菜单
Use when assessing the maturity of a CTI programme, the user asks "how mature is our CTI?" / "what should we improve next?", or wants a benchmark against the five-level model across six dimensions.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when documenting a named campaign across time and victims, the user asks to start or update a campaign record, or another skill identified a multi-incident cluster that warrants formal tracking. Provides the template (timeline, attribution, victimology, attack chain, Diamond Model mapping, IOC clusters) and the lifecycle from active to historical.
Use as the default entry point for any CTI request that doesn't name a specific skill. Activates when a user asks to investigate an indicator, profile a threat actor, write an assessment, enrich IOCs, or build detection rules. Routes to the right investigation or analysis skill, then auto-applies rigor skills (source rating, TLP, confidence, likelihood) on the output.
Use when the user wants to configure API keys for the CTI skills pack, asks "how do I set up keys", "configure VirusTotal", "add my Shodan key", or runs /cti-setup. Walks through API key configuration inside Claude Code without needing to run a shell script. Also handles re-running setup, adding individual keys, and verifying that configured keys work.
Use when a user asks to investigate, check, or characterize a domain or hostname. Chains VirusTotal, URLScan (search existing scans), Shodan (DNS resolve + host), OTX, ransomware.live (victim-status sweep), and optionally Censys. Returns reputation, resolution, hosting fingerprint, ransomware-claim status, and pivot candidates. Invoked by /cti-orchestrator when the target is a domain.
Use when a user asks to check, identify, or characterize a file hash (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256). Chains VirusTotal and OTX, optionally triggers /malware-analysis for deeper behavioral review. Returns detection signals, malware family, behavioral tags, and pivot candidates (communicating IPs, dropped files). Invoked by /cti-orchestrator when the target is a hash.
Indicator pivoting methodology — how to use one known indicator to discover related infrastructure across the IOC graph. Decision tree by indicator type with concrete `/lookup-*` commands per pivot, a worked multi-hop example, pivot-quality scoring, and routing into the rigor pipeline. Use when the user asks "what else is connected to this IP / domain / hash / cert / actor?", needs to expand a single seed IOC into a campaign cluster, or wants the canonical reference for graph-walking IOCs.
| name | maturity-assessment |
| description | Use when assessing the maturity of a CTI programme, the user asks "how mature is our CTI?" / "what should we improve next?", or wants a benchmark against the five-level model across six dimensions. |
| user-invocable | true |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0.0"} |
| Level | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ad-hoc | No formal CTI function. Reactive, incident-driven. Intelligence is incidental. |
| 2 | Emerging | Basic CTI capability. Some collection, limited analysis. Primarily tactical (IOC feeds). |
| 3 | Defined | Formal CTI function with documented processes. Strategic, operational, and tactical output. PIRs defined. |
| 4 | Managed | Mature CTI programme. Stakeholder-driven, measured effectiveness, feedback loops. Proactive intelligence. |
| 5 | Optimized | Intelligence-driven organisation. CTI informs all security decisions. Continuous improvement, advanced analytics, community contribution. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | No systematic collection. Ad-hoc Google searches when incidents occur. |
| 2 | 1-2 threat feeds (usually free). No collection plan. |
| 3 | Multiple sources across OSINT, commercial feeds, ISACs. Collection plan exists. Source assessment applied. |
| 4 | Comprehensive collection mapped to PIRs. Source quality tracked. Dark web monitoring. Automated collection pipelines. |
| 5 | Full-spectrum collection. HUMINT relationships (ISACs, vendors, government). Predictive collection based on emerging threat indicators. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | No analysis. Raw data forwarded to SOC. |
| 2 | Basic enrichment (VirusTotal lookups). IOC correlation. No structured techniques. |
| 3 | Structured analysis applied. Threat assessments produced. ATT&CK mapping. Confidence levels used. |
| 4 | Full SAT toolkit (ACH, red team, horizon scanning). Knowledge cells maintained. Alternative hypotheses routinely considered. |
| 5 | Advanced analytics. Machine learning augments human analysis. Predictive threat modelling. Community-leading analysis. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | No intelligence products. Maybe an IOC spreadsheet. |
| 2 | Ad-hoc alerts and IOC lists. No standard templates. Inconsistent quality. |
| 3 | Standardised products (flash reports, assessments). TLP applied. Likelihood language used. Quality review process. |
| 4 | Full product suite tailored to stakeholder needs. Detection rules (SIGMA/YARA/KQL). STIX bundles for sharing. |
| 5 | Dynamic intelligence products. Real-time dashboards. Automated tactical output. Strategic foresight publications. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | Intelligence stays within the CTI team. |
| 2 | IOCs pushed to SIEM/EDR. Some ad-hoc briefings. |
| 3 | Products reach defined stakeholders. TLP-governed sharing. Regular briefing cadence. |
| 4 | Tailored delivery per stakeholder. Integration with SOAR/TIP. Feedback collected. ISAC participation. |
| 5 | Intelligence embedded in all security workflows. Automated dissemination. External sharing (STIX/TAXII). Industry thought leadership. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | No CTI manager. Analyst works in isolation. |
| 2 | Informal CTI role. No PIRs. No stakeholder engagement. |
| 3 | Formal CTI function. PIRs defined and reviewed. Stakeholder register maintained. SOPs documented. |
| 4 | Programme measured on outcomes. KPIs tracked. Budget justified. Regular programme reviews. |
| 5 | CTI programme informs security strategy. Board-level reporting. CTI drives investment decisions. |
| Level | Indicators |
|---|---|
| 1 | Email and spreadsheets only. |
| 2 | Free tools (VirusTotal, MISP community). Manual processes. |
| 3 | TIP deployed. OSINT tools in use. Some automation. |
| 4 | Integrated toolchain. API-driven enrichment. SOAR integration. Custom tooling where needed. |
| 5 | AI-augmented analysis. Full automation of tactical workflows. Custom detection engineering pipeline. |
For each dimension, select the level that BEST describes current capability:
## CTI Maturity Self-Assessment
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Assessed by**: [Name/Role]
| Dimension | Current Level | Target Level | Gap |
|-----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Collection | _ | _ | _ |
| Analysis | _ | _ | _ |
| Production | _ | _ | _ |
| Dissemination | _ | _ | _ |
| Management | _ | _ | _ |
| Tooling | _ | _ | _ |
| **Overall** | **_** | **_** | **_** |
### Key Findings
[What are the biggest gaps?]
### Recommended Actions
1. [Highest-impact improvement]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]
### Timeline
[Realistic timeline for reaching target maturity]
When improving maturity, prioritise in this order:
This order reflects a common mistake: organisations buy tools (Level 6) before establishing processes (Levels 1-5). Tools amplify process — if the process is broken, tools amplify the problem.