Results for “spec”

Guide for implementing GDPR-valid consent under Article 7 conditions and Article 4(11) definition. Covers five core requirements: freely given, specific, informed, unambiguous, and clear affirmative action. Includes pre-ticked boxes prohibition per Planet49 CJEU C-673/17, consent form audit checklist, and practical implementation patterns.

Audit a full-stack app against the RealWorld ("Conduit") reference — its formal API spec, shared Bruno/Hurl E2E suite, and closest-stack reference implementation — to find what is. Use when "audit against realworld", "compare my app to realworld", "conduit conformance", "is my full-stack app complete", "full-stack gap.

Routes reverse engineering, exploitation, penetration testing, malware, mobile, firmware, browser automation, documentation, and security tasks to the appropriate specialist skill. Use when a task spans modules or the correct reverse-skill entrypoint is unclear.

Exploit Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) misconfigurations, specifically ESC1. By requesting a certificate based on a overly permissive template that allows the enrollee to supply a Subject Alternative Name (SAN), an attacker can impersonate highly privileged users (like Domain Admins) and seamlessly escalate privileges across the entire AD environment.

rustls — modern, safe TLS implementation in pure Rust. Drop-in replacement for OpenSSL/native-tls in Rust apps. No C dependencies — perfect for mobile cross- compile and embedded targets. Covers ClientConfig + ServerConfig, certificate verification with webpki-roots, mTLS, custom verifier (cert pinning), ALPN negotiation (HTTP/2, HTTP/3), session resumption, integration with hyper + reqwest + tokio. USE WHEN: user mentions "rustls", "ClientConfig", "ServerConfig", "webpki-roots", "rustls-pemfile", "rustls cert pinning", "rustls mTLS", "rustls Tokio", "rustls hyper" DO NOT USE FOR: OpenSSL specifics - use OpenSSL skill (or platform TLS) DO NOT USE FOR: Apple/Windows native TLS - use platform-specific skills DO NOT USE FOR: Tor anonymous transport - use `network/arti` DO NOT USE FOR: TLS protocol theory - use OWASP / RFC docs

Produces a decision-grade dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org by testing the user's hypothesis rather than confirming it. Outputs an editable Word document with verdict, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, and red flags.

>- Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) — verify PPAP submission level, audit all 18 elements, check completeness for customer approval, prepare PSW. Use when a supplier needs to submit parts for approval, when reviewing a PPAP package, or when determining which PPAP level is required. Covers AIAG PPAP 4th edition with Ford, BMW, VW, and Stellantis OEM-specific requirements.

Performs comprehensive C/C++ security review for memory corruption, integer overflows, race conditions, and platform-specific vulnerabilities. Use when auditing native C/C++ applications, reviewing daemons or services for memory safety, or hunting integer overflow / use-after-free / race conditions in userspace code.

Use this skill when the user asks about hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation under 49 CFR 171-180 — placarding requirements, segregation tables, hazmat employee training (49 CFR 172 Subpart H), Hazmat Safety Permit (HMSP), shipping papers, packaging groups, emergency response phone, security plans, hazmat endorsement on CDL, and bulk vs non-bulk distinctions. Cite specific 49 CFR section.

Universal code quality principles applicable to all languages. Covers Clean Code, SOLID, complexity metrics, and quality standards. USE WHEN: user mentions "clean code", "SOLID", "code smells", "refactoring", "complexity", asks about "cyclomatic complexity", "cognitive complexity", "code review", "maintainability" DO NOT USE FOR: language-specific linting - use ESLint/Biome skills, security - use OWASP skills, testing - use testing skills

Detect cyber attacks targeting OT historian servers (OSIsoft PI, Ignition, Wonderware) that sit at the IT/OT boundary and serve as pivot points for lateral movement between enterprise and control networks, including data manipulation, unauthorized queries, and exploitation of historian-specific vulnerabilities.

Reverse shell generation and listener management. Generates platform-specific reverse shell payloads (bash, python, php, powershell, java, ruby, perl, netcat, socat, msfvenom) and sets up listeners in the Kali container. Supports one-liner generation, encoded payloads for WAF/filter bypass, listener setup with session capture, and shell stabilization. Chains from /pentester, /metasploit, or /post-exploit when command execution is confirmed.

Develop and implement OT-specific incident response playbooks aligned with SANS PICERL framework, IEC 62443, and NIST SP 800-82 that address unique ICS challenges including safety-critical systems, limited downtime tolerance, and coordination between IT SOC, OT engineering, and plant operations teams.

Test horizontal and vertical authorization bypass via session ID swapping between accounts, IDOR through parameter manipulation (invoice=, user=, menuitem=, EventID=), and special header injection (X-Original-URL, X-Rewrite-URL, X-Forwarded-For, X-Remote-IP, X-Client-IP with 127.0.0.1/localhost/RFC1918 values). Tools: Burp Suite with Autorize/AuthMatrix extensions, OWASP ZAP Access Control Testing add-on.

Design the architecture for a multi-command skill system — the shared state schema, the command map, the router, and the boundary each command stops at — before any skill files get written. Use when the user wants to turn one skill into a system, combine several related or overlapping skills into a single coherent one, build a skill with subcommands (like `/thing audit`, `/thing polish`), design a suite, family, or collection of skills, or asks "how should I structure this skill set". Also trigger on "skill system", "skill architecture", "multi-command skill", "system of skills", "make these skills work together", "skill with slash commands", or complaints that their skills overlap, collide, duplicate each other, or never fire. Produces an architecture spec only — it never writes SKILL.md or reference files. Hand the finished spec to skill-creator to build from.

Use this skill when the user asks about Driver Qualification Files (DQF) — what must be in a DQ file under 49 CFR 391, retention periods, what's required pre-hire vs ongoing, document expiration tracking, audit-readiness for driver files, common DQF deficiencies that auditors find, or how to handle missing documents on existing drivers. Always cite the specific subsection of 49 CFR 391.

Use this skill when the user asks specifically about preparing for the New Entrant Safety Audit (NESA) under 49 CFR 385 Subpart D — different from a Compliance Review. Covers what auditors look at, the 18-month window, automatic failure conditions, the 60-day fix window, what to NOT do, and how to convert from "new entrant" to permanent authority. Cite 49 CFR 385.301-321.

Create, edit, improve, or audit AgentSkills. Use when creating a new skill from scratch or when asked to improve, review, audit, tidy up, or clean up an existing skill or SKILL.md file. Also use when editing or restructuring a skill directory (moving files to references/ or scripts/, removing stale content, validating against the AgentSkills spec). Triggers on phrases like "create a skill", "author a skill", "tidy up a skill", "improve this skill", "review the skill", "clean up the skill", "audit the skill".

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.

TLS/SSL configuration audit. Tests protocol versions (SSLv2/3, TLS 1.0/1.1/1.2/1.3), cipher strength and ordering, certificate chain validation (intermediates, CT logs, OCSP stapling, pinning), known vulnerabilities (POODLE, BEAST, CRIME, Heartbleed, ROBOT, DROWN, Ticketbleed, GOLDENDOODLE), session management (ticket reuse, resumption, fixation), renegotiation attacks, TLS 1.3-specific issues (0-RTT replay, PSK modes, downgrade), HSTS deep analysis (preload, subdomains, bypass), and certificate revocation (CRL, OCSP responder, stapled response freshness). Compliance-mapped to PCI DSS 4.0 (full Section 4), NIST SP 800-52r2, and FedRAMP. Uses testssl.sh, sslscan, sslyze, openssl, nmap NSE scripts, and nuclei SSL templates. Multi-port scanning across 20+ TLS-bearing services.

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.

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.