「risk」の検索結果

Run structured AI red team exercises for jailbreak resistance, data exfiltration risk, harmful output controls, and agent tool abuse resilience.

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。

Runs a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

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。

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。

Create original short videos using the 触觉攀登风险递增｜近身工具证据到峰顶尺度释放 Creative DNA for MiniMax H3 or Seedance 2.0. Use when the user wants this causal, camera, motion, rhythm, or payoff structure with new subjects and surfaces.

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。

Threat-model product features, APIs, data flows, secrets, permissions, supply-chain changes, auth boundaries, and risky code paths before or during implementation. Use when touching authentication, authorization, payments, secrets, user data, uploads, webhooks, admin tools, innerHTML/eval/exec, dependency upgrades, or cross-tenant access.

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。

Plan and verify software releases with versioning, changelogs, release branches, feature flags, canaries, migration gates, rollback, deployment checks, and release readiness. Use when preparing a release, shipping a risky PR, coordinating app/backend/database rollout, recovering from a bad deploy, or defining release policy for a repo.

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 before an agent-produced diff is committed, pushed, opened as a PR, merged, landed, or applied to user files when explicit implementation approval is missing. Trigger for review gate, review pack, approve before landing, diff first then land, human approval, merge gate, commit gate, push gate, or PR readiness. Produces a concise review pack, records risks and verification, and blocks landing until a human explicitly approves or approves with required fixes.

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。

Lightweight anti-hallucination workflow for task kickoff, review prioritization, and regression retrospectives. Use when the user asks for guardrails, task contracts, risk scoring, or review templates.

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 to stress-test predictions by assuming they failed and working backward to identify why. Invoke when confidence is high (>80% or <20%), need to identify tail risks and unknown unknowns, or want to widen overconfident intervals. Use when user mentions premortem, backcasting, what could go wrong, stress test, or black swans.

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。

Applies the reasoning, principles, and frameworks of Jürgen Schmidhuber (LSTM co-inventor and deep learning pioneer). Reach for this skill whenever tackling problems involving sequence learning, artificial curiosity, intrinsic motivation, reinforcement learning architectures, or predicting long-term technological and cosmic evolution. Use this when discussing AGI timelines, the history and attribution of AI breakthroughs, data compression as learning, or when designing autonomous agents that must set their own goals. Trigger this skill for topics like recurrent neural networks, algorithmic information theory, open-source AI democratization, and evaluating true existential risks versus media hype.

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。

Options Strategy Advisor — analyzes implied volatility, IV rank/percentile, expected moves, put/call ratios, max pain, unusual activity, and recommends specific options strategies with risk/reward profiles based on the trader's directional outlook.

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。

Head-to-Head Stock Comparison — takes two tickers and compares them across valuation, growth, profitability, technical setup, sentiment, risk profile, and analyst consensus with a scored comparison table and overall recommendation.

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 a GitHub issue and produce a structured implementation plan. Fetches issue details, explores the codebase, identifies affected layers (UI, BLoC, Repository, Client), and outputs a step-by-step plan with files to modify, testing strategy, and risk assessment. Works for bugs, features, and tasks. Invoke with /plan.

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。

Review an openai-guardrails-python release plan or final release candidate against the previous remote tag, determine the compatible release type, audit runtime and packaging risk, inspect current CI, and produce an English ship-or-block report. Use for pre-release readiness checks, not ordinary PR review or 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。

Perform the repository's risk-tiered independent final review before implementation completion. Use only when explicitly invoked or when repository instructions require it after behavior-impacting implementation work; audit the complete task diff, supported contracts, lifecycle and security boundaries, complexity, and tests before final verification.

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。

Detects security vulnerabilities by matching code against known vulnerability patterns, insecure coding idioms, and CVE-style patterns. Explains why patterns are risky and under what conditions they are exploitable. Use when analyzing code for security issues, reviewing for common vulnerabilities, or assessing exploitability of suspicious code patterns.

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。

Statically analyze code to detect security vulnerabilities including buffer overflows, injection risks (SQL, command, XSS), insecure deserialization, improper authentication, hard-coded credentials, and unsafe cryptography. Use when: (1) Performing security code review, (2) Analyzing code for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, (3) Identifying CWE-classified weaknesses, (4) Generating security audit reports, (5) Reviewing code before deployment, or (6) Assessing third-party code security. Findings categorized by CWE ID and severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low).

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。

Proposes secure remediation strategies for detected security vulnerabilities including buffer overflows, injection risks, insecure deserialization, improper authentication, and unsafe cryptographic usage. Provides recommended security checks, safer API alternatives, design-level changes, code examples, trade-off analysis, and prioritized remediation plans. Does NOT automatically modify code unless explicitly 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。

Generate prioritized CVE watchlists and actionable security recommendations for repositories. Use when analyzing CVE scan results, creating security reports, prioritizing vulnerability remediation, or generating security gate reports for CI/CD. Takes CVE scan results (JSON/SARIF from npm audit, pip-audit, Snyk), reachability analysis, and cutoff date as input. Combines severity, reachability, exploitability, and dependency criticality to rank CVEs by practical risk. Outputs markdown reports with concrete next-step guidance (immediate upgrade, monitor, ignore with justification, apply mitigation) suitable for issue trackers, security reviews, and CI security gates.

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。

Suggest and apply code refactorings to improve readability, maintainability, and code quality. Use this skill when improving existing code structure, eliminating code smells, applying design patterns, simplifying complex logic, extracting duplicated code, renaming for clarity, or preparing code for new features. Provides specific before/after examples, explains benefits, identifies risks, and ensures behavior preservation through tests.

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 CVE reachability in software repositories by examining how vulnerable dependencies are imported and used. Determines whether vulnerable components, classes, or functions are reachable from project code through call chain analysis, reflection detection, dynamic loading patterns, and configuration-gated behavior. Classifies each CVE as likely reachable, possibly reachable, or likely unreachable with supporting evidence. Use when analyzing security vulnerabilities in dependencies, performing post-disclosure CVE triage, assessing vulnerability impact, or when users ask to analyze CVE reachability, check if vulnerabilities are exploitable, or evaluate dependency security risks.

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。

Summarize sprint status and surface risks. Use when the user says "check sprint status" or "show sprint status"

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。