Results for “risk-review”

Explains MariaDB's REPLACE statement: its delete-then-insert behavior, when it triggers, data-loss risks, and the upsert alternative. Use when writing or reviewing REPLACE statements.

Use this skill for auth boundaries, input validation, secrets, RLS, injection risks, destructive-action review. Trigger when the task involves security work related to Security Hardening, production implementation, audits, debugging, strategy, or validation.

Agent profile for analyze target users, workflows, usability risks, research questions, and evidence gaps. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Reviews and hardens GitHub Actions workflows against injection, privilege escalation, supply-chain, and token-scoping risks that pattern matchers miss.

Use this skill for SEO strategy, technical SEO prioritization, organic growth roadmaps, search risk review. Trigger when the task involves agent profile work related to SEO Director Agent, implementation, audits, debugging, strategy, or validation.

Agent profile for evaluate RAG quality, chunking, retrieval, citations, hallucination risks, freshness, and regression sets. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Use this skill for SBOM, SCA, lockfile review, provenance, package integrity, supply-chain risk. Trigger when the task involves security work related to Supply Chain SBOM SCA, implementation, audits, debugging, strategy, or validation.

Generates structured summaries of Non-Disclosure Agreements, extracting parties, confidential information scope, permitted disclosures, term/survival, breach remedies, and risk flags. Use when summarizing NDAs, reviewing confidentiality agreements, distilling NDA obligations, or onboarding stakeholders to NDA terms.

Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does, ranking failure modes by impact, likelihood, and cheapness to test.

Threat modeling workflow for software systems: scope, data flow diagrams, STRIDE analysis, risk scoring, and turning mitigations into backlog and tests. Use when designing new features, reviewing architecture changes, handling sensitive data, or hardening auth/payment/multi-tenant flows.

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.

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.

Structured threat modeling skill using the PASTA framework (Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis) combined with Adam Shostack's 4-question framework. Use this skill whenever the user asks to do threat modeling, security analysis, map the attack surface, identify threats, or review an application for security risks — even if they don't mention PASTA or a specific framework by name. Core activities: Component Mapping (architecture + data flows), Critical Assessment (business impact prioritization), and Logic Flaw Identification (attacker mindset on business logic). Produces: component map diagram (Mermaid), data flow diagram (Mermaid), attack tree (Mermaid), STRIDE threat table, prioritized risk register, and an actionable mitigation plan. Invoke proactively for any security review, architecture review, or "what could go wrong?" session.

Manages the organisational DPIA register tracking all Data Protection Impact Assessments across the enterprise. Covers DPIA lifecycle management, status tracking, review scheduling, Art. 35(11) periodic reassessment, and supervisory authority reporting. Implements a centralised register linking DPIAs to RoPA entries, risk registers, and mitigation plans. Keywords: DPIA register, DPIA tracking, Art. 35(11), review schedule, DPIA lifecycle, centralised register, DPIA portfolio management.

Summarizes U.S. commercial lease agreements into structured transactional abstracts. Use when asked for a commercial lease summary, lease abstract, key lease terms, rent schedule review, default/termination analysis, or lease handoff. Produces party-to-obligation mappings, financial mechanics, risk flags, and critical date calendars.

Audits OAuth 2.0 permissions across identity providers to identify over-privileged third-party integrations, excessive API scopes, and unused token grants, enforcing least-privilege access.

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 when planning an ACM CHI submission cycle end to end — the single September deadline, two-round review with a five-week revise-and-resubmit window, December decisions, the TAPS and publication-ready chain, and the May conference — with owners and risk buffers for each stage.

Turn account data into a QBR that earns the renewal. It builds the value-delivered story, adoption against the goals they signed up for, the open risks stated plainly, the forward roadmap, and the expansion ask, then hands you a deck outline. Built for B2B customer success teams, customizable to your CRM and product analytics. Trigger on "build a QBR", "prep the business review", "quarterly review for this account", "what do I show the customer", "value story for the renewal", or any account-review prep.

Use when planning a CoRL submission cycle end to end — the late-May abstract and paper deadlines, the summer review window, first-round rejection risk, the August one-page rebuttal and discussion period, autumn decisions, the October PMLR camera-ready, and the November conference — including what to do between milestones.

Senior Project Manager for enterprise software, SaaS, and digital transformation projects. Specializes in portfolio management, quantitative risk analysis, resource optimization, stakeholder alignment, and executive reporting. Uses advanced methodologies including EMV analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, WSJF prioritization, and multi-dimensional health scoring. Use when a user needs help with project plans, project status reports, risk assessments, resource allocation, project roadmaps, milestone tracking, team capacity planning, portfolio health reviews, program management, or executive-level project reporting — especially for enterprise-scale initiatives with multiple workstreams, complex dependencies, or multi-million dollar budgets.

Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.

Threat-model and harden AI agents, RAG systems, assistants, and tool-using workflows against direct, indirect, stored, cross-agent, and multimodal prompt injection. Use when reviewing an agent architecture, isolating untrusted content, constraining tools and egress, protecting secrets, adding injection-focused tests, investigating a suspected injection incident, or documenting residual prompt-injection risk.

Hybrid security auditor for OpenClaw skills, Claude/Codex skills, and app repos. Use when installing a new skill, auditing a repo before use or deploy, reviewing custom scripts, checking for prompt injection, command execution, data exfiltration, dependency risk, secrets exposure, or privilege escalation. Use as the default gatekeeper before installing any third-party skill.

Composite skill — full security pass across secrets, dependencies, code paths, and OWASP risks. Chains security-audit (broad) + socket-audit (npm supply chain) + semgrep (pattern scan) + code-security (code review for vulns) in parallel, reconciles into one severity-ranked report with remediation plan. Use quarterly per active repo or before any release of security-sensitive code.

Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

Audit a repository, vet and prioritize evidence-backed findings, write drift-aware implementation plans, delegate bounded work, and independently verify results. Use when asked to improve, audit, modernize, harden, review, plan fixes for, or systematically reduce risk in a codebase. Use native isolated agents for implementation; use OpenRouter/free only for narrow advisory audit slices under its safety limits.

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

Audit agent skills, plugins, prompts, manifests, scripts, dependencies, and bundled assets for provenance, prompt-injection, permission, execution, exfiltration, persistence, and update risk. Use when evaluating a third-party skill before installing, enabling, updating, publishing, or distributing it; reviewing an untrusted SKILL.md, agent configuration, MCP integration, archive, or repository; comparing a package with a known-good version; or investigating unexpected tool, network, credential, or filesystem behavior.

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.

Information Security Management System (ISMS) audit expert for ISO 27001 compliance verification, security control assessment, and certification support. Use when the user mentions ISO 27001, ISMS audit, Annex A controls, Statement of Applicability (SOA), gap analysis, nonconformity management, internal audit, surveillance audit, or security certification preparation. Helps review control implementation evidence, document audit findings, classify nonconformities, generate risk-based audit plans, map controls to Annex A requirements, prepare Stage 1 and Stage 2 audit documentation, and support corrective action workflows.

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.

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.

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.

Create OR review a wireflow — the artifact BETWEEN user journeys and wireframes. It maps whole journeys into swimlane flows with high-level navigation (screens, decisions, system/agent steps) while keeping Jobs-To-Be-Done at the core, WITHOUT deep UI. Use whenever the user wants to "map the flows", "make/build a wireflow", turn journeys / JTBDs / a spec / a live prototype into flows, or put every journey on one board against shared owner lanes — even if they never say "wireflow". ALSO use it to REVIEW or critique an existing wireflow (image, FigJam, or description). In the A-Team pipeline this is a definition-phase skill: output lands in docs/features/<slug>/briefs/wireflow/ with jobs consumed by id from docs/product/jtbd/; pipeline mode derives the method decisions and highlights the riskiest at the gate, standalone mode runs the full grill. CREATE generates verified SVG/HTML (self-checked by rendering and Reading its output) in a horizontal per-journey OR shared-matrix layout, and can rebuild in FigJam. Do

Score an unbuilt business idea on desirability, viability, feasibility, distribution wedge, why-now, founder-market-fit, market size, alternatives, defensibility, capital intensity, and regulatory/ethical risk — and return a GO / ITERATE / KILL verdict with kill criteria and a next kill test. Load when the user asks to evaluate a business idea, score a startup idea, screen an idea, decide whether to pursue this venture, do an idea review, or says "is this a good business idea", "should I build this", "evaluate this startup", "screen this idea", "go/no-go on this idea", "kill or pursue". Sub-skill of `venture-exploration`. Calls `fermi` for sizing, `assumption-mapping` for hidden beliefs, optional `pre-mortem` / `adversarial-hat` for high-stakes ideas. Does NOT evaluate built products — for that use `reality-check`.