41 个 · 按相关度排序
Assess potential data breach impact by reviewing sensitive data and its movement through a codebase. Produce an inventory, exposure rankings, financial estimates, and prioritized safeguards, distinguishing legal source figures from planning estimates.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Run the worst-case drill before an agent goes autonomous — the 'if this agent were fully hijacked right now, what's the damage' walk-through, the containment controls (caps, kill-switch, reversibility, isolation), and the recovery plan. Use when asked what's the worst my agent could do, run a blast-radius assessment, prepare for an agent going rogue, or am I ready to let this run unattended. Produces the worst-case walk-through, the containment controls, the reversibility audit, and the incident-recovery runbook.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Pre-breach impact analysis: inventories sensitive data (PII, PHI, PCI-DSS, credentials), traces data flows, scores exposure vectors, and produces a regulatory blast radius report with fine ranges sourced verbatim from GDPR Art. 83, CCPA § 1798.155(a), and HIPAA 45 CFR § 160.404. Cost benchmarks from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report (annually updated). All citations in references/SOURCES.md for verification. Use when asked: "assess breach impact", "what data could be exposed", "calculate blast radius", "data exposure analysis", "how bad would a breach be", "quantify data risk", "sensitive data inventory", "data flow security audit", "pre-breach assessment", "worst-case breach scenario", "breach readiness", "data risk report", "/data-breach-blast-radius". For any stack handling user data, health records, or financial information. Output labels law-sourced figures (exact) vs heuristic estimates (planning only). Does not replace legal counsel.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
在修改代码、数据或API前，根据实际依赖关系整理影响范围及所需验证和恢复步骤，再与实现后的差异比对，检查遗漏、范围偏移和验证不足。
Investigate AWS production incidents using reusable CloudWatch log queries and metric calculations. Narrow affected resources, compare alarms with deployment events, and reconstruct a timeline to identify changes that may explain the symptoms.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review code changes against the previous commit and identify affected files and functions. Use dependency relationships to assess risk, check missing tests, and produce a focused report with issues and recommendations.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review all changes in a pull request or branch against its base branch. Use a knowledge graph, a map of code relationships, to report affected files and functions, test coverage, API compatibility issues, and recommended actions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Plan controlled failure experiments to uncover system weaknesses. Define normal operating metrics, estimate affected users and reliability risk, set abort and recovery conditions, and turn experiment results into a structured review with follow-up actions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Trace where BigQuery and Cloud Storage data comes from and where it goes. The skill summarizes table or column lineage, meaning data origins and movement, in a readable Markdown report to support data quality investigations.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Add business knowledge missing from a Wren project's database definitions. Compare source documents with existing context, then add explanations, rules, SQL examples, and proposed metrics through guided questions or an automatic mode with an audit report.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Assess a single suspected security issue using Trailmark's graph of code relationships. Gather evidence about reachable paths, input flow, and potential impact, then receive a priority verdict and a list of remaining manual checks.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Compares code relationships before and after a branch, pull request, or release change using Trailmark. Flags structural security regressions, such as removed authorization checks or newly reachable sensitive operations, and provides evidence for reviewers.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when the user asks to "plan my launch tier", "how big should this launch be", or "build a launch risk register with kill criteria"; produces a tier decision (Tier 1 flagship all-channel / Tier 2 targeted / Tier 3 changelog-level), a launch-type declaration (new-product / feature / relaunch / partnership with co-marketing split), an effort calibration matrix (tier to channel intensity and asset scope), D0/W1/M1 KPI targets (labeled Estimated), a risk register (likelihood x blast-radius, owners, mitigations, kill criteria / rollback thresholds), and a T-8w to T+4w timeline skeleton. Not for picking the launch date or window — use launch-window-planner; not for creator-channel launch campaigns — use campaign-planner. 发布分级/发布类型/风险登记册/kill criteria
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Plans, builds, runs, and analyzes fault injection experiments with AWS Fault Injection Service (AWS FIS) to validate application resilience through chaos engineering. Covers experiment templates (actions, targets, stop conditions), the FIS actions catalog and action selection, the scenario library (AZ power interruption, cross-Region connectivity, EC2/EKS/EBS stress), experiment lifecycle and monitoring, logging and reports, multi-account experiments, the experiment IAM role, and blast-radius safety. Applies when a user mentions AWS FIS or fault injection, asks what experiment to run for a failure mode (AZ, Region, API errors/throttling, instance/pod/DB/cache failure, latency, packet loss), wants to author an experiment template or CLI/CloudFormation, or needs to safely run chaos experiments in pre-production or production. For the broader resilience program across Resilience Hub and ARC, see aws-resilience-lifecycle; for ARC routing controls and zonal shift, see recovery-controller-setup.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Before and after changing anything shared — a function's return value, a signature, a schema, a label set, a config default, a constant, a file format — find every consumer and actually run them. Catches the change that looks purely additive but silently breaks a contract in a file you never opened. Use when editing shared code, adding a field/column/return element, renaming, changing units or defaults, or touching a pipeline that produces reported numbers.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Systematic PR review with blast-radius analysis, security scanning, and breaking-change and test-coverage deltas. Use when reviewing PRs that touch shared libraries, APIs, database schemas, auth, or security-sensitive code.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Chaos engineering: hypothesis-driven fault injection to surface weakness before users do. Use when designing a chaos experiment, planning a gameday, choosing what to inject, computing blast radius, or building a chaos maturity model.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Prevent Terraform/OpenTofu hallucinations by diagnosing and fixing failure modes: identity churn, secret exposure, blast-radius mistakes, CI drift, and compliance gate gaps. Use when generating, reviewing, refactoring, or migrating IaC and when building delivery/testing pipelines.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Enhancement overlay for multi-agent / tool-using coder agents. Encodes the per-agent tool- scoping discipline that role-based frameworks (CrewAI, LangChain) document only as a passing best-practice: which agent gets which tool, and why blanket-sharing every tool to every agent is a correctness and blast-radius risk. Activates when an agent system has tools AND there is more than one agent (or one agent holding many tools). Treat a tool as a capability grant; scope by least-privilege. ENHANCE overlay — read alongside [[crewai]], [[agentsop-http-tool-wrapping]], [[agentsop-llm-tool-idempotency]]. Search keywords: which tools per agent, least-privilege agent, agent tool access, tool permissions, limit agent tools, scope tools to roles.overlay_type: enhancement
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Analyzes code change impact with risk scoring and affected-node mapping. Use before merging to understand what a change touches and what lacks test coverage.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Builds or updates the code knowledge graph via tree-sitter AST and SQLite. Use when setting up the graph before search or blast-radius analysis.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。