Results for “ma”

Mine a codebase or product for underexploited assets — capabilities, infrastructure, data, integrations, and workflows built for one narrow purpose that could produce far more value. Finds platform primitives hiding inside features, internal tooling that could serve customers, and data accumulated but never leveraged. Produces an evidence-gated report (max 5 opportunities, mandatory kill list, one forced answer) plus a wwbd_packet JSON. Use whenever the user says "WWBD", "what would Bezos do", "what are we sitting on", "what did we accidentally build", "what could this become", "find opportunities in this repo", "what are we underexploiting", "is there a product hiding in here", or wants to know if existing infrastructure has a bigger economic surface than it currently serves. Trigger on casual phrasings too ("anything valuable buried in this codebase?"). Analyzes what EXISTS — missing features go to gap-scan, broken code to code-audit, confusing flows to ux-audit, weak persuasion to conversion-audit.

Use to audit a CX dashboard for tiles nobody acts on and metrics nobody agrees on — assign an owner per tile, apply kill criteria, and run an actionability test before adding or keeping a chart. Trigger for "clean up the dashboard", "too many metrics", "which KPIs should we keep", dashboard audit, metrics review workshop, "nobody looks at this anymore", or before a BI migration or exec-pack refresh.

Use to draw a defensible sample of support conversations for QA review, an audit or a manual analysis, so the results generalise to the population rather than to whatever was easy to pull. Trigger for "which tickets should we review", "how do we pick a sample", "is our QA sampling representative", stratified or risk-based sampling, review coverage design, or a finding based on a handful of hand-picked tickets.

Scan a codebase, live app, or site and find the features that obviously should exist but don't — missing exports, bulk actions, search/filter, undo, history, notifications, dead-end workflows, data collected but never surfaced, backend endpoints with no UI, and half-built features that stopped partway. Produces an evidence-backed, ranked punch list (top 10 max) with a portable gap_packet JSON. Use whenever the user asks "what features are missing", "what's this app lacking", "find gaps", "run gap-scan", "feature audit", or wants proposal ammo from a prospect's app. Also use it to recheck an existing gap_packet — "what's left to do", "recheck the gaps", "what got built since" — re-verifying findings against current code and marking stale ones superseded. Flags ABSENCE only — broken code goes to code-audit, confusing flows to ux-audit, weak persuasion to conversion-audit, underexploited assets to a WWBD-style analysis. If something exists but is bad, it's not a gap — hand it off.

Review code changes for correctness, completeness, bugs, edge cases, and quality. Load when the user explicitly asks to review code, check a PR, review a diff, audit recent changes, or verify an implementation matches requirements. Also triggers on "review this code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "did this implement correctly", "audit this diff", or any explicit request for a formal code review. Do NOT load for "review changes for context" or "review what happened" — those are requests to read code, not to perform a formal review.

Score the experience a new customer actually has, not just whether they activated. Grades the first 90 days on the moments that make someone feel taken care of, finds where the welcome goes cold, and hands back a scored audit with the specific fixes. Built for any post-sale team, customizable to your product and lifecycle. Trigger on "audit my onboarding", "score our onboarding experience", "why do new customers churn early", "grade our first 90 days", "where does onboarding go cold", "is our welcome any good", or any onboarding-quality question.

中英双语学术降 AIGC / bilingual academic de-AIGC skill. Removes AI-generated writing signatures from empirical papers in economics, management, and the social sciences — in both English and Chinese. Covers Turnitin AI, GPTZero, Originality.ai on the English side and 知网 AMLC, 万方, 维普 on the Chinese side. Uses a six-step loop (intake → audit → claim-evidence check → differentiated rewrite → five-dimension self-score → cold-reader recheck) with two pattern libraries (22 English + 17 Chinese patterns), section-by-section strategies for empirical papers, and hard protections that keep every number, coefficient, and citation intact.

Expert ISO 27001 compliance assistant for security and compliance teams. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO 27001 or ISO/IEC 27001, including any of the following: gap analysis, auditing, compliance assessments, control checklists, policy writing, document generation, Statement of Applicability (SoA), risk assessment, risk registers, risk treatment plans, Annex A controls, ISMS implementation, clause requirements, certification readiness, transitioning from 2013 to 2022, control implementation guidance, incident response policies, access control policies, supplier security, or any information security management system (ISMS) topic. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any ISO 27001 or ISMS question should use this skill.

Assess the test suite of a codebase — where tests are missing, where they exist but are weak, and which gaps actually matter. Use this skill whenever the user asks about test coverage, test quality, "are there enough tests", "where should we add tests", testing gaps, test debt, untested code paths, flaky tests, or generally wants to know whether a codebase is well-tested. Trigger even on casual phrasings ("is this tested?", "what's the test situation?", "audit our tests"). This skill does NOT write tests — it only assesses what exists and identifies what's missing. For test generation, this is the wrong skill.

English LaTeX academic paper assistant for existing `.tex` projects. Use this skill whenever the user wants to compile, lint, audit, or improve an English LaTeX conference or journal paper such as IEEE, ACM, Springer, NeurIPS, or ICML submissions. Trigger even when the user only mentions one paper issue, such as bibliography errors, grammar cleanup, sentence splitting, logic review, expression polishing, translation, title optimization, figure checks, pseudocode review, algorithm block cleanup, de-AI editing, or experiment-section review. Also trigger for "proofread my paper", "fix my LaTeX", "prepare for submission", "check my manuscript", "improve my writing", `algorithm2e`, `algorithmicx`, `algpseudocodex`, `Require/Ensure`, or "Algorithm 1" when the user has a .tex file.

Use this skill to create CodeTour .tour files — persona-targeted, step-by-step walkthroughs that link to real files and line numbers. Trigger for: "create a tour", "make a code tour", "generate a tour", "onboarding tour", "tour for this PR", "tour for this bug", "RCA tour", "architecture tour", "explain how X works", "vibe check", "PR review tour", "contributor guide", "help someone ramp up", or any request for a structured walkthrough through code. Supports 20 developer personas (new joiner, bug fixer, architect, PR reviewer, vibecoder, security reviewer, and more), all CodeTour step types (file/line, selection, pattern, uri, commands, view), and tour-level fields (ref, isPrimary, nextTour). Works with any repository in any language.

Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like "we need to get audited", "a customer asked for our security report", "writing an information security policy", or "preparing for an audit". Covers gap analysis, policy writing, control documentation, audit evidence preparation, and vendor risk reviews for organizations at any maturity level — from first-time startups to seasoned compliance teams.

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

Deep OAuth 2.0 / OpenID Connect security assessment. Covers the full attack surface: redirect_uri validation bypass (path traversal, open redirect chains, subdomain confusion, URL parsing tricks, parameter pollution, response mode switching), missing/broken state parameter CSRF, PKCE downgrade and absent-challenge attacks, implicit grant token leakage (Referer, browser history, XSS fragment theft), authorization code injection, scope escalation, client confusion attacks, mutable-claims account takeover (iss+sub confusion, email-keyed identity merging), pre-account takeover via unverified registration, OpenID Connect dynamic client registration SSRF (logo_uri, jwks_uri, sector_identifier_uri, request_uri), nonce replay, ID token validation failures, Device Code phishing flow, mobile custom URI scheme hijacking, refresh token persistence, token introspection enumeration, consent screen clickjacking, host header injection, and cross-IdP mix-up attacks. Uses KOAuth, jwt_tool, nuclei oauth templates, and manual ht

Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothesis, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, red flags, conversation hooks tied to specific findings, and source-provenance audit log. Uses WebSearch + WebFetch + free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica) as workhorses; optional BYOK MCPs enhance coverage. Use when the user asks for background research, diligence, or meeting prep on a specific entity (e.g., 'prep me for a meeting with [person/company]', 'due diligence on [company]'). Honors sensitivity exclusions for journalism + personal-vetting contexts.

Reverse-engineers a federal RFP we received — given the SOW/PWS and evaluation criteria already in the Theseus KG, reconstructs the CO's hidden decision tree (upstream `sow-pws-builder` 6 scope blocks + 3 intake answers), surfaces hot buttons, ghost language, discriminator hooks, missing-section signals, and CPFF-form / Section-5 / QASP / Key-Personnel traps. USE WHEN the user asks "what scope decisions did the CO already make?", "reverse engineer this RFP", "what hot buttons are hiding in this PWS?", "where are the discriminator hooks?", "did they pick CPFF completion or term form?", "anything suspiciously missing?", or any variant of decoding CO intent. Pulls `requirement`, `deliverable`, `proposal_instruction`, `evaluation_factor`, `clause`, `performance_standard` from the active workspace KG and emits a JSON envelope feeding `proposal-generator`. DO NOT USE FOR proposal prose (`proposal-generator`), pricing (`price-to-win`), clause audit (`compliance-auditor`), or sub SOW (`subcontractor-sow-builder`).

Write code through a disciplined, BDD-framed Test-Driven Development loop: build a behavior test list, then drive each behavior through red-green-refactor with an enforced observed-failure gate. Use when the user wants to implement, build, or write code test-first, "do TDD", follow "red-green-refactor", drive code from tests, choose the next test by the Transformation Priority Premise (TPP) or ZOMBIES ordering, or grow a feature behavior-by-behavior with tests leading. This skill writes and changes code; it does not produce a test plan document (use automated-test-planning, or manual-test-planning for a plan a person runs by hand), review or audit existing code (use code-review), restructure existing code outside a TDD loop (use refactor), specify what a feature should do (use plan-a-feature), or find the root cause of a bug (use investigate). Runs its loop to completion without pausing for review; to review each behavior as it lands, use pairing.

Blog and web-content system for agency work — plan topics, interview the author for their real take, brief the angle, draft the article, plan images, verify claims, score drafts for quality and AI tells, revise, publish, and refresh aging posts. Shorthand "wltbo" also triggers it. Commands share a per-client memory of brand voice, the author's positions and stories, verified facts with expiry dates, and every published post. Use for blog posts, articles, long-form content, refreshes, keyword targeting, search intent, titles and H1s, meta descriptions, internal linking, cannibalization checks, E-E-A-T, and information gain. Also use when the complaint is "it doesn't sound like us", "it reads AI-written", "it's generic", "we already wrote this one", "the facts are made up", "there are no images", "it's too thin", or "nobody thought this through". Not for social posts, emails, internal comms, case studies (case-study-builder), site audits (website-audit), or content calendars (content-strategy).

Drafts a federally-defensible SOW or PWS the prime issues to a subcontractor / teaming partner — same FAR 37.102(d) / 37.602 / 16.601(c)(2) / 16.306(d) discipline a contracting officer applies, opposite seat. USE WHEN the user asks to "write a SOW for our sub", "draft a PWS for [Partner]", "build the teaming-partner statement of work", "convert this SOO into a sub SOW", "we need a SOW the sub will sign", or any variant of authoring a downstream work statement. Walks the upstream 3-phase tree (acquisition intake → 6 scope blocks → 14-section assembly), pulls scope from the active Theseus KG (requirements, deliverables, work_scope_items, performance_standards), enforces FAR 37.102(d) "no FTEs in body", emits a chat-only staffing handoff for the prime's cost build, writes Markdown for `renderers` → .docx. DO NOT USE FOR prime proposal prose (`proposal-generator`), reverse-engineering an RFP (`rfp-reverse-engineer`), pricing the sub (`price-to-win`), or clause audit (`compliance-auditor`).