2,450 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Complete guide to LINDDUN privacy threat modeling methodology covering seven threat categories: Linking, Identifying, Non-repudiation, Detecting, Data Disclosure, Unawareness, and Non-compliance. Includes DFD-based analysis, threat tree catalogs, mitigation mapping to privacy design patterns, and step-by-step process.
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。
Technical enforcement of GDPR Article 5(1)(b) purpose limitation principle. Covers purpose-tagged data stores, access control per purpose, Article 6(4) compatibility assessment factors, and system design for preventing purpose creep. Includes purpose binding architecture and compatibility test 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。
Manages deletion requests for children's personal data. Covers parental-initiated versus child-initiated requests, age of capacity assessment, identity verification, scope determination, third-party notification obligations, and regulatory timelines under GDPR Art. 17, COPPA Section 312.6, and UK AADC Standard 15. Keywords: deletion, children, right to erasure, parental request, data deletion, COPPA.
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 DPIA for migrating personal data to cloud infrastructure covering controller-processor analysis under Art. 28, international transfer assessment, encryption requirements, and shared responsibility model evaluation. Activate for cloud adoption, SaaS procurement, or data centre migration projects. Keywords: cloud migration, DPIA, Art. 28, processor, encryption, shared responsibility, SaaS, IaaS, PaaS.
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。
Compares PIA/DPIA methodologies: CNIL PIA tool, ICO DPIA template, NIST Privacy Framework, and ISO 29134. Provides methodology selection criteria based on regulatory jurisdiction, organisation maturity, processing complexity, and resource availability. Covers regulatory acceptance, tool features, and cross-methodology mapping. Keywords: PIA methodology, CNIL, ICO, NIST Privacy Framework, ISO 29134, DPIA comparison, 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。
Guides APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules system certification process including self-assessment against the APEC Privacy Framework principles, accountability agent selection, intake questionnaire completion, certification decision, annual recertification, and Global CBPR Forum transition. Keywords: APEC, CBPR, cross-border privacy, accountability agent, certification, Global CBPR.
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。
Executes the GDPR Article 33 mandatory breach notification to the supervisory authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of a personal data breach. Covers required notification content, deadline calculation, risk assessment for notification threshold, and DPO involvement. Keywords: GDPR, Article 33, breach notification, 72 hours, supervisory authority, DPO, EDPB.
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。
Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.
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。
Manages privacy compliance for employee background checks including criminal record processing under Art. 10 GDPR, DBS checks (UK), national law variations, and reference verification. Applies proportionality and data minimisation to pre-employment screening, defines retention limits, and addresses role-based necessity assessments. Keywords: background check, criminal record, Art. 10, DBS, pre-employment screening, vetting, data minimisation, proportionality.
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。
Assesses AI bias risks for GDPR Art. 9 special category data and AI Act Art. 10 data governance. Covers fairness metrics, bias detection methods, mitigation strategies, and documentation requirements for protected characteristics. Keywords: AI bias, special category, fairness metrics, discrimination, Art. 9, Art. 10.
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 privacy auditing of AI models including training data extraction testing, membership inference attacks, model inversion testing, and attribute inference assessment. Uses ML Privacy Meter and related tools to quantify privacy leakage. Keywords: model audit, membership inference, privacy meter, model inversion, training data extraction.
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 privacy audit evidence collection processes including evidence planning, sampling strategies, documentation standards, chain of custody, interview techniques, system walkthrough procedures, and evidence evaluation. Covers ISO 19011 evidence categories (records, statements of fact, observations) and ISACA audit evidence requirements for privacy compliance assessments. Keywords: audit evidence, evidence collection, sampling, chain of custody, audit documentation, interview techniques.
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 assessment and application of GDPR Article 49 derogation conditions for international data transfers in the absence of adequacy decisions or appropriate safeguards. Covers explicit consent, contract necessity, public interest, vital interests, public register, and compelling legitimate interests with restrictive interpretation per EDPB Guidelines 2/2018. Keywords: Art. 49, derogations, transfer exceptions, explicit consent, compelling legitimate interests.
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。
Performs a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use 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。
Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.
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。
Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.
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。
Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural 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。
Restructure existing code without changing its behavior, through a test-gated refactoring loop: a named target, a green suite over that target before any edit, a planned sequence of small named refactorings, and the full suite re-run after every step. Use when the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, simplify, or improve the design of existing code, or to apply refactoring recommendations from a code-review or architectural-analysis report. This skill changes code; it does not review code (use code-review), assess architecture (use architectural-analysis), plan a multi-module restructure before executing it (use plan-a-change), map domain boundaries before restructuring along them (use ddd-analysis), or build new behavior test-first (use tdd). Do not use it on code inside an active tdd loop; the refactor step of tdd owns that cleanup. Runs its planned sequence to completion without pausing for review; to review each named refactoring as it lands, use pairing.
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。
Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-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。
Designs the contract for an API change inside one codebase — a component's props, a function surface, URL or query parameters, an event payload, or a module boundary — through a discovery pass, an options document with one recommendation, a question round, and an adversarial validation round, with every element of the contract justified from one stated goal. Use when you want to design, shape, decide, or nail down an interface, contract, signature, or API change for a capability you can already describe, sized for roughly one pull request. Produces a design document and changes no code. Does not specify what a feature should do — use plan-a-feature. Does not plan delivery or sequencing — use plan-implementation. Does not assess the architecture of existing code — use architectural-analysis. Does not write the code — use tdd. Does not restructure existing code — use refactor. Runs its rounds without pausing for review; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.
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。
Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build 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。
Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.
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。
Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.
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 a requirement change mid-project against the rules and past decisions, then update every affected artifact together.
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。