1,883 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
This skill teaches security teams how to deploy and operationalize Amazon GuardDuty for continuous threat detection across AWS accounts and workloads. It covers enabling protection plans for S3, EKS, EC2 runtime monitoring, and Lambda, interpreting finding severity levels, and building automated response workflows using EventBridge and Lambda.
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。
Wire Promptfoo and DeepTeam into CI/CD for automated regression red-teaming of LLM apps against OWASP LLM Top 10 and OWASP Agentic presets, failing the build when jailbreak or injection vulnerabilities regress.
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。
Monitors Certificate Transparency (CT) logs to detect unauthorized certificate issuance, discover subdomains via CT data, and alert on suspicious certificate activity for owned domains. Uses the crt.sh API and direct CT log querying based on RFC 6962 to build continuous monitoring pipelines that catch rogue certificates, track CA behavior, and map the external attack surface. Activates for requests involving certificate transparency monitoring, CT log auditing, subdomain discovery via certificates, or certificate issuance alerting.
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 details how to conduct cloud security audits using Center for Internet Security benchmarks for AWS, Azure, and GCP. It covers interpreting CIS Foundations Benchmark controls, running automated assessments with tools like Prowler and ScoutSuite, remediating failed controls, and maintaining continuous compliance monitoring against CIS v5 for AWS, v4 for Azure, and v4 for GCP.
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 RAM memory dumps from compromised systems using the Volatility framework to identify malicious processes, injected code, network connections, loaded modules, and extracted credentials. Supports Windows, Linux, and macOS memory forensics. Activates for requests involving memory forensics, RAM analysis, volatile data examination, process injection detection, or memory-resident malware investigation.
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。
Explicit-only workflow that writes a redacted continuation handoff to a unique temporary Markdown file. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a handoff for another session.
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。
显式启用或关闭一个受治理 Run 的本地 Codex App Server continuation。仅当用户使用精确命令 `$flight-connect-host` 并依次提供 run_id、thread_id 与 ENABLE 或 DISABLE 时使用；不能把自然语言同意、Lead 判断、UI 操作或已有 credential 当作启用授权。
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。
使用状态绑定的最小 Tool Surface、exact Action Gateway、来源可追踪的 MissionSpec 与 Verification Manifest、宿主无关 Flight Progression Engine、可选且无权威的 App Server continuation、顺序持久 Wave、一层原生 Agent、困难后强制战术指导、证据型 Capability Profile、显式 Manual Verification、不可变宿主 Evidence、恢复检查点和仅本地 Git，治理复杂 Codex 开发。用户要求飞控接管、继续、自主开发、修复或完成多步骤软件项目，需要有界并行子代理，或实现前必须建立文档工程时使用。
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。
動画ファイルから文字起こしと議事録を自動生成。Argument hint: [動画パス] --date [YYYY-MM-DD] --attendees [参加者]
Bootstrap a new or existing project with a small, file-based documentation system so Claude Code keeps context, lessons, and decisions across session restarts instead of starting cold every time. Sets up a handful of markdown files under .claude/ (standing rules, a free-form note to your next session, a phased roadmap, a prioritized backlog, and searchable history/changelog archives) sized and split so the files read every session stay small while the archives grow without ever costing context. Use this whenever someone is starting a new project and asks how to structure it for long-running AI-assisted work, wants Claude to "remember" things between sessions without relying on chat history, asks for a CLAUDE.md + backlog + changelog setup, mentions "session continuity", "persistent context", "project memory system", or is retrofitting an existing codebase that has no such system yet. Also use to explain or extend an already-bootstrapped bottle system (add a rule, start the archival script, add a new backlog section).
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。
Coordinate Codex work across the current task, internal subagents, user-owned tasks, worktrees, handoffs, formal review gates, or recurring automation. Use for delegation, parallel roles, another Codex task, cross-repo work, QA/review handoffs, scheduled follow-up, or task inspection and continuation. Chinese triggers include 子Agent/子进程/子对话, 另一个对话接手, 并行处理, 分给QA, 多仓库收口, 巡检, 持续推进, 定时自动继续, 创建/读取/转交任务.
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 developing, reviewing, debugging, porting, or engineering Linux kernel device drivers, kernel modules, device tree bindings, bus clients, subsystem drivers, DMA/IRQ/memory paths, userspace interfaces, or hardware bring-up plans.
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 a look-alike audience from a seed audience and a candidate population dataset. Classifies Rosetta Stone attributes, generates the same materialized-view scoring pipeline Lookalike Studio emits (Naive-Bayes categorical weights + Gaussian continuous similarity), gates on approval, submits via `narrative_workflows_create`, and monitors the build to completion. Use when: "create a lookalike audience", "find more users like this segment", "expand my seed audience to 500k similar users", "score the population against my customers", "build a look-alike of dataset X". (narrative-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。
Gauntlet for absolute claims (always/never/guaranteed/optimal); pressure-test, then refine with explicit boundaries. Use when users ask to prove or disprove strong certainty claims, request devil's-advocate challenge rounds, or want the /tw-prove-it gauntlet to run all 10 rounds continuously by default.
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。
Load when asked to create, update, re-baseline, or continue a repository-grounded implementation/technical/refactor plan and its `dev/active/<task>` plan/context/tasks files; not for a product PRD, informal advice, or reviewing an already-written 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。
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.
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。
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for information systems and organizations. Use for the seven RMF steps (Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, Monitor) and their tasks; the three-tier organization-wide risk model; authorization boundaries; the requirements-to-controls relationship; security categorization (FIPS 199/200 high-water mark) and control selection/tailoring (SP 800-53/53B baselines); assessment, the authorization decision and risk acceptance, continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; the security/privacy distinction; and supply chain risk management. This is the security-and-privacy-risk-governance edge of systems engineering — it governs how much protection and whether to accept residual risk, complementing the disciplines that decide how protection is built. Does NOT reproduce the SP 800-53 control catalog or its baselines, the FIPS impact tables, or the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text; it names and routes to them rather than restating them.
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。
Knowledge base from DAFMAN 63-119 (15 April 2021), Mission-Oriented Test Readiness Certification. Use for continuous MOTRC replacing single-point OTRR thinking: framework/applicability, Certification Official vs PM roles, review cycle and exit criteria, certification memo/decertify gates, DT&E/contractor evidence, ITT integration and cyber resiliency, and the 31-template matrix. DAF T&E readiness process only—does not replace DoDI 5000.89, AFI 99-103, or multi-service lead policies.
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。
Knowledge base from NASA Risk Management Handbook (NASA/SP-2011-3422). Use for risk-informed decision making, continuous risk management, performance commitments, risk scenario diagrams, risk disposition types, risk burn-down schedules, objectives hierarchies, deliberation and alternative selection, risk driver identification, and RM planning for space and safety-critical programmes. Does not cover domain-specific PRA methods (fault trees, event trees) in procedural depth — see NASA PRA Procedures Guide for those.
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。
Meta-skill: Structured thinking as a 3-phase workflow. Combines analysis (think), ideation (brainstorm), and decision-making (decide) into one continuous 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。
Protocolo sistemático de depuración en 6 fases. Enfoque estructurado ante errores con verificaciones rápidas, pruebas aisladas, regla de los 20 minutos y plantilla de informe de errores.
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。
Baut und betreibt ein anbieterneutrales Self-Care-Kernset für geplante LLM-Aufgaben und Desktop-App-Automationen. Ergänzt deterministisches Policy-Linting, Lock- und Modell-Governance, semantische Prompt-Prüfung, konsistente Mehrflächen-Updates, Mini-Checks und Regeldatei-Hygiene. Nutzen, wenn ein Agent seinen nativen Scheduler entdecken oder eine bestehende Automations-Flotte mit Rollback, Readback und Löschschutz kontinuierlich verbessern soll. Löst aus bei automation self-care, Scheduler-Task-Pflege, Desktop-App-Automations-Wartung, Automations-Flotten-Audit, selbstheilende Zeitpläne, core-set-textautomations, basic-text-automations, textbased-automation-core, textbased-automation-drivers, textbased-governance-automations oder textbased-desktopapp-automations.
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。
Systematic 6-phase debugging protocol. Structured approach to bugs with quick checks, isolated testing, 20-minute rule, and bug report template.
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。