1,378 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when the user asks to write a threat / risk / vulnerability assessment, or wants the appropriate template for each type. Distinct structures and section ordering per assessment kind. Prefers graded evidence items from /quality-of-information-check and runs that skill first when handed raw URLs or text. Confidence is capped by the weakest load-bearing claim, and at Moderate when the evidence is ungraded.
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 evidence needs grading before anyone reasons from it — the user asks "how reliable is this?", "grade this source", "check this report", "can I trust this article?", "is this corroborated?", or hands over a URL, a pasted report or a Liberty91 event ahead of an ACH or assessment. The Quality of Information Check from the CIA Tradecraft Primer, adapted for vendor and press CTI reporting. Resolves each document to its originating source, splits it into claims, and grades every claim on two written elements, access level (how the source knows) and claim support (what backs the statement), with a stated rationale, using a fixed rubric with hard caps. The grade is not an Admiralty rating. Five outlets citing one vendor report count as one source; anything that cannot be traced to a primary is capped, not guessed. Returns a graded claim table, gaps, a deception screen and JSON. /ach, /threat-assessment and /writing-assessments run it first by default.
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 business impact of a proposed change. Use when the user says "impact assessment", "impact analysis", "what will this change affect", "change impact", "who is impacted", "ripple effects", "downstream impact", "impact mapping", "what breaks if we change this", "readiness for change" - even if they don't explicitly say "impact 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。
AI compliance analysis for EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, GDPR, OECD, financial services regulations (SEC, FCA, FINRA, DORA, MiFID II), and other frameworks. Use when asked to generate a compliance checklist for an AI tool or use case, determine if a risk assessment is required, score an AI tool's risk level, identify where an AI tool or use case could run afoul of regulatory requirements, perform a gap analysis, recommend remediation steps, assess a vendor, draft an acceptable use policy, map training requirements, or review jurisdiction-specific AI rules. Triggers on phrases like "compliance checklist", "risk assessment", "risk score", "does this comply", "EU AI Act", "ISO 42001", "NIST AI RMF", "AI governance", "gap analysis", "vendor assessment", "acceptable use policy", "MNPI", "AI training requirements", or any request to evaluate an AI tool or use case for regulatory compliance or 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。
Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.
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。
VRIO resource analysis combined with Dynamic Capabilities assessment. Use this skill to identify real competitive advantages (Barney VRIO framework), then test whether the organisation can sense new opportunities, seize them, and transform itself to stay ahead (Teece dynamic capabilities). Runs in three modes — full diagnostic for deep first-use sessions, review mode for quick re-assessment, and alert triggers for defining early-warning signals. Updates company-context.md after every run. Triggers on questions about competitive advantage, defensibility, resource assessment, why competitors are gaining ground, organisational agility, or whether advantages will hold. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).
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。
Knowledge base from the NASA Schedule Management Handbook (2024 edition, Revision 2). Use for program/project schedule management of aerospace and large engineering efforts: the five sub-functions (Planning, Development, Assessment & Analysis, Maintenance & Control, Documentation & Communication); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the WBS/OBS/CBS breakdown structures; the Schedule Management Plan (SMP) and Basis of Estimate (BoE); Critical Path Method, logic, durations, float and margin; tiered schedule assessment (Requirements/Health/Basis checks, the Shock Test) and the Dimensions of Schedule Reliability; Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA), Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis (ICSRA), Monte Carlo, correlation, merge bias, and the Joint Confidence Level (JCL); baselining, replan vs. rebaseline, EVM schedule metrics (SPI, BEI, CEI, HMI, Earned Schedule, CPLI), and status/progress/forecast reporting. This is NASA's scheduling doctrine grounded in NPR 7120.5 and the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. Thin on the underlying mechanics of CPM, statistics, and EVM (it points to companion handbooks); aerospace/space-flight-centric; anchored to the 2024 second edition.
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。
Knowledge base from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-20-195G). Use for program cost estimating: the four characteristics of a reliable estimate (comprehensive, well documented, accurate, credible) and the 18 best practices; the 12-step cost estimating process (purpose, plan, technical baseline, WBS, ground rules and assumptions, data, point estimate, sensitivity, risk/uncertainty, document, present, update); estimating methods (analogy, parametric, engineering build-up, learning curves); Monte Carlo risk/uncertainty analysis, confidence levels and contingency; auditing and validating an estimate against the characteristics; earned value management (EIA-748, BCWS/BCWP/ACWP, CPI/SPI/TCPI, EAC, PMB, IBR); and specialized techniques (software cost estimating, learning curves, Analysis of Alternatives, WBS templates, the Green Book internal-control framework). This is the cost-estimating companion to the GAO Schedule and Technology Readiness Assessment guides. Does not cover schedule estimating/risk in depth (see the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide), agency-specific cost models, or the full text of referenced standards (EIA-748, MIL-STD-881D, the Green Book) — these are named, not reproduced.
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。
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0, released in February 2024, provides a comprehensive taxonomy for managing cybersecurity risk through six core Functions - Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. bu skill covers conducting a maturity assessment against the CSF using Implementation Tiers to measure organizational cybersecurity posture and create improvement roadmaps.
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。
Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.
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 Claude Code self-assessment and learning path advisor. Runs a multi-category quiz covering 10 feature areas, produces a detailed skill profile with per-topic scores, identifies specific gaps, and generates a personalized learning path with prioritized next steps. Use when asked to "assess my level", "take the quiz", "find my level", "where should I start", "what should I learn next", "check my skills", "skill check", or "level up".
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。
Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.
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。
Conducts penetration testing of iOS and Android mobile applications following the OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide (MASTG) to identify vulnerabilities in data storage, network communication, authentication, cryptography, and platform-specific security controls. The tester performs static analysis of application binaries, dynamic analysis at runtime, and API security testing to evaluate the complete mobile attack surface. Activates for requests involving mobile app pentest, iOS security assessment, Android security testing, or OWASP MASTG 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。
Identify, assess, and mitigate operational risks. Trigger with "what are the risks", "risk assessment", "risk register", "what could go wrong", or when the user is evaluating risks associated with a project, vendor, process, or decision.
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。
Structure a performance review with self-assessment, manager template, and calibration prep. Use when review season kicks off and you need a self-assessment template, writing a manager review for a direct report, prepping rating distributions and promotion cases for calibration, or turning vague feedback into specific behavioral examples.
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。
EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) operational compliance for compliance teams. Three Article-level decisions: (1) What's the risk tier of this AI system — prohibited (Art. 5), high-risk (Art. 6 + Annex III), limited-risk (Art. 50), or minimal-risk? (2) For high-risk systems, what's the Article 43 conformity assessment route (Module A internal control vs Module H full QMS + notified body) and what goes in the Annex IV technical documentation? (3) Per organizational role (provider / deployer / importer / distributor / authorized representative), what are the active obligations and deadlines? Use during AI system intake review, when planning conformity assessment, or when scoping deployer obligations. Cites Articles + Annexes for every output. NOT executive AI strategy (see chief-ai-officer-advisor). NOT a legal substitute.
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。
Generate a Privacy Impact Assessment in house format for a new feature, product, or processing activity, using the structure learned from your seed PIA. Use when the user says "write a PIA", "privacy impact assessment for", "do we need a PIA for this", "privacy review this feature", or describes a new data processing activity.
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。
Interactive skill assessment with personalized learning path generation
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。
[omh] Team training or course that needs a syllabus: turn a learning goal into a teachable curriculum, assessment plan, and learner-ready sequence. Use when the user says: curriculum design, learning objectives, assessment plan, 커리큘럼 설계, 학습 목표, 평가 계획.
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 Azure compliance and security audits with azqr plus Key Vault expiration checks. Covers best-practice assessment, resource review, policy/compliance validation, and security posture checks. WHEN: compliance scan, security audit, BEFORE running azqr (compliance cli tool), Azure best practices, Key Vault expiration check, expired certificates, expiring secrets, orphaned resources, compliance 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。
Comprehensive market environment analysis and reporting tool. Analyzes global markets including US, European, Asian markets, forex, commodities, and economic indicators. Provides risk-on/risk-off assessment, sector analysis, and technical indicator interpretation. Triggers on keywords like market analysis, market environment, global markets, trading environment, market conditions, investment climate, market sentiment, forex analysis, stock market analysis, 相場環境, 市場分析, マーケット状況, 投資環境.
Sets up AWS Resilience Hub v2 from scratch: creates resilience policies with SLO targets, registers systems and user journeys, onboards services with input sources, and runs a first failure mode assessment. Applies when the user wants to get started with Resilience Hub v2, create a policy, onboard a service, or run an assessment — including creating one concrete policy with specific availability/RTO/RPO targets and a DR approach for a single service (even a tier-1 one). Does not apply to FIS experiments or ARC routing controls.
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。
Guides the end-to-end AWS resilience lifecycle integrating Resilience Hub v2, Fault Injection Service, and Application Recovery Controller. Covers the Define → Test → Operate workflow: from policy creation through failure mode assessment, to FIS experiment validation, to ARC operational controls. Applicable when the user wants a complete resilience strategy, needs to connect findings to experiments to controls, or is planning a resilience program. Also applicable for the meta question of whether marking NGRH findings as resolved is enough, whether they are "done" after resolving findings, or how to validate findings before resolving them. Not applicable for resolving or remediating a specific individual finding (see resilience-hub-failure-mode-assessment), or when a single service is explicitly named (e.g. "what FIS experiment should I run").
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。
Execute automate SOC 2 audit preparation including evidence gathering, control assessment, and compliance gap identification. Use when you need to prepare for SOC 2 audits, assess Trust Service Criteria compliance, document security controls, or generate readiness reports. Trigger with phrases like "SOC 2 audit preparation", "SOC 2 readiness assessment", "collect SOC 2 evidence", or "Trust Service Criteria compliance".
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。