[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M7AKMHFC9DFNH682KFVSMS63":3,"skill-same:01M7AKMHFC9DFNH682KFVSMS63":77},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":19,"linkOnly":20,"markdownContent":21,"markdownBody":22,"frontMatter":23,"refName":32,"commitSha":33,"skillDirectory":34,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":35,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":36,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":37,"updatedAt":38,"install":39,"resources":52},"01M7AKMHFC9DFNH682KFVSMS63","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.","eunemi\u002FVERITAS","eunemi","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F240184030?v=4","01M7AJD3XAD17KCPCF2QK3KSRG","Arya Yadav","01M7AJD3XWPBYR38YB10ZWG3V2",1,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-15 14:19:17",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":15,"metadata":24,"description":7},{"author":25,"domain":26,"updated":27,"version":28,"category":29,"frameworks":30,"python-tools":31},"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","c95ec57d9f873031353b1e5e38d1ef802dad0b89","claude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi","AI Developer | @ VIT | Not gifted with talent, But gifted with a hunger.","2026-10-14 04:33:56",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":40,"prompt":50,"zipAvailable":51},[41,44,47],{"tool":42,"command":43},"npx","npx skills add eunemi\u002FVERITAS --skill ciso-advisor",{"tool":45,"command":46},"bunx","bunx skills add eunemi\u002FVERITAS --skill ciso-advisor",{"tool":48,"command":49},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add eunemi\u002FVERITAS --skill ciso-advisor","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002FSKILL.md",true,[53,59,63,67,73],{"path":54,"resourceType":55,"resourceTypeDesc":56,"sizeBytes":57,"sourceHtmlUrl":58},"references\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",16627,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002Freferences\u002Fcompliance_roadmap.md",{"path":60,"resourceType":55,"resourceTypeDesc":56,"sizeBytes":61,"sourceHtmlUrl":62},"references\u002Fincident_response.md",16423,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002Freferences\u002Fincident_response.md",{"path":64,"resourceType":55,"resourceTypeDesc":56,"sizeBytes":65,"sourceHtmlUrl":66},"references\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md",12079,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002Freferences\u002Fsecurity_strategy.md",{"path":68,"resourceType":69,"resourceTypeDesc":70,"sizeBytes":71,"sourceHtmlUrl":72},"scripts\u002Fcompliance_tracker.py","SCRIPT","脚本",31058,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002Fscripts\u002Fcompliance_tracker.py",{"path":74,"resourceType":69,"resourceTypeDesc":70,"sizeBytes":75,"sourceHtmlUrl":76},"scripts\u002Frisk_quantifier.py",28429,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fskills\u002Fciso-advisor\u002Fscripts\u002Frisk_quantifier.py",[78,85,92,99,106,113],{"skillNo":79,"name":80,"nameZh":6,"description":81,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":82,"categories":83,"keywords":84,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANMF0DGFCFDCD07BJXX5Z7","syllabus","Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search. Grill-me intake (syllabus input format + course audience + year range) plus a grouping forcing-options checkpoint before any search runs — so the reading list matches the course's level and recency need. Parses the syllabus to extract topics and learning outcomes, searches Consensus for recent peer-reviewed papers per topic, and produces a professionally formatted .docx with clickable Consensus links, plain-language summaries calibrated to audience level, and Bloom-higher-order discussion questions tied to course learning goals. Use when the user uploads a syllabus, course outline, or curriculum document and wants supplementary readings (e.g., 'create a reading list from this syllabus', 'find recent papers for my course') — even casual mentions with a syllabus attached should trigger this skill.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Fsyllabus\u002Fskills\u002Fsyllabus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":86,"name":87,"nameZh":6,"description":88,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":89,"categories":90,"keywords":91,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANKVPC0KKB210TJVTG1SX2","pulse","Multi-source recency research skill that takes the pulse of any topic across Reddit, Hacker News, the open web, and optionally X\u002FTwitter within a configurable recent window (default 30 days). Forcing intake clarifies topic specificity, angle (trend\u002Fsentiment\u002Fproblems\u002Fopportunities\u002Fcomparison), time window, and platform scope before searching. Returns a synthesized briefing with citations, engagement metrics, and cross-platform pattern analysis. Use when the user requests multi-source recency intelligence on a topic (e.g., 'pulse on [topic]', 'what's happening with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'current conversation about [topic]', 'take the pulse of [topic]', 'trending: [topic]', 'find me info on [topic]'), and for competitor research, trend discovery, tool comparisons, and audience sentiment analysis.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Fpulse\u002Fskills\u002Fpulse\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":93,"name":94,"nameZh":6,"description":95,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":96,"categories":97,"keywords":98,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANKGZCETFX968XETZ38TX8","patent","Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search \u002F freedom-to-operate \u002F competitive landscape \u002F acquisition diligence \u002F litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'). Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Fpatent\u002Fskills\u002Fpatent\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":100,"name":101,"nameZh":6,"description":102,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":103,"categories":104,"keywords":105,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANJXQFJ5JBMSHCNXQMC6YX","notebooklm","Browser automation skill for controlling Google's NotebookLM. Use when the user wants anything done in NotebookLM (e.g., 'open NotebookLM', 'check my [name] notebook', 'ask my notebook about X', 'add [source] to NotebookLM', 'generate a Video Overview from my notebook', 'use NotebookLM Studio'). Handles reading and querying notebooks, adding sources (URLs, text, files, YouTube links, synthesized content), generating Studio outputs (Audio\u002FVideo Overviews, Mind Maps, Reports incl. Briefing Doc\u002FStudy Guide\u002FFAQ, Flashcards, Quiz, slide decks, infographics — discover the exact set from the live Studio panel; the UI evolves fast), and creating new notebooks. Requires browser automation environment — fails gracefully when unavailable.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Fnotebooklm\u002Fskills\u002Fnotebooklm\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":107,"name":108,"nameZh":6,"description":109,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":110,"categories":111,"keywords":112,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANJJCRJKCDCZ2XS43H6JC5","litreview","Academic literature orientation skill that searches papers via free keyless APIs (PubMed E-utilities + OpenAlex) by default — with the Consensus MCP as an optional enhancement lane when connected — builds a strategic search plan using PICO (default) or SPIDER \u002F Decomposition \u002F hybrid as fallbacks, and synthesizes findings into a formatted Word (.docx) research guide. Grill-me intake (research question specificity + framework hint + tentative depth) before the recon search; a second forcing checkpoint after Phase 2 confirms framework + sub-areas + depth before searches consume budget. Configurable depth (5\u002F10\u002F20 queries) controls coverage vs. speed. Output is a 'launching pad' — an orientation guide that lets a researcher dive in confidently, not a finished review. Use when the user starts literature-oriented research (e.g., 'litreview on [topic]', 'literature review on [topic]', 'I'm starting a literature review on X', 'I'm writing a paper on X', 'help me research X', 'I'm doing research on X', 'can you help me research X'). Do NOT use for single one-off paper searches wanting a quick list — that's a plain PubMed\u002FOpenAlex (or Consensus) query.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Flitreview\u002Fskills\u002Flitreview\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":114,"name":115,"nameZh":6,"description":116,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":117,"categories":118,"keywords":119,"publishedAt":19},"01M7ANJ3ZXA27GY5NN39YWKSMP","grants","NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance\u002FInnovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget\u002Fscope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Feunemi\u002FVERITAS\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fresearch\u002Fgrants\u002Fskills\u002Fgrants\u002FSKILL.md",[],[]]