「findings」の検索結果

Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review recipe covers them) at the given effort level (low|medium|high|xhigh|max: from few high-confidence findings up to many, some of them uncertain; ultra: deep multi-agent review in the cloud); with no level given, it reuses the level you typed last. Pass --comment to post findings as inline PR comments, or --fix to apply the findings to the working tree after the review. Pass --max-findings <n> to report up to n findings, or --max-findings all for every finding. The choice stays until you pass --max-findings default. For ultra on a GitHub.com PR target, --post asks to post the finished review’s findings to the PR as a single comment from the user’s GitHub account (not a review; the launch dialog still confirms in interactive sessions, while non-interactive mode posts on the flag alone) and --no-post hides that option.

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。

Implement evaluated findings: load code-style rules, apply the accepted fixes, then close out the change with full or quick QA. Use after $evaluate-findings has tagged findings and they need to be implemented, or when the user asks to "resolve findings", "apply evaluated findings", or "dispatch findings to 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。

Implement evaluated findings: load code-style rules, apply the accepted fixes, then close out the change with full or quick QA. Use after /evaluate-findings has tagged findings and they need to be implemented, or when the user asks to "resolve findings", "apply evaluated findings", or "dispatch findings to 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。

Augments Trailmark code graphs with external audit findings from SARIF static analysis results, weAudit annotation files, and version-gated Trailmark 0.4.x binary-analysis graph exports. Maps findings to graph nodes by file and line overlap, creates severity-based subgraphs, and enables cross-referencing findings with pre-analysis data (blast radius, taint, etc.). Use when projecting SARIF results onto a code graph, overlaying weAudit annotations, importing binary graph findings, cross-referencing Semgrep, CodeQL, or binary-analysis findings with call graph data, or visualizing audit findings in the context of code structure.

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。

Apply findings by making the suggested code changes. Applies accepted verdicts, escalates ambiguous findings to the user, and offers to note genuine improvements for later. Use when the user asks to "apply findings", "apply fixes", "apply suggestions", "apply accepted findings", "fix the findings", or "apply the review results".

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。

Pull AWS Security Agent findings (penetration tests and code reviews) and drive remediation. Use this whenever the user mentions Security Agent, security findings, pentest or penetration test results, code review findings, vulnerabilities found in their AWS account, "what did the security scan find", remediating or triaging security risks, or wants to start fixing reported vulnerabilities — even if they don't name the service explicitly. Trigger it for phrases like "get my security findings", "what vulnerabilities do we have", "let's fix the pentest results", or "triage the security report". The skill discovers scans, exports findings to a gitignored local directory (so sensitive exploit detail is never committed), produces a prioritized triage summary, and offers to start fixing the highest-risk issues.

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。

FAIR-aligned exposure quantification: turns a pile of recon findings into a defensible 0-100 + A-F org risk score (Likelihood x Impact, three ownership-aware factors: exposure/threat/impact), an ownership + proof demotion cap so unproven or weakly-owned findings can't inflate the number, a $-denominated FAIR loss-magnitude estimate (IBM/Ponemon per-record cost bands, cross-source record dedup, threat-factor annualization), attack-path amplification (curated red-team chain catalog + generic graph-walk engine, with a kill-chain vs shared-fate honesty gate), and a board-ready one-pager deliverable (hero $ + letter grade + top-3 findings + top attack path + the ask). Extends osint-methodology's severity rubric and client deliverable templates with quantification. Passive analysis only -- operates on findings already collected, no target traffic, no API keys. Use when asked to score risk, quantify exposure, estimate breach cost, build a board report, translate technical findings to dollars, or explain why a grade or dollar figure came out the way it did.

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。

Structure a consulting findings presentation using the Pyramid Principle storyline. Use when a consultant says "help me structure my presentation", "I have findings and need to present them", "how do I structure the deck", "build me the storyline", "help me tell the story of the findings", "I have data but no narrative", "client presentation is next week", "how do I present recommendations to the steering committee", or "the deck needs a through-line". Also trigger when someone has completed analysis and needs to communicate findings and recommendations to senior client stakeholders in a structured, persuasive format.

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。

Orchestrate HITL triage of review findings using parallel agents. Use when the user says 'triage these findings' or 'run findings triage' or has a batch of review findings to 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。

Guides the end-to-end AWS resilience lifecycle integrating Resilience Hub v2, Fault Injection Service, and Application Recovery Controller. Covers the Define → Test → Operate workflow: from policy creation through failure mode assessment, to FIS experiment validation, to ARC operational controls. Applicable when the user wants a complete resilience strategy, needs to connect findings to experiments to controls, or is planning a resilience program. Also applicable for the meta question of whether marking NGRH findings as resolved is enough, whether they are "done" after resolving findings, or how to validate findings before resolving them. Not applicable for resolving or remediating a specific individual finding (see resilience-hub-failure-mode-assessment), or when a single service is explicitly named (e.g. "what FIS experiment should I run").

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 ready to document findings, generate a report, or summarize binary analysis results. Compiles analysis findings into structured reports - correlates facts from triage/static/dynamic phases, validates hypotheses, generates documentation with evidence chains. Keywords - "summarize findings", "generate report", "document analysis", "what did we find", "write up results", "export findings"

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 code-review or security-review findings for false positives using deep codebase tracing, framework-aware analysis, and web research. Produces a .verified.md report alongside the original. Use when a review report has been generated and needs independent verification, or when user runs /verify-findings, mentions "verify review", "check false positives", or "validate findings".

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 recording, tallying, or triaging stochastic review findings — the append-only JSONL ledger where Tier 2 (advisory, unevidenced) reviewer output goes instead of blocking language. Triggers on "log this finding", "ledger add", "tally the findings", "triage findings", "is this finding recurring", "retire this noise", or whenever a reviewer produces an unevidenced concern that should be measured for recurrence rather than chased. For the review itself see code-review-and-quality or skill-library-review; for verifying formal claims with deterministic evidence see adversarial-claims-reviewer.

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 findings from the most recent review output as inline GitHub PR comments and record them in today's daily note. Use when invoked as `$pr-post-review-findings` or when the user asks to post review findings to the current PR.

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。

Unified pull request workflow: prepare a safe branch, run read-only review, fix Required findings, create/update a GitHub draft PR, and verify CI plus automated review comments. Subcommands: `create` (simplify + PR, skip code review), `review` (read-only findings only), `fix` (Required fixes + commit, no push), `simplify` (simplification only), `verify` (existing PR checks/reviews only). Use when creating or reviewing PRs, self-reviewing changes, simplifying PR changes, or requesting "PR作成", "レビュー", "簡素化". Do NOT use for responding to review comments or a lightweight review of the current working diff without the PR workflow (use the built-in /code-review instead).

front-end-design-patterns を使い、指定されたフロントエンド範囲に対して サブエージェント調査（必要時は複数スコープに分割した独立 fresh audit） → メインセッション修正 → 必要時のみ性能計測 → simple-add → 再調査を NO_FINDINGS まで繰り返す、機能変更なしの内部リファクタリングループ。 Trigger: front-end-refactor-loop, front-end-design-patterns リファクタリングループ, フロントエンドリファクタリングループ, Reactリファクタリングループ, サブエージェントでフロントエンド調査, NO_FINDINGSまでリファクタ, 性能計測つきフロントエンドリファクタ

公式文書・ソースコード・仕様などの一次資料で疑問を調べ、各主張の出典を添えた調査メモをMarkdownにまとめてリポジトリへ保存するスキル。

• APIの仕様を公式資料で確かめたいとき
• 出典付きの調査メモを残したいとき
• 別の作業中に資料調査を任せたいとき

リポジトリから外部経由で悪用できる脆弱性を探し、入力から危険な処理までの経路、再現手順、影響を確認して報奨金制度向けの報告を支援するスキル。

• 外部リクエストで届く脆弱性の調査
• 静的解析の結果を精査したいとき
• 最小限の再現手順と影響の整理

Fix security vulnerabilities found by a Strix pentest (open-source CLI or app.strix.ai cloud) — triage by severity, patch the root cause rather than the symptom, and re-run Strix to prove each fix actually closes the exploit. Handles injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, IDOR, and other validated findings. Use after a Strix scan reports findings, or when the user asks to remediate, patch, or fix security issues from a strix_runs report, vulnerabilities.json, findings.sarif, or a cloud scan.

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 candidate fixes for verified security findings. Consumes TRIAGE.json (preferred), VULN-FINDINGS.json, INCIDENTS.json, or a vuln-pipeline results directory. Pipeline input is delegated to the execution-verified `vuln-pipeline patch` ladder; static-analysis input gets a per-finding patch subagent + independent reviewer and is written as inert diffs for human review. Writes PATCHES/bug_NN/{patch.diff,patch_result.json}, PATCHES.md, and PATCHES.json. Use when asked to "fix the findings", "patch these vulns", "generate fixes", or "close the loop on 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。

Multi-stage pipeline for validating that vulnerability findings are real, reachable, and exploitable, preventing wasted effort on hallucinated findings, dead code paths, or findings with unrealistic preconditions.

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 and interprets AWS Resilience Hub v2 failure mode assessments. Covers starting assessments, understanding findings (severity, categories, recommendations), triaging by achievability, working with AI-generated service functions, and resolving findings. Applies when the user wants to run an assessment, review findings, or understand failure modes, or has a specific finding and asks how to resolve, remediate, or fix it. Does not apply to initial setup (use resilience-hub-getting-started) or FIS experiments.

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。

Composes a Discussion around key findings, mechanisms, clinical relevance, and limitations. Use when writing or improving a Discussion section for any biomedical manuscript — including interpreting results, connecting to prior literature, addressing unexpected findings, framing limitations, and writing the conclusion. Also triggers on "write my discussion", "help me discuss my findings", "how do I compare to prior studies", "write the limitations paragraph", or "draft a discussion for my 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。

Systematic false positive verification for security findings. Provides structured methodology to confirm or dismiss scanner results, manual audit findings, and automated alerts. Adapted from Trail of Bits. Use when triaging security scan results or verifying audit findings.

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。