Results for “doe”

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.

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.

Expert HIPAA compliance assistant for healthcare and software contexts. Use this skill whenever the user mentions HIPAA, PHI (Protected Health Information), ePHI, covered entities, business associates, healthcare data privacy, medical records, health information security, BAA (Business Associate Agreements), or any compliance review involving patient data. Also trigger for requests to draft privacy notices, HIPAA policies, consent forms, security risk assessments, or breach notification letters. Use for developers building healthcare software who need technical safeguard guidance (encryption, access controls, audit logs), compliance officers reviewing documents or procedures, and anyone asking "is this HIPAA compliant?" or "what does HIPAA require for X?". When in doubt about whether a healthcare or data privacy question falls under this skill — use it.

Implement Microsoft's Enhanced Security Admin Environment (ESAE) tiered administration model for Active Directory, covering Tier 0/1/2 separation, privileged access workstations, and credential theft mitigation.

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.

Detect and exploit XML External Entity (XXE) injection vulnerabilities in XML parsers, including file disclosure, SSRF, and blind out-of-band exfiltration.

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.

Applies the DORA framework to manage ICT risk and operational resilience for EU financial entities, covering governance, incident reporting, resilience testing, third-party risk, and threat intelligence sharing.

Default entry point for any research request — a hybrid router that classifies the question deterministically and either delegates to a specialist research skill (pulse for trends/sentiment, grants for NIH funding, litreview for academic literature, syllabus for course reading, patent for prior-art + IP landscape, dossier for entity research) or runs its own plan-decompose-multi-source-search-synthesize-cite fallback workflow when no specialist matches. Always surfaces the routing decision so users can override. Triggers — "research [topic]", "look into [topic]", "what do we know about [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find me information on [topic]", "do some research on [topic]", "I need to understand [topic]", or any research request that doesn't obviously match a more-specific specialist skill. Output is a markdown briefing (default) or .docx document (on request) with full citations and an audit log.

Verifies that every entry in a bibliography ACTUALLY EXISTS by cross-checking it against four keyless public scholarly APIs (Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv) with a polite mailto identifier, resolving DOI/arXiv IDs, fuzzy-matching title and authors (difflib SequenceMatcher ratio >=0.70), flagging retractions marked in Crossref (update-to) or OpenAlex (is_retracted), and emitting per-entry JSON verdicts mapped to the AlterLab citation-hallucination taxonomy (TF/PAC/IH/PH/SH). Accepts BibTeX, a DOI/arXiv ID list, or free-form references; degrades gracefully offline by emitting 'unverified' verdicts and never silently passing. Use when the request mentions verify citations, check references, fabricated or hallucinated references, fake DOI, retraction check, bibliography audit, or reference existence check. Does NOT write or draft papers — for authoring a manuscript (whose citation-check mode inserts citations) prefer alterlab-paper-writer instead. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Personal finance review skill for individuals who want to understand their spending, budgets, and financial patterns. Use whenever the user wants to analyze expenses, categorize spending, review a budget, build a budget from scratch, analyze debt, audit subscriptions, understand their savings rate, or track progress toward a financial goal. Triggers: "help me review my spending", "here are my expenses", "can you look at my budget", "help me build a budget", "I want to understand where my money goes", "categorize these transactions", "help me pay off my debt", "audit my subscriptions", "am I saving enough", "am I on track for my goal", "analyze my finances", or any time the user shares financial data (even raw or messy) and wants insight. Does NOT provide investment, tax, or financial planning advice — helps users understand their own data. Trigger proactively when the user pastes transactions, expenses, or any money-related data, even without an explicit request for analysis.

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).