f153f969a0
Add /ultraresearch-local for structured research combining local codebase analysis with external knowledge via parallel agent swarms. Produces research briefs with triangulation, confidence ratings, and source quality assessment. New command: /ultraresearch-local with modes --quick, --local, --external, --fg. New agents: research-orchestrator (opus), docs-researcher, community-researcher, security-researcher, contrarian-researcher, gemini-bridge (all sonnet). New template: research-brief-template.md. Integration: --research flag in /ultraplan-local accepts pre-built research briefs (up to 3), enriches the interview and exploration phases. Planning orchestrator cross-references brief findings during synthesis. Design principle: Context Engineering — right information to right agent at right time. Research briefs are structured artifacts in the pipeline: ultraresearch → brief → ultraplan --research → plan → ultraexecute. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
60 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: security:posture
|
|
description: Quick security posture assessment — scorecard with grade, coverage status, and top recommendations
|
|
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
|
|
model: sonnet
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# /security posture
|
|
|
|
Quick security scorecard — grade, coverage, top recommendations. Deterministic scanner, <2 sec.
|
|
|
|
## Step 1: Run Scanner
|
|
|
|
Run the deterministic posture scanner:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
node <this plugin's scanners/posture-scanner.mjs> [target-path or cwd]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Parse the JSON output. The result contains:
|
|
- `scoring.grade` (A-F), `scoring.pass_rate`, `scoring.pass/partial/fail/na`
|
|
- `risk.score` (0-100), `risk.band`, `risk.verdict`
|
|
- `categories[]` with id, name, status, findings_count, evidence
|
|
- `findings[]` with severity, title, description, owasp, recommendation
|
|
- `counts` with critical/high/medium/low/info
|
|
|
|
## Step 2: Format Scorecard
|
|
|
|
Present the results as a scorecard:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
# Security Posture — [project name]
|
|
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
|
|-------|-------|
|
|
| **Grade** | [A-F] |
|
|
| **Risk Score** | [N]/100 ([band]) |
|
|
| **Verdict** | [verdict] |
|
|
| **Duration** | [N]ms |
|
|
|
|
## Category Scorecard
|
|
|
|
| # | Category | Status | Findings |
|
|
|---|----------|--------|----------|
|
|
[one row per category, status as PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL/N-A]
|
|
|
|
## Top Findings
|
|
|
|
[List critical and high findings with title, file, and recommendation]
|
|
|
|
## Quick Wins
|
|
|
|
[List low-effort fixes from findings]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Step 3: Closing
|
|
|
|
- Grade A/B: "Posture solid. Re-run after major changes."
|
|
- Grade C: "Run `/security audit` for detailed findings."
|
|
- Grade D/F: "Significant exposure. Run `/security audit` before production use."
|