LLM and AI application security testing — prompt injection, jailbreak resistance, OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025), RAG and agent/tool-use security, model supply chain, and AI red teaming for authorized assessments
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。
Cyber threat intelligence production — the intelligence cycle, IOC extraction/normalization/enrichment, STIX/TAXII and MISP, structured analytic models (Diamond, Kill Chain, ATT&CK), source scoring, actor/campaign tracking, and finished intelligence reporting
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Enable Claude to turn raw observations into finished intelligence — assessments a defender can act on and decision-makers can trust. This skill governs the whole intelligence cycle: framing requirements, collecting and normalizing indicators, applying structured analytic models, scoring sources and confidence, tracking actors and campaigns, and disseminating in machine-readable (STIX/MISP) and human-readable (report) form.
This is distinct from Skill 06 (Threat Hunting): hunting uses intelligence to search an environment for adversary activity; this skill produces and manages the intelligence itself. It is also distinct from Skill 05 (Malware Analysis), which produces the technical facts this skill contextualizes and disseminates.
This skill activates when the user asks about:
python3 --version # 3.10+; standard library only for the core script
pip install requests # optional — only for --enrich (live reputation/WHOIS lookups)
Optional enhanced tooling:
misp / PyMISP — event creation and sharing on a MISP instancestix2 / taxii2-client (OASIS) — richer STIX object modeling and TAXII push/pullopencti — CTI platform for actor/campaign knowledge-graph managementHandling live malware and indicators: treat sample hashes, live C2 domains, and payload URLs as hostile. Keep them defanged in prose (
hxxp://,evil[.]com), never resolve or fetch them from a production host, and mark sharing scope with TLP before dissemination.
Anchor every task to where it sits in the cycle, and never skip framing:
State which stage a request touches and what the governing PIR is before producing output.
When the user provides a report, email, or blob and asks for indicators:
hxxp, [.], (dot), [at], \.; internally canonicalize; always emit defanged in prose and clean values only inside structured/quoted fields.example.com/documentation ranges) unless the user asks to keep them.scripts/cti_processor.py for the automatable extraction/defang/normalize/dedup/STIX-export steps; apply human judgment before publishing anything as a confirmed indicator.Choose the model that fits the question; layer them rather than treating them as alternatives:
Separate how much you trust the source from how much you trust the claim, and make both explicit:
A–F (Reliable → Cannot be judged) × information credibility 1–6 (Confirmed → Cannot be judged). Report as e.g. B2.TLP:RED / AMBER+STRICT / AMBER / GREEN / CLEAR) — the marking is the sharing contract; state it before distributing.# Threat Intelligence Product
**Title:** [Short descriptive title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **TLP:** [RED / AMBER+STRICT / AMBER / GREEN / CLEAR]
**Product type:** [Tactical / Operational / Strategic]
**PIR addressed:** [the requirement this answers]
---
## Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
[2–3 sentences of assessment, with an estimative-language judgment and an overall confidence level.]
## Key Assessments
- [Assessment 1] — *Confidence: [Low/Med/High]* — *Source: [Admiralty e.g. B2]*
- [Assessment 2] — ...
## Diamond / Kill Chain Summary
| Vertex / Phase | Observed |
|----------------|----------|
| Adversary | [cluster/actor + attribution confidence] |
| Capability | [malware/tooling + ATT&CK techniques] |
| Infrastructure | [C2/staging + defanged] |
| Victim | [sector/geo/asset] |
| Earliest detection opportunity | [kill-chain phase] |
## Indicators of Compromise
| Indicator (defanged) | Type | Kill-chain phase | Confidence | First seen | Source |
|----------------------|------|------------------|------------|-----------|--------|
## ATT&CK Techniques Observed
| Tactic | Technique (ID) | Evidence |
|--------|----------------|----------|
## Assumptions & Intelligence Gaps
- [Assumption / gap and how it affects confidence]
## Recommended Actions
- [Detection to deploy → Skill 12 / 15] · [Hunt to run → Skill 06] · [Emulation to validate → Skill 22]
cti_processor.py# Extract, defang, normalize, dedup IOCs from a report and print a summary
python scripts/cti_processor.py --input report.txt
# Emit a STIX 2.1 bundle and a MISP-style event
python scripts/cti_processor.py --input report.txt --stix iocs_stix.json --misp event.json
# Tag every indicator with a TLP marking and an Admiralty source score
python scripts/cti_processor.py --input report.txt --tlp AMBER --source-score B2 --output iocs.json
# Optional live enrichment (adds network calls; requires `requests`)
python scripts/cti_processor.py --input report.txt --enrich --output iocs.json
# Self-contained demonstration on a bundled sample report
python scripts/cti_processor.py --demo
Extracts IPv4/IPv6, domains, URLs, emails, MD5/SHA1/SHA256 hashes, CVEs, ASNs, and crypto addresses; refangs mixed defang styles, canonicalizes and validates, drops private/documentation noise, deduplicates, and exports STIX 2.1 / MISP-style JSON with TLP and Admiralty scoring. Extraction and confidence are heuristic — verify before publishing an indicator as confirmed.
| Condition | Next Skill |
|---|---|
| Indicators ready to search an environment | → Skill 06 (Threat Hunting) |
| A malware sample underlies the reporting | → Skill 05 (Malware Analysis) for the technical facts |
| A referenced CVE needs prioritization | → Skill 02 (Vulnerability Scanner) for CVSS/EPSS/KEV |
| Indicators/TTPs need to become detections | → Skill 12 (Log Analysis / Sigma) and Skill 15 (Blue Team) |
| Assessments should drive an emulation | → Skill 22 (Purple Team) to validate detection of the actor's TTPs |
| CTI shapes an offensive engagement's threat model | → Skill 14 (Red Team Operations) |
| Strategic risk framing for leadership/compliance | → Skill 19 (GRC & Compliance) |
| Intelligence produced during live IR | ← Skill 07 (Incident Response) |
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
LLM and AI application security testing — prompt injection, jailbreak resistance, OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025), RAG and agent/tool-use security, model supply chain, and AI red teaming for authorized assessments
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。
System hardening, detection engineering, security baseline monitoring, patch management, defense-in-depth architecture, and security posture improvement
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。
AWS/Azure/GCP security auditing, container and Kubernetes hardening, Infrastructure as Code scanning, and cloud compliance assessment
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。
SSL/TLS auditing, cipher suite analysis, hash algorithm identification, encryption implementation review, and cryptographic weakness detection in code
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。
SOC alert triage, incident playbook automation, escalation workflows, shift reporting, and SOC KPI tracking
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。
Proof-of-concept development, payload crafting, shellcode analysis, and exploitation technique research for authorized security testing
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。