2,389 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
This skill should be used when the user asks to "plan a penetration test", "create a security assessment checklist", "prepare for penetration testing", "define pentest scope", "follow security testing best practices", or needs a structured methodology for penetration testing engagements.
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 "pentest AWS", "test AWS security", "enumerate IAM", "exploit cloud infrastructure", "AWS privilege escalation", "S3 bucket testing", "metadata SSRF", "Lambda exploitation", or needs guidance on Amazon Web Services security assessment.
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 for broken authentication vulnerabilities", "assess session management security", "perform credential stuffing tests", "evaluate password policies", "test for session fixation", or "identify authentication bypass flaws". It provides comprehensive techniques for identifying authentication and session management weaknesses in web applications.
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。
Research Guardian - Ethics Advisory & Bias Detection across all research stages Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Surface-level screening, deep contextual analysis, constructive recommendations Use when: reviewing research ethics, checking for bias, assessing trustworthiness, QRP screening Triggers: ethics review, IRB, bias detection, QRP, trustworthiness, research integrity, p-hacking, HARKing
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。
Agent E2 - Qualitative Coding Specialist - Systematic coding and theme development. Covers codebook development, coding strategies, saturation assessment, and CAQDAS 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。
Macroeconomic monitor. Supports UK, US, Euro area, and Australia. Pulls GDP, inflation, employment, wages, rates, trade, housing, and fiscal data. Each country follows its central bank's reporting structure. Produces a single clean briefing with a traffic-light assessment and user-selectable sub-components.
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。
Evaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.
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。
Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.
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。
Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based assessment.
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-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial 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。
Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.
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 the repository or a broad subsystem for security, correctness, and maintainability risks. Use for audit requests or /audit; use review for a specific change and vuln-check for a security-only assessment.
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 or de-slop concrete changes in ccch1mneyyy/dsh-TUI at maintainer level: PR numbers or URLs, branches, commit ranges, patch files, staged or unstaged worktrees, and scoped repository-hygiene requests. Use for evidence-first correctness, contract, repository-rule, process, and behavior-preserving cleanup review, including debug residue, dead or duplicate code, speculative abstractions, stale comments or tests, and unrelated diff churn. Do not use for abstract designs with no concrete repository artifact; use audit for repository-wide assessments and vuln-check for security-only checks.
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。
Check resolved dependencies and relevant code paths for security vulnerabilities. Use for security checks or /vuln-check; use audit for a broader correctness and maintainability assessment.
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。
Research a person's public track record and give a short credibility assessment. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /who-is-this.
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 whenever a pull request is opened, reopened, or synchronized in microsoft/apm to assess whether and how the documentation corpus must change to stay truthful with the proposed code change. Activate even when the PR title or body says nothing about docs -- the skill must run on every PR to detect silent drift between code and docs. Classifies impact as no-change, in-place edit (one to a few paragraphs), or structural change (new page or TOC reshape), then orchestrates a CDO + doc-writer + python-architect + editorial-owner + growth-hacker loop to produce a patch-ready advisory. Does NOT review code quality, security, or test coverage. Does NOT auto-merge or auto-push doc edits.
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 to cut an APM release from the current worktree: assess whether the cycle since the last tag warrants a patch or minor bump (semver discipline against the merged-since-last-tag diff), sanitize the [Unreleased] CHANGELOG block into a dated version block with one concise "so what" entry per merged PR (drop internal-only churn, consolidate duplicates), bump pyproject.toml + uv.lock, run the CI-mirror lint chain, and open the release PR. Activate on "ship a release", "cut v0.x", "release prep", "bump and PR", "open release PR", "what kind of release do we need", or any phrasing that ends in opening a release PR -- even when the user does not say "skill". Stops BEFORE tagging; tagging stays a human gate that triggers the release workflow. Refuses to bump to a major (>= 1.0.0) version without explicit operator confirmation.
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。
Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.
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。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
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。
Research an explicitly requested Marin question or coordinate a multi-session experiment; find prior work, assess evidence, and record results in the task's existing durable surface.
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。
Assess a JS SDK release candidate or release plan against the previous release and recommend ship or block.
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。
Assess a GitHub issue or PR for demonstrated need, supported alternatives, correctness, and maintainer action. Desk review only.
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。
统筹兼顾：当多个目标、指标或利益方相互制约、优化一项会伤害另一项时，识别全部辩证关系对，检查片面性，为每对关系定出当前阶段的侧重与底线，评估系统性影响，并设失衡预警。触发信号包括 trade-off、目标冲突、速度 vs 质量、短期 vs 长期、"顾此失彼"；只有单一目标、用户已定取舍、或属硬性二选一时不触发。 English: Overall planning. When several goals, metrics, or stakeholders constrain each other and optimizing one harms another, map every dialectical pair, check for one-sidedness, set the current emphasis and floor for each pair, assess system-wide effects, and define imbalance alarms. Triggers include trade-offs, goal conflicts, speed vs quality, short vs long term; skip for single-goal work, decisions the user already made, or hard either/or constraints.
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。