Results for “structure”

Runs a structured security audit across six phases: attack-surface mapping, STRIDE/PASTA threat modeling, technical checklists, red/blue team exercises, and a final verdict, covering code, infrastructure, APIs, bots, payments, AI agents, and compliance.

Executes structured recovery from a ransomware incident following NIST and CISA frameworks, including environment isolation, forensic evidence preservation, clean infrastructure rebuild, prioritized system restoration from verified backups, credential reset, and validation against re-infection.

Audit a codebase, UI, or copy for machine-generated tells across prose, visual/UI, code, and structure/IA, then produce a phased de-slop burndown. Use when the user says "feels AI-generated", "looks like AI slop", "reads like ChatGPT", "feels generic/soulless", or wants an authenticity/voice pass before launch.

Verify references in an academic paper: check whether each BibTeX entry is real, whether in-text citations match the cited paper's actual content, and produce a structured verification report. Use when user says "验证参考文献", "ref verify", "check references", "核实引用", "引用是否正确", or wants to audit citations in a LaTeX manuscript.

Provides a structured framework for analyzing cyber intrusions by examining four core features: Adversary, Capability, Infrastructure, and Victim. Covers implementing the Diamond Model programmatically to classify and correlate intrusion events, build activity threads, and generate pivot-ready intelligence.

You are an expert in Hapi.js, the configuration-centric enterprise framework for Node.js. You help developers build production APIs with built-in input validation (Joi), authentication strategies, plugin architecture, caching, rate limiting, and comprehensive request lifecycle hooks — designed for teams that need structure, security, and testability without third-party middleware sprawl.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

Detect PowerShell Empire framework artifacts in Windows event logs by identifying Base64 encoded launcher patterns, default user agents, staging URL structures, stager IOCs, and known Empire module signatures in Script Block Logging events.

Build an append-only log integrity chain using SHA-256 hash chaining for tamper detection. Each log entry is hashed with the previous entry's hash to create a blockchain-like structure where modifying any entry invalidates all subsequent hashes.

Manage and analyze SOPS-encrypted secret files, including key rotation, multi-provider encryption, and file-based secret operations. Covers encrypting and decrypting files, managing encryption keys (AWS KMS, GCP KMS, Azure Key Vault, PGP), auditing encrypted files, and comparing secret structures.

Provides a structured risk scoring methodology for Data Protection Impact Assessments aligned with ENISA threat taxonomy and ISO 29134. Covers likelihood and severity assessment, risk matrix construction, inherent vs residual risk calculation, and risk appetite thresholds per EDPB WP248rev.01 guidance. Keywords: risk scoring, DPIA risk matrix, likelihood, severity, ENISA, ISO 29134, residual risk, risk appetite.

Audits source code for observability gaps — missing telemetry, poor observability practices, and code structure that resists instrumentation — then emits a ranked, bounded finding list. Invoke when the user says "observablip this", "observablip `pkg/foo`", "audit observability", "review telemetry", "find missing spans", "audit o11y on this PR", "review my logging", or "is this instrumented well enough?". Read-only; never edits files.

Produces structured U.S. legal audit summaries that distill compliance findings into executive-ready risk prioritization and remediation plans, covering likelihood/impact scoring, consequence analysis, and corrective actions with timelines and owners. Use for legal audits, compliance audits, regulatory audits, compliance gap analyses, risk assessments, audit report summaries, or remediation roadmaps. Trigger keywords: audit summary, compliance findings, audit report, risk prioritization, remediation plan, regulatory exposure, corrective action plan.

Use when the user wants to extract reusable offensive security knowledge from any source and generate a SKILL.md file. Trigger on: "distill this", "extract skill from", "turn this into a skill", "generate skill from", "convert this report/blog/book/walkthrough into a skill", or when the user pastes raw security content (bug report, pentest report, CTF writeup, blog post, ezine, book chapter) and wants it transformed into structured hunting methodology.

Run a fast, read-only health check across all skills in the library and produce a structured quality report — without modifying anything. Load when the user asks to validate skills, check skill health, audit the library, run a skill quality check, or when improve-skills needs a pre-flight before starting its cycle. Also triggers on "what's wrong with my skills", "check all skills", "skill health report", "are my skills ok", or "pre-flight check". Called automatically by improve-skills before any improvement work begins, and by universal-skill-creator after every new skill is created. Never modifies any file — only reads and reports.

Run a comprehensive code review on local source files. Use this skill when the user asks to review, audit, inspect, evaluate, or check code, even if they never use the word "review." Does not post comments to GitHub pull requests — use post-code-review-to-pr for that. Does not analyze architectural structure or module boundaries — use architectural-analysis for that. Does not explain code or a PR to build understanding before reviewing — use code-overview for a written overview, or code-walkthrough to be paced through it one step at a time. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

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.

Federal Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) sweeper backed by FAR Subpart 9.5 (9.501-9.508) and the active Theseus workspace knowledge graph. USE WHEN the user asks about OCI risk on a bid, organizational conflicts, incumbent conflicts, biased ground rules, unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, or any pre-bid OCI due diligence. Pulls `company`, `incumbent`, `subcontractor`, `customer`, `program_office`, and prior-contract relationships from the workspace KG, classifies each potential conflict into one of the three FAR 9.505 classes (biased ground rules, unequal access, impaired objectivity), and emits a structured findings envelope with mitigation recommendations (firewall, NDA, recusal, novation). DO NOT USE FOR FAR clause coverage audit (use `compliance-auditor`), proposal prose (use `proposal-generator`), competitor research (use `competitive-intel`), or pricing (use `price-to-win`).

When the user wants help with pricing decisions, packaging, or monetization strategy. Also use when the user mentions 'pricing,' 'pricing tiers,' 'freemium,' 'free trial,' 'packaging,' 'price increase,' 'value metric,' 'Van Westendorp,' 'willingness to pay,' 'monetization,' 'how much should I charge,' 'my pricing is wrong,' 'pricing page,' 'annual vs monthly,' 'per seat pricing,' 'should I offer a free plan,' 'pricing page teardown,' 'pricing page audit,' 'is my pricing page AI-readable,' or 'can AI read my pricing.' Use this whenever someone is figuring out what to charge, how to structure their plans, or wants to audit a pricing page (for humans and for the AI agents that shortlist tools). For in-app upgrade screens, see paywalls. For offer construction (bonuses, guarantees, value framing, naming) on services/courses/coaching/high-ticket B2B, see offers.

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.