[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6MFEXHD2SFVQKFEQFJ9BJ7P":3,"skill-same:01M6MFEXHD2SFVQKFEQFJ9BJ7P":82},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":49,"linkOnly":50,"markdownContent":51,"markdownBody":52,"frontMatter":53,"refName":62,"commitSha":63,"skillDirectory":64,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":65,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":66,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":67,"install":68,"resources":81},"01M6MFEXHD2SFVQKFEQFJ9BJ7P","ciso-advisor",null,"Security leadership for growth-stage companies. Risk quantification in dollars, compliance roadmap (SOC 2\u002FISO 27001\u002FHIPAA\u002FGDPR), security architecture strategy, incident response leadership, and board-level security reporting. Use when building security programs, justifying security budget, selecting compliance frameworks, managing incidents, assessing vendor risk, or when user mentions CISO, security strategy, compliance roadmap, zero trust, or board security reporting.","JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing","JiayiV","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54466889?v=4","01M6JFJYYMRZ3QRGP9339JNQ2K","01M6JFJZ35KB0QVT50NAHPJA7G",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-02-claude-skills-main-gemini-skills-ciso-advisor-skill-d3ca62cf\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22,25],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000031","产品经理","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000040","财务",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48],"ciso","ciso advisor","advisor","roadmap","quantification","iso","leadership","incident","zero trust","trust","tracker","security","Budget","defense","zero-trust","soc","defense-in-depth","reporting","architecture","incident response","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: \"ciso-advisor\"\ndescription: \"Security leadership for growth-stage companies. Risk quantification in dollars, compliance roadmap (SOC 2\u002FISO 27001\u002FHIPAA\u002FGDPR), security architecture strategy, incident response leadership, and board-level security reporting. Use when building security programs, justifying security budget, selecting compliance frameworks, managing incidents, assessing vendor risk, or when user mentions CISO, security strategy, compliance roadmap, zero trust, or board security reporting.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  version: 1.0.0\n  author: Alireza Rezvani\n  category: c-level\n  domain: ciso-leadership\n  updated: 2026-03-05\n  python-tools: risk_quantifier.py, compliance_tracker.py\n  frameworks: risk-based-security, zero-trust, defense-in-depth\n---\n\n# CISO Advisor\n\nRisk-based security frameworks for growth-stage companies. Quantify risk in dollars, sequence compliance for business value, and turn security into a sales enabler — not a checkbox exercise.\n\n## Keywords\nCISO, security strategy, risk quantification, ALE, SLE, ARO, security posture, compliance roadmap, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, zero trust, defense in depth, incident response, board security reporting, vendor assessment, security budget, cyber risk, program maturity\n\n## Quick Start\n\n```bash\npython scripts\u002Frisk_quantifier.py      # Quantify security risks in $, prioritize by ALE\npython scripts\u002Fcompliance_tracker.py   # Map framework overlaps, estimate effort and cost\n```\n\n## Core Responsibilities\n\n### 1. Risk Quantification\nTranslate technical risks into business impact: revenue loss, regulatory fines, reputational damage. Use ALE to prioritize. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n**Formula:** `ALE = SLE × ARO` (Single Loss Expectancy × Annual Rate of Occurrence). Board language: \"This risk has $X expected annual loss. Mitigation costs $Y.\"\n\n### 2. Compliance Roadmap\nSequence for business value: SOC 2 Type I (3–6 mo) → SOC 2 Type II (12 mo) → ISO 27001 or HIPAA based on customer demand. See `references\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md` for timelines and costs.\n\n### 3. Security Architecture Strategy\nZero trust is a direction, not a product. Sequence: identity (IAM + MFA) → network segmentation → data classification. Defense in depth beats single-layer reliance. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n### 4. Incident Response Leadership\nThe CISO owns the executive IR playbook: communication decisions, escalation triggers, board notification, regulatory timelines. See `references\u002Fincident_response.md` for templates.\n\n### 5. Security Budget Justification\nFrame security spend as risk transfer cost. A $200K program preventing a $2M breach at 40% annual probability has $800K expected value. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n### 6. Vendor Security Assessment\nTier vendors by data access: Tier 1 (PII\u002FPHI) — full assessment annually; Tier 2 (business data) — questionnaire + review; Tier 3 (no data) — self-attestation.\n\n## Key Questions a CISO Asks\n\n- \"What's our crown jewel data, and who can access it right now?\"\n- \"If we had a breach today, what's our regulatory notification timeline?\"\n- \"Which compliance framework do our top 3 prospects actually require?\"\n- \"What's our blast radius if our largest SaaS vendor is compromised?\"\n- \"We spent $X on security last year — what specific risks did that reduce?\"\n\n## Security Metrics\n\n| Category | Metric | Target |\n|----------|--------|--------|\n| Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated risk \u002F total risk) | > 80% |\n| Detection | Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) | \u003C 24 hours |\n| Response | Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) | \u003C 4 hours |\n| Compliance | Controls passing audit | > 95% |\n| Hygiene | Critical patches within SLA | > 99% |\n| Access | Privileged accounts reviewed quarterly | 100% |\n| Vendor | Tier 1 vendors assessed annually | 100% |\n| Training | Phishing simulation click rate | \u003C 5% |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- Security budget justified by \"industry benchmarks\" rather than risk analysis\n- Certifications pursued before basic hygiene (patching, MFA, backups)\n- No documented asset inventory — can't protect what you don't know you have\n- IR plan exists but has never been tested (tabletop or live drill)\n- Security team reports to IT, not executive level — misaligned incentives\n- Single vendor for identity + endpoint + email — one breach, total exposure\n- Security questionnaire backlog > 30 days — silently losing enterprise deals\n\n## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles\n\n| When... | CISO works with... | To... |\n|---------|--------------------|-------|\n| Enterprise sales | CRO | Answer questionnaires, unblock deals |\n| New product features | CTO\u002FCPO | Threat modeling, security review |\n| Compliance budget | CFO | Size program against risk exposure |\n| Vendor contracts | Legal\u002FCOO | Security SLAs and right-to-audit |\n| M&A due diligence | CEO\u002FCFO | Target security posture assessment |\n| Incident occurs | CEO\u002FLegal | Response coordination and disclosure |\n\n## Detailed References\n- `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md` — risk-based security, zero trust, maturity model, board reporting\n- `references\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md` — SOC 2\u002FISO 27001\u002FHIPAA\u002FGDPR timelines, costs, overlaps\n- `references\u002Fincident_response.md` — executive IR playbook, communication templates, tabletop design\n\n\n## Proactive Triggers\n\nSurface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:\n- No security audit in 12+ months → schedule one before a customer asks\n- Enterprise deal requires SOC 2 and you don't have it → compliance roadmap needed now\n- New market expansion planned → check data residency and privacy requirements\n- Key system has no access logging → flag as compliance and forensic risk\n- Vendor with access to sensitive data hasn't been assessed → vendor security review\n\n## Output Artifacts\n\n| Request | You Produce |\n|---------|-------------|\n| \"Assess our security posture\" | Risk register with quantified business impact (ALE) |\n| \"We need SOC 2\" | Compliance roadmap with timeline, cost, effort, quick wins |\n| \"Prep for security audit\" | Gap analysis against target framework with remediation plan |\n| \"We had an incident\" | IR coordination plan + communication templates |\n| \"Security board section\" | Risk posture summary, compliance status, incident report |\n\n## Reasoning Technique: Risk-Based Reasoning\n\nEvaluate every decision through probability × impact. Quantify risks in business terms (dollars, not severity labels). Prioritize by expected annual loss.\n\n## Communication\n\nAll output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `..\u002Fagent-protocol\u002FSKILL.md`).\n- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring\n- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role\n- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor\n- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision\n- Results only. Every finding tagged: ? verified, ? medium, ? assumed.\n\n## Context Integration\n\n- **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists)\n- **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)\n- **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`\n","# CISO Advisor\n\nRisk-based security frameworks for growth-stage companies. Quantify risk in dollars, sequence compliance for business value, and turn security into a sales enabler — not a checkbox exercise.\n\n## Keywords\nCISO, security strategy, risk quantification, ALE, SLE, ARO, security posture, compliance roadmap, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, zero trust, defense in depth, incident response, board security reporting, vendor assessment, security budget, cyber risk, program maturity\n\n## Quick Start\n\n```bash\npython scripts\u002Frisk_quantifier.py      # Quantify security risks in $, prioritize by ALE\npython scripts\u002Fcompliance_tracker.py   # Map framework overlaps, estimate effort and cost\n```\n\n## Core Responsibilities\n\n### 1. Risk Quantification\nTranslate technical risks into business impact: revenue loss, regulatory fines, reputational damage. Use ALE to prioritize. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n**Formula:** `ALE = SLE × ARO` (Single Loss Expectancy × Annual Rate of Occurrence). Board language: \"This risk has $X expected annual loss. Mitigation costs $Y.\"\n\n### 2. Compliance Roadmap\nSequence for business value: SOC 2 Type I (3–6 mo) → SOC 2 Type II (12 mo) → ISO 27001 or HIPAA based on customer demand. See `references\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md` for timelines and costs.\n\n### 3. Security Architecture Strategy\nZero trust is a direction, not a product. Sequence: identity (IAM + MFA) → network segmentation → data classification. Defense in depth beats single-layer reliance. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n### 4. Incident Response Leadership\nThe CISO owns the executive IR playbook: communication decisions, escalation triggers, board notification, regulatory timelines. See `references\u002Fincident_response.md` for templates.\n\n### 5. Security Budget Justification\nFrame security spend as risk transfer cost. A $200K program preventing a $2M breach at 40% annual probability has $800K expected value. See `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md`.\n\n### 6. Vendor Security Assessment\nTier vendors by data access: Tier 1 (PII\u002FPHI) — full assessment annually; Tier 2 (business data) — questionnaire + review; Tier 3 (no data) — self-attestation.\n\n## Key Questions a CISO Asks\n\n- \"What's our crown jewel data, and who can access it right now?\"\n- \"If we had a breach today, what's our regulatory notification timeline?\"\n- \"Which compliance framework do our top 3 prospects actually require?\"\n- \"What's our blast radius if our largest SaaS vendor is compromised?\"\n- \"We spent $X on security last year — what specific risks did that reduce?\"\n\n## Security Metrics\n\n| Category | Metric | Target |\n|----------|--------|--------|\n| Risk | ALE coverage (mitigated risk \u002F total risk) | > 80% |\n| Detection | Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) | \u003C 24 hours |\n| Response | Mean Time to Respond (MTTR) | \u003C 4 hours |\n| Compliance | Controls passing audit | > 95% |\n| Hygiene | Critical patches within SLA | > 99% |\n| Access | Privileged accounts reviewed quarterly | 100% |\n| Vendor | Tier 1 vendors assessed annually | 100% |\n| Training | Phishing simulation click rate | \u003C 5% |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- Security budget justified by \"industry benchmarks\" rather than risk analysis\n- Certifications pursued before basic hygiene (patching, MFA, backups)\n- No documented asset inventory — can't protect what you don't know you have\n- IR plan exists but has never been tested (tabletop or live drill)\n- Security team reports to IT, not executive level — misaligned incentives\n- Single vendor for identity + endpoint + email — one breach, total exposure\n- Security questionnaire backlog > 30 days — silently losing enterprise deals\n\n## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles\n\n| When... | CISO works with... | To... |\n|---------|--------------------|-------|\n| Enterprise sales | CRO | Answer questionnaires, unblock deals |\n| New product features | CTO\u002FCPO | Threat modeling, security review |\n| Compliance budget | CFO | Size program against risk exposure |\n| Vendor contracts | Legal\u002FCOO | Security SLAs and right-to-audit |\n| M&A due diligence | CEO\u002FCFO | Target security posture assessment |\n| Incident occurs | CEO\u002FLegal | Response coordination and disclosure |\n\n## Detailed References\n- `references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md` — risk-based security, zero trust, maturity model, board reporting\n- `references\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md` — SOC 2\u002FISO 27001\u002FHIPAA\u002FGDPR timelines, costs, overlaps\n- `references\u002Fincident_response.md` — executive IR playbook, communication templates, tabletop design\n\n\n## Proactive Triggers\n\nSurface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:\n- No security audit in 12+ months → schedule one before a customer asks\n- Enterprise deal requires SOC 2 and you don't have it → compliance roadmap needed now\n- New market expansion planned → check data residency and privacy requirements\n- Key system has no access logging → flag as compliance and forensic risk\n- Vendor with access to sensitive data hasn't been assessed → vendor security review\n\n## Output Artifacts\n\n| Request | You Produce |\n|---------|-------------|\n| \"Assess our security posture\" | Risk register with quantified business impact (ALE) |\n| \"We need SOC 2\" | Compliance roadmap with timeline, cost, effort, quick wins |\n| \"Prep for security audit\" | Gap analysis against target framework with remediation plan |\n| \"We had an incident\" | IR coordination plan + communication templates |\n| \"Security board section\" | Risk posture summary, compliance status, incident report |\n\n## Reasoning Technique: Risk-Based Reasoning\n\nEvaluate every decision through probability × impact. Quantify risks in business terms (dollars, not severity labels). Prioritize by expected annual loss.\n\n## Communication\n\nAll output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `..\u002Fagent-protocol\u002FSKILL.md`).\n- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring\n- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role\n- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor\n- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision\n- Results only. Every finding tagged: ? verified, ? medium, ? assumed.\n\n## Context Integration\n\n- **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists)\n- **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)\n- **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`\n",{"name":5,"license":14,"metadata":54,"description":7},{"author":55,"domain":56,"updated":57,"version":58,"category":59,"frameworks":60,"python-tools":61},"Alireza Rezvani","ciso-leadership",1772668800000,"1.0.0","c-level","risk-based-security, zero-trust, defense-in-depth","risk_quantifier.py, compliance_tracker.py","main","068c2486ccc0f8d200a3db4d21ec137064eda3b4","skills\u002Fpublic-02-claude-skills-main-gemini-skills-ciso-advisor-skill-d3ca62cf","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV","2026-08-25 16:30:52",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":69,"prompt":79,"zipAvailable":80},[70,73,76],{"tool":71,"command":72},"npx","npx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill ciso-advisor",{"tool":74,"command":75},"bunx","bunx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill ciso-advisor",{"tool":77,"command":78},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add JiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing --skill ciso-advisor","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-02-claude-skills-main-gemini-skills-ciso-advisor-skill-d3ca62cf\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[83,109,137,170,198,231],{"skillNo":84,"name":85,"nameZh":6,"description":86,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":87,"categories":88,"keywords":89,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NN9PJS9NHWPDG4QP93BP8F","webmcpify","Make a web app agent-ready — propose a WebMCP tool manifest, integrate, verify in a real browser, heal; unrelated code stays untouched. Use for \"webmcpify\", \"add WebMCP\", or \"expose app actions to AI agents\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwebmcpify\u002FSKILL.md",[],[85,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108],"github","ai agents","web","notes","code","browser","https","actions","manifest","inventory","verify","tool","use","ready","unrelated","app","scope","for","webmcp",{"skillNo":110,"name":111,"nameZh":6,"description":112,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":113,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":114,"categories":115,"keywords":116,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NN6KZE5RBN6NGHN2WXV1RE","vardoger-analyze","Use when the user asks to personalize the GitHub Copilot CLI assistant, adapt Copilot to their style, use vardoger, or analyze their Copilot CLI conversation history. Reads the local session directory at `~\u002F.copilot\u002Fsession-state\u002F`, extracts recurring preferences and conventions, and writes a fenced personalization block into `~\u002F.copilot\u002Fcopilot-instructions.md`. Runs entirely on the user's machine via the local `vardoger` CLI (`pipx install vardoger`); no network calls and no uploads. Triggers: 'personalize my copilot', 'analyze my copilot history', 'tailor copilot to me', 'run vardoger', 'update my copilot instructions from history', 'make copilot learn my style'.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvardoger-analyze\u002FSKILL.md",[],[117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136],"vardoger analyze","analyze","directory","cli","github copilot","copilot","run","update","learn","network","my style","install","conversation","me","local","github copilot cli","pipx","my","at","copilot instructions",{"skillNo":138,"name":139,"nameZh":6,"description":140,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":141,"categories":142,"keywords":151,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NN3CZGQP3XAJ04BM1NNYGT","transloadit-media-processing","Process media files (video, audio, images, documents) using Transloadit. Use when asked to encode video to HLS\u002FMP4, generate thumbnails, resize or watermark images, extract audio, concatenate clips, add subtitles, OCR documents, or run any media processing pipeline. Covers 86+ processing robots for file transformation at scale.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftransloadit-media-processing\u002FSKILL.md",[143,148],{"categoryNo":144,"categoryName":145,"taxonomyType":146,"taxonomyTypeDesc":147},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000016","图像与多媒体","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":149,"categoryName":150,"taxonomyType":146,"taxonomyTypeDesc":147},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,102,165,166,167,168,107,169],"transloadit media processing","Media","media processing","processing","MCP","mcp server","documents","subtitles","pipeline","ocr","Video","Audio","mp4","images","files","transformation","free","hls",{"skillNo":171,"name":172,"nameZh":6,"description":173,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":174,"categories":175,"keywords":179,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NN28E92F9GH4WFYQ2H1Y15","terraform-azurerm-set-diff-analyzer","Analyze Terraform plan JSON output for AzureRM Provider to distinguish between false-positive diffs (order-only changes in Set-type attributes) and actual resource changes. Use when reviewing terraform plan output for Azure resources like Application Gateway, Load Balancer, Firewall, Front Door, NSG, and other resources with Set-type attributes that cause spurious diffs due to internal ordering changes.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fterraform-azurerm-set-diff-analyzer\u002FSKILL.md",[176],{"categoryNo":177,"categoryName":178,"taxonomyType":146,"taxonomyTypeDesc":147},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000011","运维与部署",[180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,102,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,107],"terraform","SET","terraform azurerm set diff analyzer","diff","analyzer","diffs","azure","gateway","firewall","only","resource changes","provider","resources","load balancer","attributes","front","load","balancer",{"skillNo":199,"name":200,"nameZh":6,"description":201,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":202,"categories":203,"keywords":213,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NN1QMH2TDYWTH3XY3N5XPV","technical-job-search","Use this skill when a software engineer asks for help with job search tasks: parsing or analyzing a job description, tailoring a CV\u002Fresume, writing a cover letter, evaluating a job offer, or drafting a post-interview follow-up email. Do not activate for general career advice unrelated to an active job search action.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftechnical-job-search\u002FSKILL.md",[204,207,210],{"categoryNo":205,"categoryName":206,"taxonomyType":146,"taxonomyTypeDesc":147},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":208,"categoryName":209,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",{"categoryNo":211,"categoryName":212,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,118,222,102,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,107,230],"search","Job Search","technical job search","technical","writing","tasks","email","parsing","interview","up","engineer","general","activate","do","task","cv","letter",{"skillNo":232,"name":233,"nameZh":6,"description":234,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":235,"categories":236,"keywords":237,"publishedAt":49},"01M6NMZFA67XYS1GS09WT42235","steno-mode","Shorthand-first response compression that cuts ~40% of response tokens while preserving technical precision and exact literals. Use when the user says \"steno mode\", \"shorthand mode\", \"compressed responses\", \"token reduction\", \"brief structured output\", or invokes \u002Fsteno. Supports four compression levels: lite, brief, court, machine. Do not trigger for requests needing polished prose such as onboarding\u002Ftutorial content, stakeholder or customer-facing copy, or teaching-focused explanations.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJiayiV\u002Fquestion_mixing\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsteno-mode\u002FSKILL.md",[],[238,239,240,241,242,217,243,102,227,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,107,253],"steno mode","mode","customer","brief","first","tutorial","teaching","tokens","as","trigger","structured output","machine","output","court","requests","response compression"]