「gap」の検索結果

Design and execute a social engineering penetration test including phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical pretexting campaigns to measure human security resilience and identify training gaps.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Auditing Microsoft Entra ID (Azure Active Directory) configuration to identify risky authentication policies, overly permissive role assignments, stale accounts, conditional access gaps, and guest user risks using AzureAD PowerShell, Microsoft Graph API, and ScoutSuite.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes intrusion activity against the Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain framework to identify which phases an adversary has completed, where defenses succeeded or failed, and what controls would have interrupted the attack at earlier phases. Use when conducting post-incident analysis, building prevention-focused security controls, or mapping detection gaps to kill chain phases. Activates for requests involving kill chain analysis, intrusion kill chain, attack phase mapping, or Lockheed Martin kill chain framework.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review and fix OpenMetadata connector documentation against JSON schema and source code. Validates availableFeatures, permissions, yaml.mdx configuration, and overall completeness. Automatically fixes gaps.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate or materially revise a repository-local test plan, QA plan, acceptance matrix, or regression checklist on explicit request or when one concrete testability gap blocks formal DEFINE; do not trigger for ordinary implementation, test execution, TDD, review, or completion claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Resolve one exact official/current documentation gap when the user requests source verification or a version-sensitive API/SDK/provider/framework question can materially change the current decision; do not trigger for every implementation decision, ordinary framework code, local business logic, or broad research.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plan and synthesize a source-grounded multi-paper literature review. Use for systematic literature reviews, survey matrices, inclusion/exclusion criteria, research gaps, or "review the literature on X" requests; do not use for reviewing one paper, ordinary web summaries, citation formatting only, or medical/legal conclusions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Research one bounded mature-project/prior-art question when the user explicitly asks how established projects handle it or ROSE names a decision-shaping prior-art gap; do not trigger automatically for IDEATE, DEFINE, BUILD, implementation, local review, or every design choice.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Elite UX/UI & Advanced GSAP Motion Engineer. Enforces Python-driven true randomization for layout variance, strict AIDA page structure, wide editorial typography (bans 6-line wraps), gapless bento grids, strict GSAP ScrollTriggers (pinning, stacking, scrubbing), inline micro-images, and massive section spacing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Hunt Session Management vulnerabilities — session fixation (no regeneration on login), insufficient invalidation on logout / password-change / email-change, predictable or low-entropy session IDs, JWT-as-session with no exp/revocation, refresh-token rotation/reuse-detection gaps, OAuth/SSO session linkage, device-bound-session (DBSC) downgrade, and cookie attribute issues (Secure/HttpOnly/SameSite/__Host-). Validate with TWO real sessions (attacker A + victim B), body-diff every 200, and OOB confirmation for theft chains. Medium to Critical (fixation→admin hijack, no-invalidation→persistent ATO).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Deep-dive offensive methodology for dependency confusion and namespace attacks across all major package ecosystems. Covers npm scope confusion exploiting the gap between public and private scoped packages and .npmrc misconfigurations where registry mappings fail to pin internal scopes exclusively. Addresses PyPI namespace attacks through --extra-index-url resolution ordering, NuGet feed priority exploitation when multiple package sources are configured without clear directives, Maven and Gradle repository ordering where artifact resolution traverses repositories sequentially, Go module proxy abuse through GOPROXY misconfiguration, Ruby gems namespace squatting, and Docker image tag confusion with unqualified image references. Provides complete proof-of-concept methodology using safe callbacks including DNS canary via interactsh or Burp Collaborator and HTTP beacon with no destructive payload. Covers reconnaissance techniques for discovering internal package names through GitHub repository analysis, error ...

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Enterprise-grade code review agent. Reviews PRs, diffs, or code files for security vulnerabilities, performance issues, error handling gaps, architecture smells, and test coverage. Works with any language, any repo, no dependencies required.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates current go-to-market positioning versus the market. Analyzes website, content, pricing, ICP alignment, and competitive landscape to identify gaps, opportunities, and produce a GTM health report.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Find keyword gaps, SERP opportunities, and low-competition high-intent keywords

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit whether a "current product focus receipt" (Decision/Now/Why-now/Evidence/Not-now/Cut-suspend/First-visible-proof/ Acceptance-gate/Kill-revisit-trigger/Owner/Review-date) and the work order it gates state a real, testable decision and a real agent launch — not planning-placeholder prose that sounds like an assignment but can't be proven. Use when deciding whether to launch an agent chain against a milestone or a stated "focus," when a work order lacks explicit input/output/owner/proof-gate, or when an acceptance gate would only prove a cached UI state instead of daemon truth. NOT for distinguishing roadmap items from energy-driven sidequests (legible-roadmap-with-sidequests), reviewing a PRD/prototype for product-completeness gaps like cold start or pricing (product-reality-reviewer), or accepting already-finished work against a personal acceptance bar (port-daddy-user-surrogate-pm-review).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designs or reviews provenance-bound DAG attempt traces, coverage gaps, cancellation, and unknown-effect reconciliation. NOT for claiming execution completeness, deployment monitoring, or root-cause proof.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plans migrations from Zscaler ZIA/ZPA, Palo Alto, legacy VPN, SWG, or SASE stacks to Cloudflare One. Use for migration assessments, policy mapping, rollout plans, and parity/gap analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Own whether a multi-document product-architecture binder is internally consistent, complete against its stated customer/contingency/architecture coverage, and honest about which older product ambitions it has absorbed, superseded, deferred, contradicted, orphaned, or rejected. Use when running a binder Architect of Record pass, before an implementation chain cites a binder chapter as ready, when a proof-gate owner is missing, or when reconciling the binder against the older ambition corpus (website, plans, examples, ADRs). NOT for auditing a single Claude Skill bundle's structure or frontmatter (use skill-hygiene), rendering a single-PM accept/reject verdict on one finished deliverable (use port-daddy-user-surrogate-pm-review), or sequencing/stewarding a roadmap's sidequests once a gap or operator decision has been surfaced (use legible-roadmap-with-sidequests).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。