「auditing」の検索結果

Build an animation from scratch, making the decisions in the order that determines whether it feels right — should it animate at all, what purpose, which tool, which properties, which curve and duration, how it interrupts, how it exits. Writes the implementation. Use when asked to animate something, add motion, make a component feel alive, or build a transition. For critiquing existing motion use review-animations; for auditing a whole codebase use improve-animations.

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 coding interviews, focus groups, or open-ended responses with AI assistance, when a codebook needs building or auditing, when intercoder reliability must be computed, or when qualitative quotes need integrity checks before publication.

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 authoring a new manuscript, thesis chapter, or abstract from scratch in Turkish and English in parallel — building the claim skeleton first, then drafting Turkish and re-authoring English — not for auditing parity between existing versions.

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 AI contribution metadata must match the actual workflow, when model alias and dated identifiers need auditing, when verified and fabricated citation counts feed a release decision, or when a venue's AI disclosure statement needs evidence behind it.

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 methodology for auditing and exploiting TLS/SSL implementations and misconfigurations across network services and mobile applications. Covers protocol downgrade attacks including POODLE (CVE-2014-3566) against SSLv3 CBC padding, DROWN (CVE-2016-0800) cross-protocol attack leveraging SSLv2 export ciphers to decrypt TLS sessions, and FREAK (CVE-2015-0204) forcing RSA export-grade key exchange. Addresses BEAST (CVE-2011-3389) exploiting CBC IV predictability in TLS 1.0, CRIME (CVE-2012-4929) and BREACH targeting TLS-level and HTTP-level compression oracles respectively, and Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160) for OpenSSL memory disclosure. Covers certificate validation bypass techniques for applications with improper hostname verification or chain validation, certificate pinning bypass using Frida and Objection for mobile application interception, HSTS bypass via NTP manipulation and subdomain exploitation, TLS 1.3 0-RTT replay attacks against non-idempotent endpoints, mutual TLS (mTLS) authentication a...

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。

Complete observability & reliability engineering system. Use when designing monitoring, implementing structured logging, setting up distributed tracing, building alerting systems, creating SLO/SLI frameworks, running incident response, conducting post-mortems, or auditing system reliability. Covers all three pillars (logs/metrics/traces), alert design, dashboard architecture, on-call operations, chaos engineering, and cost optimization.

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 for security vulnerabilities — detects code injection, prompt injection, credential exfiltration, supply chain attacks, and 69+ threat patterns. Use when installing new skills, auditing existing ones, reviewing untrusted code, or validating packages before publishing.

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。

Automated security auditing for OpenClaw projects. Scans for hardcoded secrets (API keys, tokens) and container vulnerabilities (CVEs) using Trivy. Provides structured reports to help maintain a clean and secure codebase.

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。

GoPlus AgentGuard — AI agent security guard. Automatically blocks dangerous commands, prevents data leaks, and protects secrets. Use when reviewing third-party code, auditing skills, checking for vulnerabilities, evaluating action safety, or viewing security logs.

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 every destructive/gated action an agent body can attempt (git, filesystem, network, shell, github) into block/approve/allow tiers, and audit whether the pre-tool and post-tool governance backing that classification is real: blocked actions proven zero-side-effect by a negative fixture, every denial backed by a receipt and a transcript event, every block-tier denial paired with a safe alternative, and no unmanaged or same-UID body ever marked "contained." Use when building or reviewing Agent Harbor's C5 governance gate (destructive git blocker, approval request/result, denial receipts), gating a new tool surface before it can run destructive commands, or auditing whether an existing "destructive-action blocked" claim actually has evidence behind it. NOT for proving an existing sandbox boundary actually contains an adversary once an action is isolated (use sandboxed-adversarial-test-harness), deciding where in a DAG to place a human review node or designing the approval UX itself (use human-gate-designer), or designing the general work-receipt schema across an entire agent task (use agent-work-receipt-designer).

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 design trends and recommend appropriate styles, color palettes, and typography systems for your project based on current design movements. NOT for accessibility auditing or full design system 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。

Managing third-party dependencies — version pinning, security auditing, license compliance, update workflows, lockfile management, supply chain security. Activate on "npm audit", "dependabot", "renovate", "pin versions", "dependency update", "supply chain", "license compliance", "lockfile", "security advisory", "typosquatting", "SBOM". NOT for internal monorepo package management (use monorepo-management) or publishing your own packages to npm/PyPI.

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 LLM token cost estimates against actual API usage. Activate on 'cost verification', 'token estimate accuracy', 'API cost audit', 'estimation variance'. NOT for pricing lookups, budget planning, or cost optimization strategies.

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 whether an enforced-coordination MCP has actually shrunk its ~19 legacy etiquette verbs into the 5 enforced tools — work/act/ask/recall/status — each carrying one denial shape and one transcript event, migrated through a real retirement path (intake-metadata, alias, or doc-history — never a parallel runtime), with zero legacy-verb calls once a body reaches compliance mode C4+. Use when reviewing a broker-collapse migration plan, gating a body's move from advisory (C0-C3) to enforced (C4+) coordination, or verifying IT-018 Broker Collapse compliance. NOT for the inbound trigger→spawn boundary that decides whether an event may spawn an agent at all (use fleet-event-spawn-trust), the capability-token cryptographic mechanism behind a denial (use agentic-zero-trust-security), designing how a swarm of agents invokes and shards work (use swarm-invocation-designer), or auditing an individual PR's mergeability (use agent-pr-authoring).

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 designing or fixing a Content Security Policy on a real site, choosing between nonce-based and hash-based CSP, adding strict-dynamic, debugging "Refused to execute inline script" errors, deploying CSP in report-only mode first, configuring report-to / report-uri, or auditing an existing policy for unsafe-inline / unsafe-eval / wildcards. Triggers: "CSP blocks legitimate inline script", strict-dynamic, nonce-{RANDOM}, sha256-{HASH}, object-src none, base-uri none, frame-ancestors, Trusted Types, X-Content-Security-Policy obsolete, report-only vs enforced. NOT for general HTTP security headers (HSTS, COOP/COEP), Trusted Types deep dive, CORS configuration, or building a WAF.

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。

Own whether a multi-document product-architecture binder is internally consistent, complete against its stated customer/contingency/architecture coverage, and honest about which older product ambitions it has absorbed, superseded, deferred, contradicted, orphaned, or rejected. Use when running a binder Architect of Record pass, before an implementation chain cites a binder chapter as ready, when a proof-gate owner is missing, or when reconciling the binder against the older ambition corpus (website, plans, examples, ADRs). NOT for auditing a single Claude Skill bundle's structure or frontmatter (use skill-hygiene), rendering a single-PM accept/reject verdict on one finished deliverable (use port-daddy-user-surrogate-pm-review), or sequencing/stewarding a roadmap's sidequests once a gap or operator decision has been surfaced (use legible-roadmap-with-sidequests).

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。

Audits an Articles of Agreement contract — the daemon-witnessed agreement every official Port Daddy agent signs covering registration, transcript reporting, tool-use gating, file claims, parley conduct, budget limits, and operator control — against the enforcement-beats-hope bar: a clause counts as safe only when it resolves to a concrete, daemon-observable mechanism with a defined denial shape, never a promise the agent might honor. Use when drafting a new agent's Articles, reviewing a compliance-level (C0-C6) claim, deciding whether a clause is genuinely enforced or merely documented, or auditing whether an agent's claimed identity can be trusted. NOT for securing the inbound event-to-spawn path (fleet-event-spawn-trust), designing the relay's transport PKI and signing keys (pd-relay-zero-trust), or tracking an agent's identity and reputation across its whole lifetime after it signs (agent-identity-continuity-reputation).

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。

Verify every visual-evidence artifact (screenshot/GIF/recording) attached to a PR carries a provenance manifest binding it to real daemon-backed truth — daemon port, run id, transcript head hash, agent node id, commit, and an honest real/fixture/mock source label — and that operator-control-panel PRs cover the required set of proof states. Use when gating a PR's proof artifacts before merge, auditing whether a "LIVE" visual claim is backed by a real daemon run versus a reused or fixture-backed mock, or defining the required state-coverage set for a control-panel change. NOT for the capture technique itself — headless Playwright, `screencapture -x -l`, non-interruptive capture (use port-daddy-agent-skill's visual-evidence doctrine), designing the receipt body schema an artifact attaches to (use agent-work-receipt-designer), or the broader dogfood/Potemkin product-quality bar (use multi-agent-authoring-product-bar).

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 a compliance-ladder design (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) plus their adapter conformance fixtures — Codex, Claude Code, Cloudflare, Ollama/LM Studio, custom stdio/HTTP agents — for the two failure modes that make a C-badge or T-fidelity label a lie: the ladder disagreeing with itself across doc/schema/ui/probe surfaces, and a level being reachable by self-report because no daemon-witnessed negative probe actually tries to forge it. Use when designing or freezing a compliance ladder, wiring an adapter conformance probe suite, deciding whether a numeric C-badge or T-label is safe to ship, or investigating a self-attestation or observed-to-controlled bypass risk. NOT for auditing a cryptographic protocol or whitepaper for adversarial soundness (`redteam-review`), writing TLA+/formal invariants for a daemon monitor (`runtime-verification-for-agents`), or agent identity, successor linkage, and reputation across restarts (`agent-identity-continuity-reputation`).

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 barber for your coding agents' config. Weighs everything every agent on this machine loads (instruction files, memory, MCP servers, hooks, skills, commands, subagents, plugins, leftovers), prices each item in tokens from your own transcripts, and parks the dead weight with a receipt and an undo. Use this skill whenever the user mentions config bloat, a heavy or slow session start, tokens burned before the first word, too many MCP servers, hooks that are slow or fire on every prompt, skills or commands or plugins nobody invokes, cleaning up or auditing CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md, Codex config, or asks what does my agent actually load, why is my context full before I type, which of these servers can I turn off, or what is this plugin costing me. Use it even when they only say the session feels bloated or startup got slow, and even when they mention /context, /doctor or /skill-doctor.

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。