Results for “verification”

Set up a monday.com account for an OpenClaw agent and work with monday.com boards, items, and updates via the GraphQL API or MCP server. Use when: creating a monday.com workspace for a PA, connecting the PA to monday.com, querying boards and items, creating or updating items, troubleshooting monday.com API access, self-registering an agent on monday.com via HATCHA agent verification, or integrating with monday.com workflows. Covers GraphQL cookbook, column types, MCP configuration, and HATCHA self-registration. Works with any LLM model.

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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

Design and apply QA methodology for software teams: test strategy, regression testing, CI failure triage, test automation, quality gates and metrics, risk-based testing, exploratory testing, test design techniques, AI code quality gates (independent verification, acceptance-criteria testability review for agentic Spec-Driven Development), mutation-guided test hardening and review evidence (surviving mutants, weak assertions, diff-aware mutation testing), agentic eval design (dataset test design, judge-as-system-under-test, flaky-eval discipline), QA career levels (Senior/Staff/Principal), and SDET engineering (test infrastructure, gTAA, CI/CD integration). Do not use for root-cause debugging of production incidents, security implementation or threat modeling, or evaluation framework governance and statistical analysis — route those to systematic-debugging, secure-software-engineering, and agent-evals-and-observability respectively.

Runs a 13-agent deep research pipeline for rigorous academic work on any topic across 7 modes (full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis), covering research-question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk-of-bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial and devil's-advocate review, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Use when the request mentions research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, or 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt with a code block the user wants you to act on. Also fires when planning architectural changes, picking algorithms or data structures, or evaluating dependency upgrades. Calls the code MCP tool to retrieve an engineering scaffold (failure pattern, procedure, correct-pattern example, verification step) before generating. Catches hallucinated APIs, lost edge cases, premature algorithm commitment, silent contract violations, refactors that change behavior masked by passing tests. Do NOT trigger for pure code reading with no action requested, simple syntax questions, file...

Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request (issue, ticket, or request) from intake through planning, gates, implementation, review, verified PR, and authorized post-merge release. neckbeard routes the change through framing, discovery, design, implementation, review, verification, delivery, and learning — choosing the smallest *safe* intervention, proving it at the real delivery boundary, and leaving an inspectable evidence ledger. For change-request / issue-to-PR work, conditionally loads a 9-phase journey with gates, delivery packet, and lifecycle integration. Composes specialist catalog skills rather than replacing them. Not a persona, not a '10x developer' prompt, not a LOC-minimizer. The journey is not loaded for plain fixes, refactors, or reviews that lack an issue/ticket trajectory.

Application-level business logic security testing for any domain. Takes an understanding-first approach: map the intended workflows before probing them. Covers: value/quantity logic abuse (negative, zero, overflow, rounding on any numeric field), workflow and state machine bypass (skipping required steps, forcing illegal state transitions, reusing one-time tokens), trust boundary violations (BOLA horizontal/vertical, BFLA, cross-tenant access, negative ownership attacks), idempotency and replay attacks (duplicate submissions, double-spend, same-reference reuse), multi-step flow integrity (checkout, registration, approval, verification), quota and rate limit bypass, time/date manipulation, and authorization code / reference number predictability. Domain-agnostic — applies to SaaS, e-commerce, banking, gaming, social platforms, APIs, or any multi-user application with stateful workflows. Chains from /pentester; chains into /param-fuzz when boundary violations or mass assignment are confirmed.

Sets up and audits the Claude Code harness for a project: CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, skills, subagents, settings.json permissions, hooks, verification loop. Commands: kickoff (scaffold new setup), check-playbook (score an existing one), scouting-report (last scorecard), adjust (fix bloat/misplaced instructions), drill (turn advisory prose into real hooks/permissions/CI), decline (record an accepted risk), gameplan (work order with acceptance criteria before building), watch-film (check a diff against that order for scope creep/weakened tests/false claims). Use for setting up Claude Code, or on: "Claude ignores my CLAUDE.md", "it's huge and still misses things", "it said done but ran nothing", "it changed files I didn't ask about", "it weakened a test to pass", "rule, skill, or hook?", "is my setup any good". Not for code quality (code-audit), test coverage (test-assessment), one-off prompt wording (genie-proof-prompts), new skill authoring (skill-creator), or compacting a conversation (handoff).

Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review.