sota-api-design
State-of-the-art API design and audit guidance (2026) covering REST/HTTP, GraphQL, gRPC, WebSockets/SSE/realtime, webhooks, versioning/evolution, and API…
State-of-the-art detection engineering, SOC, threat hunting, and incident response (2026). Use when BUILDING detective controls or SOC capability — Sigma/YARA/Falco/Tetragon/Suricata rules, detection-as-code, MITRE ATT&CK coverage, SIEM detections, alert triage and SOAR, threat
$ npx -y skills add martinholovsky/SOTA-skills --skill sota-detection-engineering --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/sota-detection-engineeringContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
State-of-the-art detection engineering, SOC, threat hunting, and incident response (2026). Use when BUILDING detective controls or SOC capability — Sigma/YARA/Falco/Tetragon/Suricata rules, detection-as-code, MITRE ATT&CK coverage, SIEM detections, alert triage and SOAR, threat
name: sota-detection-engineering description: >- State-of-the-art detection engineering, SOC, threat hunting, and incident response (2026). Use when BUILDING detective controls or SOC capability — Sigma/YARA/Falco/Tetragon/Suricata rules, detection-as-code, MITRE ATT&CK coverage, SIEM detections, alert triage and SOAR, threat hunts, threat-intel, deception, IR playbooks, or adversary emulation — AND when AUDITING detection & IR posture (can we detect this? does this alert fire?). Owns DETECTIVE controls, SOC workflow, hunting, and IR (sota-observability owns the telemetry pipeline). Trigger keywords: detection engineering, detection-as-code, Sigma, YARA, YARA-X, Falco, Tetragon, Suricata, SIEM, KQL, SPL, EQL, ATT&CK, Pyramid of Pain, threat hunting, threat intel, TIP, STIX, TAXII, IOC, IOA, TTP, SOC, alert fatigue, tuning, SOAR, runbook, incident response, IR playbook, NIST 800-61, PICERL, forensics, chain of custody, purple team, honeypot, honeytoken, canary, OCSF, MTTD, false positive, Active Directory, Kerberoasting, DCSync, golden ticket, ADCS, RBCD.
Assume prevention fails. This skill builds and audits the layer that *notices*: detective controls, the SOC that triages them, the hunts that find what alerts miss, and the IR process that contains what hunts surface. One question defines success:
> **When a real adversary acts inside your environment, does a high-fidelity > signal fire, reach a human (or automation) with the context to act, and drive > a bounded response — fast enough to matter?**
Detection is engineering, not art. Detections are **code**: version-controlled, peer-reviewed, CI-tested, ATT&CK-mapped, FP-budgeted, and retired when stale. The dominant failure mode is not missing rules — it is **alert fatigue**: noise that buries the one true positive. Optimize signal-to-noise relentlessly.
**Ownership boundary.** `sota-observability` owns the telemetry pipeline (logs, metrics, traces, SLOs, log shipping, retention plumbing). This skill owns turning that telemetry into *security* detections, the SOC workflow, hunting, and IR. `sota-threat-modeling` owns design-time threat enumeration (STRIDE/ ATT&CK/ATLAS catalogs); this skill owns catching those threats at runtime. If you find yourself designing the logging schema, that's observability rules/01; if you find yourself enumerating threats on a DFD, that's threat-modeling.
Run the detection lifecycle as a loop, not a one-shot. Hypothesis → build → test → deploy → tune → retire. Workflow:
1. **Start from a threat hypothesis, not a tool.** Name the ATT&CK technique or abuse case, the adversary behavior, and the telemetry that would witness it. Use the **ADS framework** (Palantir): goal, categorization (ATT&CK), strategy abstract, technical context, blind spots/assumptions, false positives, validation, priority. Write this *before* the rule. 2. **Confirm the log source exists first.** You cannot detect what you do not collect. Map the hypothesis to a concrete data source (EDR, cloud audit, K8s audit, network/flow, identity, app). If it's missing, the deliverable is a *logging gap*, not a rule. See rules/02. 3. **Detect behavior over artifacts.** Climb the **Pyramid of Pain**: prefer TTP/behavioral logic over brittle hashes/IPs/domains. IOC matches are cheap and disposable; TTP detections cost the adversary real money to evade. 4. **Pick the right engine** (rules/03): Sigma for log detections (vendor- agnostic, compiled to your SIEM), YARA-X for file/memory/malware, Suricata for network, Falco/Tetragon for eBPF runtime/container/K8s, SIEM-native (KQL/SPL/EQL) for correlation the portable formats can't express. 5. **Engineer for low FP from the start** (rules/04): scope tightly, add allowlist context, require corroboration for noisy signals, set a severity honestly. Every detection ships with a runbook (link to observability rules/04 alerting plumbing) and an owner. 6. **Test before deploy.** Validate with adversary emulation — Atomic Red Team (endpoint), Stratus Red Team (cloud), Caldera (campaigns). Confirm the detection fires on the real technique and stays quiet on benign baselines. No detection merges without a passing test. See rules/06. 7. **Map coverage and find gaps.** Track every detection against ATT&CK with the Navigator. Coverage heatmaps reveal blind spots — feed them back to step 1. 8. **Tune and retire.** Review FP rates, suppress with *expiry* (never forever), delete detections nobody trusts. A muted alert is worse than none.
For hunting and deception, see rules/05; for IR, see rules/06.
Assess an existing detection/SOC/IR posture adversarially. Read rules/06 (IR & validation) and rules/04 (SOC/triage) first. Sample real detections, real alerts, and real incidents — do not trust a coverage dashboard or a wiki runbook that has never fired. The cardinal test: pick three ATT&CK techniques relevant to the environment and prove, end to end, that each would be caught.
**Severity:**
| Severity | Meaning | Examples | |----------|---------|----------| | Critical | Blind to a primary attack path, or IR cannot execute | No log source for the crown-jewel system; no EDR/cloud-audit/K8s-audit collection; no IR plan or no one on call; detections exist but nothing routes alerts to a human | | High | Major coverage gap or SOC dysfunction | Alert fatigue (analysts mute/ignore); detections never tested against the technique; IOC-only coverage of behaviors that need TTP logic; runbooks absent or stale; no ATT&CK coverage map; retention too short for IR | | Medium | Degraded fidelity or process gaps | Detections with no owner/ADS doc; suppressions with no expiry; no deduplication/correlation; severity inflation; no purple-team/regression testing; TI not operationalized into detections | | Low | Hygiene | Detections not in version cont
Make your AI coding assistant build and audit like your most senior engineer. Your assistant is brilliant — it just doesn't know your standards, and it forgets the ones it does know as the task grows long.
Repo: martinholovsky/SOTA-skills
State-of-the-art API design and audit guidance (2026) covering REST/HTTP, GraphQL, gRPC, WebSockets/SSE/realtime, webhooks, versioning/evolution, and API…
State-of-the-art software and system architecture rules (2026) for both building and auditing. Use when designing, building, refactoring, or extending system…
State-of-the-art rules for writing and auditing asynchronous and concurrent code across runtimes (Python asyncio, JS/Node, Go, Rust, JVM). Use when building…
State-of-the-art C and C++ engineering rules (2026 baseline) that Claude applies when writing or auditing C/C++. Covers modern idioms (RAII, value semantics,…
State-of-the-art CLI and developer-tool UX guidance (2026) covering command and flag design, output and interaction (stdout/stderr, --json, TTY detection, exit…
State-of-the-art cloud infrastructure architecture (2026). Applies when designing, building, or auditing cloud environments on AWS, GCP, or Azure —…