「risk」の検索結果

MANDATORY for static source-to-test pairing: find or list source files/modules without corresponding tests, or suggest test locations from repository structure. Invoke even for a tiny package; do not substitute manual globbing. Uses Roslyn for C#/.NET and tree-sitter for Python, TS/JS, Go, Java, Rust, Ruby, Kotlin, Swift, PowerShell, and C++. DO NOT USE FOR: real line/branch/Cobertura data, coverage-backed test priorities, CRAP risk, or grading existing tests.

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。

Scan AI agent skills, plugins, MCP servers, and agent tooling for prompt injection, unsafe commands, secret exposure, and supply-chain risks before installing or trusting them.

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。

Comprehensive OSINT methodology for external red-team operations and authorized attack-surface assessments. Covers the 5-stage recon pipeline (seed discovery, asset expansion, enrichment, exposure analysis, reporting), asset-graph discipline with 29 asset types, severity rubric (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/INFO), confidence upgrade workflows, time budgeting, asset-level triage rules, scale-based tactics, identity-fabric mapping (Entra/Okta/ADFS/Google/SAML/M365 Teams+SharePoint+OAuth), API and auth-map methodology, JavaScript deep analysis, mobile attack surface, cloud attack surface, breach×identity correlation, detectability tagging, detection-aware probing (back-off, persona rotation), read-only validator discipline, WAF/CDN bypass + origin discovery, vulnerability prioritization (CVE/EPSS/KEV), phishing infrastructure planning + pretext development, bug bounty submission templates, client deliverable templates with risk translation, threat-actor investigation (incl. RU/CN pivots), cryptocurrency tracing, image/video forensics, chronolocation. Use when planning or executing reconnaissance against authorized targets, mapping an organization's external attack surface, investigating a person/entity, tracing crypto flows, geolocating media, or performing attribution 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。

Builds compliance checklists for business scenarios involving GDPR, PIPL, or advertising/data laws. Outputs a structured checklist with check items, legal basis, risk levels, and actionable recommendations. Triggered by requests like "run a compliance check," "GDPR/PIPL compliance," "pre-launch review," "privacy impact assessment (PIA/DPIA)," or asking if a feature is compliant.

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 Terms of Service, user agreements, and privacy policies for consumer risks, producing a structured report that flags unfair clauses, data traps, and liability issues. Trigger when a user asks to review, audit, or analyze a ToS, privacy policy, or user agreement, or mentions specific concerns like auto-renewal or data authorization.

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。

Brainstorm a longlist of benefits and costs for a project. Outputs two clean tables (benefits and costs), each with materiality (H/M/L), a cash flow tag (cash in / cash out / non-cash), a quantification method, and a monetisation method. Supports HMT Green Book, EU Better Regulation Guidelines, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the Victorian Treasury High Value High Risk (HVHR) framework.

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。

Manual for the marginaleffects R and Python package, and guide to the book "Model to Meaning". Use when users ask about predictions, comparisons, slopes, marginal effects, average treatment effects (ATE/ATT/CATE), hypothesis testing, contrasts, counterfactuals, risk ratios, odds ratios, causal inference with G-computation, or need help with marginaleffects functions like predictions(), comparisons(), slopes(), hypotheses(), datagrid(), avg_predictions(), avg_comparisons(), avg_slopes(), or plot 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。

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。

Use when the user explicitly wants autonomous progress without routine clarification stops: "plow ahead", "do not stop", "use your best judgment", "keep going until done", "finish while I am away", "do not ask questions unless truly blocked", or similar. Convert ordinary ambiguity into stated assumptions, proceed through implementation and validation, stop only for true blockers, and end with a clear recap of decisions, changes, verification, and residual risk.

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。

Prototype one risky assumption within a fixed budget, then keep or discard the result

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 starting a complex or ambiguous task that risks scope drift

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。

Examine what a file claims about itself and what it actually contains — powered by Apache Tika. True content-based type detection (extensions lie), provenance claims (authors, dates, creating application), revision and tamper signals (PDF incremental updates, tracked changes, hidden slides, zip integrity), hidden and embedded content (attachments, macros), risk indicators (PDF JavaScript actions, encryption), and content digests. Evidence gathering, not verdicts: Tika reports what the file asserts and what parsing observed; it does not attribute authorship or validate signatures. Use for triaging suspicious files, provenance questions, e-discovery-style review, or "is this file what it claims to be."

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。

Parallel read-only multi-agent review of a current git diff or explicit file scope to find behavioral regressions, security or privacy risks, performance or reliability issues, and contract or test coverage gaps. Use when the user asks for a review swarm, parallel review, diff review, regression review, security review, or wants high-signal issues plus a prioritized fix path without editing files.

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。

Identify failure modes before they occur using structured risk analysis

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。

Programmatic SEO planning and audit: building or evaluating large sets of template-generated pages that target long-tail query patterns (e.g. "[service] in [city]", "[product] vs [product]", "[tool] for [use-case]"). Covers data-source and template design, thin/duplicate-content and doorway-page risks, per-page uniqueness and value thresholds, internal linking and hubs, indexation management (publish vs. noindex), and scaling without a manual action. Use whenever the user wants to generate many pages from a template/dataset, build location/comparison/use-case pages at scale, or asks why generated pages aren't indexing. Trigger on: "programmatic SEO", "pSEO", "generate pages at scale", "templated pages", "location pages at scale", "comparison pages", "[city] pages", "my generated pages aren't indexed", "doorway pages", "scale content". For one-off content use /content-writer; for keyword discovery use /keyword-research.

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。

Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized network-layer security testing, including exposed services, protocol downgrade, man-in-the-middle risks, and segmentation bypasses. Use when a task belongs to the network testing domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.

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。

Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized cryptography weakness testing, including weak algorithms, padding oracles, key management errors, insecure randomness, and hash collision risks. Use when a task belongs to the cryptography testing domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.

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。

Dedicated security-audit route for OWASP-style risks, secret leaks, auth flaws, injection, unsafe input handling, SSRF/XSS, and sensitive-data exposure. Use instead of code-reviewer when the prompt explicitly asks for security, vulnerability, threat, auth, or OWASP 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。

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。

Comprehensive toolkit for survival analysis and time-to-event modeling in Python using scikit-survival. Use this skill when working with censored survival data, performing time-to-event analysis, fitting Cox models, Random Survival Forests, Gradient Boosting models, or Survival SVMs, evaluating survival predictions with concordance index or Brier score, handling competing risks, or implementing any survival analysis workflow with the scikit-survival library.

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 git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Trigger only when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do not trigger for general maintainer lists or non-security ownership questions.

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。