本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

maturity-assessment

Use when assessing the maturity of a CTI programme, the user asks "how mature is our CTI?" / "what should we improve next?", or wants a benchmark against the five-level model across six dimensions.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.5 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。

CTI Programme Maturity Assessment

Maturity Levels

LevelNameDescription
1Ad-hocNo formal CTI function. Reactive, incident-driven. Intelligence is incidental.
2EmergingBasic CTI capability. Some collection, limited analysis. Primarily tactical (IOC feeds).
3DefinedFormal CTI function with documented processes. Strategic, operational, and tactical output. PIRs defined.
4ManagedMature CTI programme. Stakeholder-driven, measured effectiveness, feedback loops. Proactive intelligence.
5OptimizedIntelligence-driven organisation. CTI informs all security decisions. Continuous improvement, advanced analytics, community contribution.

Assessment Dimensions

1. Collection

LevelIndicators
1No systematic collection. Ad-hoc Google searches when incidents occur.
21-2 threat feeds (usually free). No collection plan.
3Multiple sources across OSINT, commercial feeds, ISACs. Collection plan exists. Source assessment applied.
4Comprehensive collection mapped to PIRs. Source quality tracked. Dark web monitoring. Automated collection pipelines.
5Full-spectrum collection. HUMINT relationships (ISACs, vendors, government). Predictive collection based on emerging threat indicators.

2. Analysis

LevelIndicators
1No analysis. Raw data forwarded to SOC.
2Basic enrichment (VirusTotal lookups). IOC correlation. No structured techniques.
3Structured analysis applied. Threat assessments produced. ATT&CK mapping. Confidence levels used.
4Full SAT toolkit (ACH, red team, horizon scanning). Knowledge cells maintained. Alternative hypotheses routinely considered.
5Advanced analytics. Machine learning augments human analysis. Predictive threat modelling. Community-leading analysis.

3. Production

LevelIndicators
1No intelligence products. Maybe an IOC spreadsheet.
2Ad-hoc alerts and IOC lists. No standard templates. Inconsistent quality.
3Standardised products (flash reports, assessments). TLP applied. Likelihood language used. Quality review process.
4Full product suite tailored to stakeholder needs. Detection rules (SIGMA/YARA/KQL). STIX bundles for sharing.
5Dynamic intelligence products. Real-time dashboards. Automated tactical output. Strategic foresight publications.

4. Dissemination

LevelIndicators
1Intelligence stays within the CTI team.
2IOCs pushed to SIEM/EDR. Some ad-hoc briefings.
3Products reach defined stakeholders. TLP-governed sharing. Regular briefing cadence.
4Tailored delivery per stakeholder. Integration with SOAR/TIP. Feedback collected. ISAC participation.
5Intelligence embedded in all security workflows. Automated dissemination. External sharing (STIX/TAXII). Industry thought leadership.

5. Management

LevelIndicators
1No CTI manager. Analyst works in isolation.
2Informal CTI role. No PIRs. No stakeholder engagement.
3Formal CTI function. PIRs defined and reviewed. Stakeholder register maintained. SOPs documented.
4Programme measured on outcomes. KPIs tracked. Budget justified. Regular programme reviews.
5CTI programme informs security strategy. Board-level reporting. CTI drives investment decisions.

6. Tooling

LevelIndicators
1Email and spreadsheets only.
2Free tools (VirusTotal, MISP community). Manual processes.
3TIP deployed. OSINT tools in use. Some automation.
4Integrated toolchain. API-driven enrichment. SOAR integration. Custom tooling where needed.
5AI-augmented analysis. Full automation of tactical workflows. Custom detection engineering pipeline.

Self-Assessment Questionnaire

For each dimension, select the level that BEST describes current capability:

## CTI Maturity Self-Assessment

**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Assessed by**: [Name/Role]

| Dimension | Current Level | Target Level | Gap |
|-----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Collection | _ | _ | _ |
| Analysis | _ | _ | _ |
| Production | _ | _ | _ |
| Dissemination | _ | _ | _ |
| Management | _ | _ | _ |
| Tooling | _ | _ | _ |
| **Overall** | **_** | **_** | **_** |

### Key Findings
[What are the biggest gaps?]

### Recommended Actions
1. [Highest-impact improvement]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

### Timeline
[Realistic timeline for reaching target maturity]

Improvement Priorities

When improving maturity, prioritise in this order:

  1. Management (PIRs, stakeholders) — without direction, other improvements are wasted
  2. Collection — can't analyse what you don't have
  3. Analysis — transform data into intelligence
  4. Production — package intelligence effectively
  5. Dissemination — get intelligence to decision-makers
  6. Tooling — automate and scale (last, not first)

This order reflects a common mistake: organisations buy tools (Level 6) before establishing processes (Levels 1-5). Tools amplify process — if the process is broken, tools amplify the problem.

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

AbuseIPDB API reference. IP reputation and abuse report lookups.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

ach

無料

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses — structured technique for evaluating multiple explanations against evidence. Use when facing ambiguous attribution or multiple plausible scenarios. Prefers graded evidence items from /quality-of-information-check and runs that skill first when handed raw URLs or text. Runs on ungraded evidence when asked, labelled as such, unweighted, and capped at Moderate confidence.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

Use when documenting a named campaign across time and victims, the user asks to start or update a campaign record, or another skill identified a multi-incident cluster that warrants formal tracking. Provides the template (timeline, attribution, victimology, attack chain, Diamond Model mapping, IOC clusters) and the lifecycle from active to historical.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

Use when the user asks about carding, BIN attacks, payment-card breach markets, fullz/CVV2 trade, autoshops (BidenCash, Brian's Club, Russianmarket, B1ack's Stash), or financial-fraud TTPs. Self-updating knowledge cell.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

Censys API v2 reference. Host reconnaissance and certificate data.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

Use when the user asks about Chinese state-sponsored cyber operations or specific PRC-aligned actors (APT41, Volt Typhoon, Mustang Panda, APT10, APT31, Salt Typhoon, etc.), MSS/PLA-attributed campaigns, or PRC sector targeting. Self-updating knowledge cell.

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。

Liberty91LTD/cti-skills272026年9月30日 更新

Liberty91LTD のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する