1.2万 件 ・ 関連度順
Analyzes DNS query logs to detect data exfiltration via DNS tunneling, DGA domain communication, and covert C2 channels using entropy analysis, query volume anomalies, and subdomain length detection in SIEM platforms. Use when SOC teams need to identify DNS-based threats that bypass traditional network security 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。
Detect abnormal access patterns in AWS S3, GCS, and Azure Blob Storage by analyzing CloudTrail Data Events, GCS audit logs, and Azure Storage Analytics. Identifies after-hours bulk downloads, access from new IP addresses, unusual API calls (GetObject spikes), and potential data exfiltration using statistical baselines and time-series anomaly detection.
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。
Investigate compromised Docker containers by analyzing images, layers, volumes, logs, and runtime artifacts to identify malicious activity and evidence.
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。
ADHD-friendly output shaping for subagent responses. Lead with the next action, number multi-step tasks, end with one concrete next step, suppress tangents, restate state across turns, give specific time estimates, make wins visible, matter-of-fact errors, cap visible lists to 5, no preamble or closers. Loaded by genin, jonin, anbu, tokubetsu-jonin, and chunin when shaping final responses.
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 the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md
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 underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
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。
Drive the card's Review Hero loop by hand — trigger a review, address its comments, rerun until clean, then merge. Use in an external tool (Claude Code, Cursor) where Workhorse's automated loop isn't running.
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。
Remote-control tmux sessions for interactive CLIs by sending keystrokes and scraping pane output.
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。
Formally verify programs by writing Lean 4 proofs. Trigger this skill whenever the user wants to formally verify code, generate Lean 4 proofs, prove properties about algorithms or smart contracts, verify invariants, convert program logic into formal specifications, or anything involving Lean 4 and formal verification. Also trigger when the user mentions "qedgen", "lean proof", "formal proof", "verify my code", "prove correctness", "formal verification", or wants mathematical guarantees about their implementation.
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。
Delegate coding tasks to Codex, Claude Code, or Pi agents via background process. Use when: (1) building/creating new features or apps, (2) reviewing PRs (spawn in temp dir), (3) refactoring large codebases, (4) iterative coding that needs file exploration. NOT for: simple one-liner fixes (just edit), reading code (use read tool), thread-bound ACP harness requests in chat (for example spawn/run Codex or Claude Code in a Discord thread; use sessions_spawn with runtime:"acp"), or any work in ~/clawd workspace (never spawn agents here). Claude Code: use --print --permission-mode bypassPermissions (no PTY). Codex/Pi/OpenCode: pty:true required.
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。
Add, update, or retire an AI provider model option for the BYOK theme generator (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) and verify the provider requests native structured output for it. Use when model lists go stale or a new provider/model is requested.
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。
Prepares the trend update for a recurring emailed report: identifies report emails not yet processed, extracts the configured metrics from their spreadsheet, CSV or PDF attachments, returns new rows for an append-only trends sheet and writes a DRAFT summary with period-on-period deltas and flagged anomalies. Use when the user asks to "update the trends for the weekly report", "analyse the latest monthly report", "what changed in the latest report", "do the latest numbers look unusual" or "set up tracking for a report that arrives by email". Do not use for a single file with no trend state, use dataset-insight-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 a DRAFT stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Turns a schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Turns a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reviews a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, use project-status-tracker instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 a slide-by-slide presentation draft on the user's own slide template and checks every slide against written brand rules (colours with hex codes, fonts, logo placement, slide archetypes, tone, banned visuals), returning the approved outline, the DRAFT deck content and a compliance report as Markdown. Use when the user asks to "build this deck on our template", "make these slides on-brand", "check this presentation against our brand guidelines", "rebuild these slides to corporate identity (CI)" or asks for a CI-compliant or corporate-template presentation. Do not use for an accessibility review of slides, use document-accessibility-check instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares the contents of a dated backup of a custom skills folder and drafts a session journal entry, both for the user to save, so work can be resumed after a crash, a context loss or a skills wipe. Returns the copy action list, backup manifest, journal entry, resume summary and a restore plan whose steps the user confirms one by one and carries out. Use when the user asks to "back up my skills folder", "checkpoint this session", "write the session journal", "where did we leave off last time", "restore my skills from the last backup" or "take a safety copy before I edit this skill". Do not use for holding individual file changes for approval during ordinary work, use no-delete-guardrail instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Turns one meeting transcript, recording recap or set of raw notes into concise DRAFT minutes returned in the chat as a single Markdown document: header metadata, attendance and apologies, agenda items each with a short neutral summary and outcome, numbered decisions with an owner, numbered action items with owner and due date, open questions, carried-over actions and the next-meeting line, every entry backed by a short verbatim source fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write the minutes", "draft minutes from this transcript", "turn these notes into meeting minutes", "produce the minutes of meeting for today's call", "tidy my rough minutes into the standard format" or "prepare the minutes for circulation". Do not use for extracting action items, task lists or per-owner follow-up emails alone, use transcript-to-actions instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。