「sse」の検索結果

Expert third-party risk management (TPRM) advisor — a vendor risk analyst for the full lifecycle: risk-based vendor tiering, tailored due-diligence questionnaires (SIG-style or mapped to ISO 27001, SOC 2, DORA, NIS2, HIPAA), SOC 2 Type II report review (exceptions, carve-outs, CUECs, bridge letters), DPA and sub-processor review under GDPR Art. 28, contract security addenda (DORA Art. 30 provisions), ongoing monitoring programmes, and vendor offboarding. Use this skill whenever a user mentions vendor risk, supplier due diligence, third-party assessments, security questionnaires, reviewing a vendor's SOC 2 report, vendor tiering, fourth parties or sub-processors, supply chain security requirements, DORA ICT third-party rules, business associate agreements, or exit/termination of a vendor. Also trigger for 'a customer sent us a questionnaire' and 'how do I assess this vendor' style requests.

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。

Expert CMMC 2.0 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) advisor for US defense contractors and subcontractors in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). Use this skill whenever a user asks about CMMC 2.0, CMMC Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, DoD cybersecurity compliance, NIST SP 800-171, CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) protection, System Security Plan (SSP), Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M), C3PAO assessments, DIBCAC audits, self-assessment, SPRS score, or any requirement under DFARS 252.204-7012 or 7021. Also trigger for: "CMMC gap analysis", "CMMC readiness", "FCI protection", "CUI scoping", "CMMC practices", "DoD contract cybersecurity", "defense supply chain security", "prime contractor flow-down requirements", the July 2026 CMMC Phase 2 suspension, or the CMMC Reform Task Force.

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。

Ultra-compressed communication mode (lite / full / ultra) that cuts token usage ~75% by speaking like caveman while keeping full technical accuracy. Use when the user requests "caveman mode", "less tokens", "be brief", or when output budget is tight.

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。

Asset naming and pipeline validation

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。

ISO 42001 AI Management System (AIMS) compliance. Use for ISO 42001 readiness assessments, AI governance planning, AI impact assessments, Annex A control validation, responsible AI implementation, and AIMS certification preparation.

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 IT vendors and third-party partners with multi-factor risk scoring and regulatory compliance checklists. Use when evaluating technology vendors.

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。

GDPR Art. 35 Data Protection Impact Assessment with threshold checking, risk registers, and EDPB criteria scoring. Use for DPIA evaluations.

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 and compare technology stacks with TCO analysis, security assessment, and ecosystem health scoring. Use when comparing frameworks, calculating total cost of ownership, assessing migration paths, or analyzing ecosystem viability.

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 legal risk assessment with 5x5 Severity x Likelihood matrix. Use for risk scoring, risk registers, escalation decisions, and risk memos.

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 "plan a red team engagement", "scope a penetration test", "design a security assessment methodology", "create rules of engagement", or "plan an adversary simulation".

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。

Map, measure and improve business processes — SIPOC and swimlane capture, cycle-time and bottleneck analysis, handoff diagnosis, and a payback-ranked improvement backlog. Use when a process is slow, error-prone, or crosses too many teams.

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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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。

Post-hoc verification and trust audit of AI-generated factual and interpretive claims. Classifies claims by type and salience, routes them to domain-appropriate sources, scores trustworthiness on a tiered scale with an Interpolated verdict for plausible-but-unsupported detail, and assesses rhetorical fairness on interpretive claims. Designed for clinical-negligence and healthcare-law practice in England and Wales, with general applicability beyond.

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。

Panel structure design, firm selection criteria, right-sourcing analysis, and coverage gap assessment for in-house legal teams. Build panel frameworks from scratch or formalise existing informal arrangements. Define weighted selection criteria for firm evaluation. Run right-sourcing analysis (ABC tiering) to identify work sent to expensive providers that doesn't require that level of resource. Assess existing panels for practice area, geographic, and capability gaps. Trigger on: 'design our panel', 'how many firms do we need', 'panel structure', 'firm selection criteria', 'which firms should we use', 'right-sourcing', 'are we sending work to the right firms', 'panel gaps', 'too many firms', 'consolidate our panel', 'we need a firm for', 'preferred provider', 'panel tiers', 'do we need BigLaw for this', 'convergence', 'D&I panel targets', 'how do we choose firms'.

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。

Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.

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 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI 100-1 + the NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile) to a specific AI system, governance question, or impact assessment. Three modes — consult, governance plan, full assessment — all cite Subcategories (`GOVERN 1.1`) and Profile Action IDs (`GV-1.2-001`) verbatim. Use when the user mentions the AI RMF, NIST RMF, NIST AI 100-1, NIST AI 600-1, GenAI Profile, the four functions (Govern / Map / Measure / Manage), the trustworthy AI characteristics, the 12 GAI risks (confabulation, harmful bias, information integrity, CBRN, data privacy, etc.), or asks "what does NIST say about X" for an AI system.

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。

Expert NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) advisor covering CSF 2.0 and CSF 1.1. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST CSF, cybersecurity risk management, the six CSF functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), CSF profiles, implementation tiers, gap assessments, organizational profiles, community profiles, CSF core subcategories, informative references, or mapping to other frameworks (NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001, CIS Controls, COBIT). Also trigger for questions like "how do I implement NIST CSF?", "what does CSF 2.0 change?", "help me build a CSF profile", "how do I assess my cybersecurity posture?", or any request involving organizational cybersecurity risk strategy or framework alignment.

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。

Expert ISO 27001 compliance assistant for security and compliance teams. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO 27001 or ISO/IEC 27001, including any of the following: gap analysis, auditing, compliance assessments, control checklists, policy writing, document generation, Statement of Applicability (SoA), risk assessment, risk registers, risk treatment plans, Annex A controls, ISMS implementation, clause requirements, certification readiness, transitioning from 2013 to 2022, control implementation guidance, incident response policies, access control policies, supplier security, or any information security management system (ISMS) topic. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any ISO 27001 or ISMS question should use this skill.

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。

Expert ISO 27701 Privacy Information Management System (PIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 27701:2025, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, privacy information management, PIMS certification, PII controller or processor obligations, privacy risk assessment, Statement of Applicability for privacy, privacy by design, data subject rights, DPIA, records of processing activities, transitioning from ISO 27701:2019, GDPR alignment with ISO 27701, or any privacy management system topic. Also trigger for questions about Annex A.1 (controller controls), A.2 (processor controls), A.3 (shared security controls), or implementing a standalone PIMS without ISO 27001. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full ISO 27701 lifecycle from gap assessment through certification.

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 and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal 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。

Maps the full set of legal obligations for the EU AI Act based on role + risk tier, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments and implementation priorities. This skill should be used when the user asks to "map AI Act obligations", "check what we need to do under the AI Act", "create a compliance checklist", "check deployer obligations", "assess provider duties", or mentions Art. 26, Art. 16-17, AI literacy Art. 4, DPIA, fundamental rights assessment, or "Pflichtenkatalog" under the AI Act.

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 obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 for connected products, related services, statutory B2B data sharing, unfair data-contract terms, exceptional-need B2G requests, data-processing-service switching, international governmental access, interoperability, smart contracts, enforcement, and non-EU representatives. Use for Data Act scope analysis, gap assessments, product and service design, request handling, contract review, cloud exit planning, or cross-regulation mapping.

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。

GDPR Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) guidance under Article 35 GDPR, EDPB Guidelines WP 248 rev.01, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI), and national SA blacklists/whitelists. Triggers: "DPIA", "DSFA", "Datenschutz-Folgenabschätzung", "impact assessment", "Art. 35", "do I need a DPIA", descriptions of new high-risk processing (profiling, AI, biometrics, large-scale monitoring, special category data), Art. 36 prior consultation questions, national blacklist/whitelist queries.

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。

Classify AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".

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。