「hig」の検索結果

Convert human-written CLAUDE.md into AI-native structured-label format. Battle-tested across 4 models. Same rules, fewer tokens, higher compliance.

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 should be used when the user asks to "create AGENTS.md", "update AGENTS.md", "maintain agent docs", "set up CLAUDE.md", or needs to keep agent instructions concise. Enforces research-backed best practices for minimal, high-signal agent documentation.

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。

Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates.

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 DNS-based data exfiltration by analyzing Zeek dns.log for high-entropy subdomains and anomalous query 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。

Deploy cloud-native deception across AWS, Azure, and GCP using decoy (honey) resources whose only purpose is to generate a high-fidelity alert the instant an attacker touches them: canary IAM access keys, permission-less decoy users/roles/service principals, honey object-storage buckets, and decoy secrets in Secrets Manager / Key Vault / Secret Manager. Wires detection through CloudTrail + EventBridge, Azure Sentinel honeytoken watchlists + Defender, and GCP Cloud Audit Logs, so any use of a decoy is routed to the SOC with near-zero false positives. Use when protecting cloud accounts and data stores, when an org has only on-prem honeypots and needs cloud coverage, when seeding fake AWS keys to catch credential theft and code-leak exposure, or when detecting cloud reconnaissance and lateral movement. Keywords: cloud deception, canary token AWS, honey S3 bucket, decoy IAM credentials, CloudTrail alert, GuardDuty, Sentinel honeytoken, decoy secret, honey service account, cloud honeypot, breach 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。

Deploys and monitors ransomware canary files across critical directories using Python's watchdog library for real-time filesystem event detection. Places strategically named decoy files that mimic high-value targets (financial records, credentials, database exports) in locations ransomware typically enumerates first. Monitors for any read, modify, rename, or delete operations on canary files and triggers immediate alerts via email, Slack webhook, or syslog when interaction is detected, providing early warning before full encryption begins.

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。

Configures Windows Event Logging with advanced audit policies to generate high-fidelity security events for threat detection and forensic investigation. Use when enabling audit policies for logon events, process creation, privilege use, and object access to feed SIEM detection rules. Activates for requests involving Windows audit policy, event log configuration, security logging, or detection-oriented logging.

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 an automated malware submission and analysis pipeline that collects suspicious files from endpoints and email gateways, submits them to sandbox environments and multi-engine scanners, and generates verdicts with IOCs for SIEM integration. Use when SOC teams need to scale malware analysis beyond manual sandbox submissions for high-volume alert triage.

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。

Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, artifacts, posters, or applications (examples include websites, landing pages, dashboards, React components, HTML/CSS layouts, or when styling/beautifying any web UI). Generates creative, polished code and UI design that avoids generic AI aesthetics.

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。

Integration review after stable code. Audit tier for high-risk surfaces; planning tier for optional low-risk review. Produces a review note and fix list — no 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。

Correlate events across multiple log files from different sources, systems, or time periods. Build unified timelines, identify causal relationships between events, and highlight anomalies that span multiple data sources. Supports timezone normalization and gap detection. Use when analyzing logs from multiple systems (frontend, backend, database, infrastructure), investigating distributed system failures, or building event timelines across services. Triggers: "correlate these logs", "build timeline from multiple logs", "cross-system analysis", "find related events across logs", "multi-source log analysis", "distributed trace analysis"

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 a learner needs a structured review session prioritizing high-value topics by recency, error history, and upcoming deadlines.

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, implementing, reviewing, debugging, testing, profiling, or porting concurrent, parallel, distributed, high-performance, network dataplane, kernel-bypass, or real-time software, including locks, semaphores, monitors, MPI, CSP rendezvous, DPDK, VPP, eBPF, XDP, AF_XDP, SR-IOV, RSS, RoCEv2/RDMA, RMS/EDF, priority inversion, and environment selection from silicon to edge.

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。

Post-fix verification — re-scan the repo, gate on `--exploits weaponized --severity high`, recheck the specific CVE against the new installed version, write the verdict to `.vulnetix/memory.yaml`. Use when confirming a fix landed, validating a version bump did not introduce regressions, or producing a clean-scan attestation for compliance.

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。

Show what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open before a release.

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。

Hardcoded-secret detection — AWS keys, GitHub PATs, Slack tokens, Stripe keys, generic high-entropy strings. Pre-commit (`--staged-only`), explicit paths, or full repo. Use when guarding `git commit`, auditing a repo for leaked credentials, validating no secrets entered the diff before push, or producing a rotation list for an exposed-secret incident.

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。

Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "scope this analytical question". (narrative-common)

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 dataset or access rule before it joins an identity-graph build (access rules behave like datasets in NQL here). Enumerates failure modes (hub identifiers, high-degree nodes, suspicious values, over-connected identifiers), tests hypotheses in parallel, quantifies damage by rows / edges / entities, and proposes minimal filters ranked by severity. When issues are found, returns a validated `CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW` NQL the caller can run to produce a graph-ready clean source; if the data passes, says so and recommends it unchanged. Plans and authors the clean-view NQL; does not execute it. Use when: "audit this dataset before the graph build", "find bad edges in <source>", "check identity data quality", "recommend filters for the graph build", "quantify damage from <identifier_type>", "pre-graph DQ". (narrative-identity)

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 EF Core reads are slow, emit N+1 or excessive SQL, over-fetch, track too many entities, cause high DB load, or need projection/split-query/compiled-query analysis; not for general migrations, DbContext setup, or repository conventions.

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。

Guidance on writing high-quality requirements: the requirement quality characteristics and the EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) patterns — ubiquitous, event-driven, state-driven, optional-feature, unwanted-behaviour — for unambiguous, singular, verifiable requirements, plus defect/anti-pattern review and verification & traceability. Use when authoring or reviewing requirements. Original synthesis citing EARS (Mavin et al.) and NASA public-domain guidance; not a reproduction of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 or the EARS paper.

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 EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Use for AI system classification (high-risk vs prohibited vs general), conformity assessment procedures, GPAI model obligations, transparency and disclosure requirements, governance structure (AI Office / AI Board), penalty tiers, value-chain operator obligations, post-market monitoring, and Annex III use-case analysis. Does not cover EU liability rules for AI (separate proposed directive) or implementation guidance documents issued after July 2024.

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 the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (GAO-20-48G, 2020). Use for evaluating technology maturity in acquisition programs and projects: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9) and related scales (MRL, IRL), identifying Critical Technology Elements (CTEs), the five-step process for a high-quality TRA, the four characteristics of a reliable TRA (comprehensive, well-documented, credible, defensible), Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs), and using TRA results in knowledge-based, milestone decisions. Assessment/maturity oriented: it measures readiness and frames risk — it is not a full SE process model, cost-estimating, or schedule guide (see sibling packs 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。