「findings」の検索結果

Review Apache ShardingSphere or user-authorized downstream pull requests and PR discussions from public or authorized repository evidence. Use for code-correctness or mergeability decisions, CI-focused review, root-cause and regression analysis, complete consolidated findings, copy-ready committer feedback, challenged findings, multi-round review, and formal review of local implementation candidates in the repository completion loop.

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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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。

Triage supplied or imported security findings against a repository using its security policy and static code evidence. Accepts scanner reports, advisories, GitHub findings, and Jira or Linear tickets. Do not use for discovery, duplicate triage, runtime validation, or 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。

Track validated Codex Security findings in Linear, Jira, GitHub issues, or draft GitHub security advisories. Supports issue batches, duplicate checks, and reviewed writes. Do not use for scans or 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。

Findings-driven targeted code review. Understands the patch via patch-explainer and surrounding code via codebase-analysis, then consults a catalog of bug patterns (~11 categories under references/categories/). Picks only categories whose diff-signals match the patch and items whose "look for" hints match actual code shapes, groups them by review focus (function/file/feature), and spawns parallel subagents — each with a tight scope and selective checklist. Use for medium-to-large patches (50-1000 LOC) as a focused alternative to whole-patch ensemble or whole-file deep review. Triggers on: "review this patch/diff/change", "find bugs in this change", "scoped review", "what could go wrong here", "review using findings", or proactive PR 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。

Aggregate diligence findings into a deal team briefing at the right altitude for the audience — exec summary for leadership, working summary for the team. Use when user says "brief the deal team", "what's the state of diligence", "summarize findings for [audience]", "deal update", or on the briefing cadence.

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。

Triage a batch of raw security findings. Verify each is real, collapse duplicates, re-rank by derived exploitability, and tag with an owner. Takes a directory or file of scanner output and writes TRIAGE.json + TRIAGE.md sorted by what actually needs engineering attention. Use when asked to "triage findings", "validate scanner output", "prioritize vulns", or "review the backlog". Runs interactively by default; pass --auto to skip the interview.

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。

Triage supplied or imported security findings against a repository using its security policy and static code evidence. Accepts scanner reports, advisories, GitHub findings, and Jira or Linear tickets. Do not use for discovery, duplicate triage, runtime validation, or 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。

Track validated Codex Security findings in Linear, Jira, GitHub issues, or draft GitHub security advisories. Supports issue batches, duplicate checks, and reviewed writes. Do not use for scans or 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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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。

Client-facing red-team deliverable format — codifies the Subject / Observations / Description / Impact / Recommendation / PoC structure used for external red-team engagements (not bug-bounty platform reports). Different audience, different tone, different cadence. Built from an authorized engagement deliverable where 14 findings were packaged into a 52KB MD + 2.2MB DOCX with 16 embedded screenshots. Use when the engagement is "external red team for an enterprise client" (not H1/Bugcrowd/Intigriti), when generating the final report, when the client has specified a custom report format, or when packaging findings into DOCX/PDF.

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。

Operate any Obsidian vault as a living, self-rewriting second brain (an evolution of Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern: sources rewrite existing pages, contradictions reconcile automatically, scheduled agents maintain the vault while you sleep). Use this skill whenever the user asks Claude to read, write, update, search, or manage their Obsidian vault - including saving notes from conversation, creating daily entries, updating kanban boards, logging dev work, managing people notes, capturing decisions, tracking deals, or maintaining any vault structure. Also triggers when the user wants to bootstrap a new vault from scratch, run a vault health check, or drop a _CLAUDE.md into their vault so all Claude surfaces share the same operating rules. Includes a research toolkit (7 commands: /x-read, /x-pulse, /research, /research-deep, /notebooklm, /youtube, /podcast) for AI-powered research via Grok, Perplexity, NotebookLM, YouTube, and podcast feeds - findings save to the vault automatically following the AI-first vault rule. Use proactively whenever the conversation produces information worth preserving (decisions, people met, projects started, tasks completed, lessons learned, research 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。

Analyze any TRES Finance report XLSX and produce an automatic findings summary. Trigger this skill whenever a user uploads a .xlsx file that came from TRES Finance and asks to "analyze", "summarize", "review", "check", "audit", "look at", "what does this show", "any issues", "anything interesting", or "walk me through" the report. Also trigger when the user uploads an Excel file and mentions TRES, reconciliation, balances, transactions, cost basis, roll forward, or ERP sync. The skill identifies the report type from the file structure, runs targeted analysis based on report-specific logic, and produces a clear findings summary highlighting anomalies, key metrics, and action items.

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。

Addresses and fixes findings from a QA code review. Reads the review report, fixes critical and warning issues, and prepares for re-verification. Delegates to the Forja (Dev) agent.

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 this skill when the user is deploying or operating the DOCA Argus Service — the packaged BlueField-side runtime-security container that watches the BlueField and attached host for suspicious activity, integrity violations, and operational anomalies, and forwards findings to a SIEM (Splunk / ELK / Sentinel / syslog). Covers the four-axis config (detection policy, forwarding, sampling, host coverage), running the NGC container on BlueField Arm, and wiring the forwarder. Trigger even without "DOCA Argus" by name — typical implicit phrasings: "container green but no findings arrive", "false-positive flood in Splunk", or "runtime security on a fleet of BlueField-3s". Refuse and route elsewhere for installing DOCA, SIEM-side ingest stanzas, pre-baked detection-rule packs, and metrics observability (DOCA Telemetry). Argus is NVIDIA's currently- promoted runtime-security framework, superseding the older App Shield library; name it first for new runtime-security work.

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 AWS Security Agent penetration test against a live web application — registers and verifies the target domain, exercises the supplied endpoints with the managed Security Agent service, and returns verified runtime findings. Use when the user asks to pentest, run a penetration test, test their app's attack surface, find runtime vulnerabilities, register or verify a target domain, or check pentest status / 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。

Run an AWS Security Agent scan on the workspace — uploads the source to AWS, scans it with the managed Security Agent service, and returns ranked, verified findings with code locations and remediations. Use when the user asks to scan code, find vulnerabilities, run a security scan or review, check security issues, check scan status, show findings, list recent scans, or stop a 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。

Performs a full AWS Well-Architected Framework review evaluating every framework question across all pillars discovered from the live AWS documentation by analyzing code, IaC, and configurations to produce evidence-backed findings with Eisenhower-prioritized remediation. Supports full reviews (every framework best practice with BP ID citations), quick reviews (question-level), pillar-scoped reviews, score-mode reviews (a maturity scorecard with per-pillar scores and filtered findings), and lens-specific reviews using lenses discovered from the live AWS documentation. Triggers on mentions of Well-Architected review, WA review, WAR, pillar assessment, architecture review across pillars, workload assessment, cloud readiness evaluation, or a Well-Architected score, grade, or scorecard request. Does not apply to single-pillar deep-dives, learning WA concepts, ADRs, or migration readiness assessments.

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。

Doctrine for drafting and keeping working-group docs under `docs/wg/**` — RFC/RFD specs and findings/research/glossary. A WG doc is a language-agnostic, code-agnostic study of a domain: it argues *why* and defines *what*, never *how in our code*. Use when writing or editing anything under `docs/wg/`, an RFC/RFD, a spec, a design note, a glossary, or research findings — including "write up the design", "document the spec", or "capture what we learned". Not for plans/TODOs (untracked `*.plan.md`), user docs, or SDK API refs — use `docs` to route those.

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, runs, and synthesizes customer research — interviews, surveys, win-loss analysis, and message testing — into findings that change decisions. Use this when the customer is being guessed at, before positioning or a major launch, when churn or conversion has an unexplained cause, or when a team is arguing from anecdotes. Also use to turn raw interview notes into usable 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。

Rewrites technical research content into a structured lay summary that cross-disciplinary teams can quickly understand and act on. Use when the user wants to explain research to colleagues outside their specialty — clinicians, wet-lab scientists, bioinformaticians, product managers, or leadership. Trigger on: "lay summary", "explain my research to the team", "non-technical summary", "cross-disciplinary summary", "translate my findings", "align our team on the study", or any request to communicate research goals, findings, or next steps to a mixed or non-specialist audience. Part of the AIPOCH Academic Writing skill hub. Sits midstream: after research content is clarified, before downstream deliverables like slide decks or graphical abstracts.

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。

Turn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit findings, or a critique you did not write yourself, especially when the reviewer is a model or when the volume is too large to check by feel.

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。

Prioritizes rare-disease variants from trio/quad WES/WGS with de novo (DeNovoGear, Triodenovo), compound-heterozygous phasing (WhatsHap), mosaic VAF tiering, phenotype-driven ranking (Exomiser, Phen2Gene, AMELIE), ClinGen gene-disease validity gating, and ACMG SF v3.2 secondary findings reporting. Use when running diagnostic exome / genome pipelines, identifying candidate Mendelian disease genes, screening for incidental findings, or auditing VUS reclassification cycles. The ACMG/AMP classification framework (PVS1 decision tree, Pejaver PP3/BP4 calibration, Tavtigian point system) is in clinical-databases/acmg-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。

Plan and execute user research including research planning, recruiting, interview design, qualitative synthesis, and translating findings into product decisions. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan user research, design interviews, recruit participants, conduct discovery, run formative research, or synthesize qualitative findings. Triggers on user research, UX research, user interviews, discovery research, generative research, formative research, qualitative research, user insights, research synthesis, recruitment, interview guide, jobs to be done. Also triggers when product decisions are being made without user input and the user wants to fix 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。