining operations in cloud environments. It covers identifying cryptomining indicators through compute usage anomalies, network traffic patterns to mining pools, GuardDuty CryptoCurrency findings, and runtime process monitoring on EC2, ECS, EKS, and Azure Automation workloads.
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 outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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 over-permissive RBAC roles and service-account token abuse paths in Kubernetes using kubectl auth can-i, rbac-police, kubectl-who-can, and rakkess during authorized cluster security reviews.
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 CIS Kubernetes Benchmark checks and remediate findings with kube-bench.
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。
Update npm/yarn/pnpm dependencies using manifest-first, lockfile-aware workflows. Prefer declared version bumps over resolution overrides. Use when updating, upgrading, or patching dependencies; fixing transitive dependency versions; addressing npm audit or CVE findings; or removing stale overrides.
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。
Hostile, WordPress-specialized QA audit: severity-ranked findings, never a fix. Use for an adversarial audit.
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。
Standalone security audit of a feature or file set: severity-ranked findings and remediation tasks.
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 sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review 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 a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, use project-status-tracker 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 a set of knowledge files or a knowledge base listing and returns a draft hygiene table, one row per file: duplication signals with the matching file, staleness signals, conflicts between files on the same topic with both passages quoted, missing or unverified owners, and one proposed action per file (Keep, Update, Merge into, Retire, Assign owner, Confirm with owner) for the owner to decide. Never edits, merges, moves or deletes a file. Use when the user asks to "review our knowledge base for duplicates", "which KB articles are stale", "find conflicting articles", "which articles have no owner" or "run a hygiene check on these files". Do not use for review-date sweeps of a document library with owner reminders, use sharepoint-review-sweeper instead; for writing one article, use knowledge-article-drafter. 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。
Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer 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。
Reads a purchase order extract (spreadsheet, CSV or pasted table) and returns a DRAFT question sheet for the buyer: possible split orders, round amounts, amounts just under an approval threshold, first-seen or near-duplicate vendors, duplicate orders and missing or self approvals, each a neutral question naming the PO numbers, never a finding. Use when the user asks to "review these purchase orders", "screen the PO log", "spot anomalies in this spend extract", "sanity-check the PO register" or "prepare buyer questions before the audit". Do not use for an expense claim or travel request checked against policy, use expense-policy-precheck 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。
Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-check. 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。
Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-drafter. 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。