Results for “risk-review”

Analyze contracts for risks, obligations, key clauses, and generate structured risk reports with severity ratings. Use when the user requests contract review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

Agent profile for PPC and paid-growth risk review before changing ads, budgets, bidding, tracking, or landing pages.

Review docs, tool output, skills, and memory candidates for prompt-injection risk.

Reviews trading strategy drafts for edge plausibility, overfitting risk, sample size adequacy, and execution realism, outputting PASS/REVISE/REJECT verdicts with confidence scores.

Audits iOS app source code and metadata to identify App Store rejection risks and optimization opportunities, producing a structured compliance report.

Reviews closed trades, partial exits, and monthly trade aggregates for process adherence, risk discipline, execution quality, and evidence-based trading behavior patterns.

Creates safety alert decks with hazard stripes, tiered cards, and policy code blocks for incident reviews and risk communication.

Review pull requests or audit repositories for correctness, security, performance, test risk, architecture, dependencies, developer experience, documentation, and grounded product direction. Use for code review, repository audits, evidence-backed findings, false-positive vetting, risk assessment, prioritization, or deciding which improvements should become implementation plans.

Review the current git diff for correctness, security, and performance risks before you commit. Produces severity-ranked findings with the exact file:line and a suggested fix. Pure Claude Code — no MCP, no signup.

Defensive review of an LLM/agent application for OWASP-LLM-style risks — prompt injection, unsafe tool calls, excessive agency, and PII/secret leakage. Reads your code, flags issues with file:line. Pure Claude Code, no signup.

Automates code review for pull requests across 14+ languages, analyzing complexity, risk, code quality, and generating structured review reports.

Assess launch readiness across product, engineering, support, sales, marketing, risk, and measurement.

Use this when reviewing a feature, service, API, auth design, integration, job system, or deployment plan for security weaknesses, unsafe trust assumptions, input risks, or privilege issues.

Use this when reviewing a full system design, architecture plan, or cross-service implementation for operational risk, boundary clarity, security posture, deployability, and maintainability.

Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.

Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.

Use to build an account's cumulative support record ahead of a renewal or QBR, so the review reflects the whole relationship rather than the most recent ticket. Trigger for "prepare for this renewal", "what has this account's support experience been", "which accounts are at risk before renewal", QBR preparation, account health review, or an account that renewed badly with no warning.

Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements.

Audits Rust codebases for safe/unsafe boundary issues, memory safety in unsafe blocks, concurrency hazards, panic-induced DoS, FFI safety, and async runtime mistakes.

Performs security-focused differential review of code changes (PRs, commits, diffs), adapting analysis depth to codebase size and generating comprehensive markdown reports.

Analyzes .NET project code coverage and CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) scores to identify risk hotspots, methods blocking coverage gains, and prioritize where to add tests.

Conducts systematic security code reviews to identify exploitable vulnerabilities, reporting only high-confidence findings after researching the codebase.

Broad risk assessment — key-person, technical, regulatory, competitive, financial, and execution risks beyond product/market

Use when evaluating potential risks before making decisions, starting initiatives, or implementing changes. This skill provides a structured risk assessment framework for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks across all domains.

Conduct systematic access reviews and certifications to ensure users have appropriate access rights aligned with their roles, covering review campaign design, reviewer selection, risk-based prioritization, and remediation tracking for compliance with SOX, HIPAA, and PCI DSS.

任意のリポジトリ（アプリ/ライブラリ/運用スクリプト/コンテンツ等）の種別を判定し、 種別に応じた評価軸（品質・テスト・依存、または検証ゲート等）で**実測ベース**評価して優先度付き改善案を出すスキル。 言語非依存（Python は AST 詳細・その他は近似と明記）。ベンダーコード混入・除外の空振り・偽の成功終了コードなど、 「黙って間違った数値を出す」失敗を構造的に封じる。 「リポジトリレビューして」「コード品質を評価して」「このプロジェクトを診断して」「包括レビュー」「repo-review」 「アーキテクチャ評価して」等で発火。/repo-review でも起動。

Reviews authorized diffs for auth, input, filesystem, network, secrets, parsers, injection, CI/CD, and supply-chain regressions.

Identify, assess, and mitigate project risks across technical, scope, dependency, and timeline categories using a structured register and escalation rules.

Conduct a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology, from scoping and threat identification to risk determination and communication.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use when code needs correctness, security, performance, maintainability, or hallucinated-API review; skip when no review is needed.