本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

detection-and-monitoring

Builds the capability to notice an attack in progress — deciding what to log and retain, centralizing it somewhere tamper-resistant, writing detections that fire on attacker behavior rather than on individual events, tuning out the noise that trains people to ignore alerts, and defining what happens when something fires. Use this to design or assess monitoring coverage, work out why an incident went unnoticed, cut alert volume without losing signal, or decide what a detection capability should cost.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB
  • references/sources.md2.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Detection and monitoring

Incident response assumes someone noticed. Most organizations that respond well to incidents found out from a customer, a vendor, or an extortion note, and the gap between compromise and discovery is where nearly all of the damage accumulates.

Decide what to log by asking what you would need afterward

Work backwards from the questions an investigation asks: who authenticated, from where, and what did they then do. That points at a short list that matters far more than volume.

  • Identity events — authentication success and failure, MFA changes, privilege grants, new API keys and tokens, consent grants to applications.
  • Endpoint process activity — what ran, what spawned it, what it connected to.
  • Administrative actions in the platforms that hold your data, especially permission and sharing changes.
  • Network egress where you have it, and DNS, which is cheap and unusually informative.

Retention decides whether you can investigate at all. Intrusions are commonly discovered months after entry, so logs kept for thirty days answer none of the useful questions. Split it: a short hot window you can search fast, and a longer cold archive you can still reach.

Centralize, and make the copy hard to erase

Logs stored only on the system that produced them are logs the attacker controls. Ship them off the host as they are written, to a destination with different credentials from the systems it collects from — otherwise one compromised administrator account ends both the intrusion and the evidence of it.

Write detections for behavior, not for events

A single event is almost never an incident. What distinguishes an attacker is a sequence: authentication from a new location, followed by a mailbox rule creation, followed by a bulk download.

  • Start from the techniques that actually apply to you. Coverage is a property of your own estate, not of a vendor's rule count.
  • Detect the steps an attacker cannot skip — persistence, privilege escalation, credential access, and exfiltration — rather than the tools they might use, which change.
  • High-signal detections available cheaply: inbox rules that forward or delete externally, new federation or identity-provider trust, disabled logging, impossible travel on administrative accounts, and mass file access by a single principal.

Every detection needs a documented response. A detection that fires with no defined next step becomes noise on its second occurrence.

Tune ruthlessly, because alert fatigue is the real failure mode

An alert that is wrong most of the time trains people to close it without reading. The team stops noticing, and the eventual real one closes the same way.

Measure the proportion of alerts that are actually actioned. Anything consistently below roughly half is a tuning problem, and the fix is narrowing or suppressing the rule rather than adding another analyst. A smaller number of trustworthy detections beats broad coverage nobody believes.

Decide who is watching, and when

Coverage hours are an explicit decision with a cost. Business-hours monitoring means an intrusion starting on Friday evening runs unobserved for two days, which is exactly why attacks are timed that way. If you cannot staff around the clock, say so, and choose a small number of detections that page a human at any hour rather than pretending the queue is monitored.

Outsourcing detection is legitimate and does not outsource the decision. The provider escalates; someone inside still has to be reachable and authorized to disconnect something.

Test that it would actually fire

Detection coverage is assumed far more often than it is verified. Run the behavior — a benign version of the technique — and confirm the alert arrives, reaches a person, and carries enough context to act on. Coverage claimed from a configuration page is not coverage.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Retain logs for a window shorter than the time it typically takes to discover an intrusion.
  • Store the only copy of a log on the system it describes.
  • Ship a detection with no defined response.
  • Claim coverage for a technique nobody has tested end to end.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する