Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Analyzes structured and unstructured threat intelligence feeds to extract actionable indicators, adversary tactics, and campaign context. Use when ingesting commercial or open-source CTI feeds, evaluating feed quality, normalizing data into STIX 2.1 format, or enriching existing IOCs with campaign attribution. Activates for requests involving ThreatConnect, Recorded Future, Mandiant Advantage, MISP, AlienVault OTX, or automated feed aggregation pipelines.
.claude/skills/analyzing-threat-intelligence-feeds/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Use this skill when:
Do not use this skill for raw packet capture analysis or live incident triage without first establishing a CTI baseline.
List all available feeds categorized by type (commercial, government, ISAC, OSINT):
Score each feed on: update frequency, historical accuracy rate, coverage of your sector, and attribution depth. Use a weighted scoring matrix with criteria from NIST SP 800-150 (Guide to Cyber Threat Information Sharing).
For TAXII-enabled feeds:
taxii2-client discover https://feed.example.com/taxii/
taxii2-client get-collection --collection-id <id> --since 2024-01-01For REST API feeds (e.g., Recorded Future):
/v2/indicator/search with risk_score_min=65 to filter low-confidence IOCsConvert each IOC to STIX 2.1 objects using the OASIS standard schema:
indicator object with pattern: "[ipv4-addr:value = '...']"indicator with pattern: "[domain-name:value = '...']"indicator with pattern: "[file:hashes.SHA-256 = '...']"Attach relationship objects linking indicators to threat-actor or malware objects. Use confidence field (0–100) based on source fidelity rating.
Run deduplication against existing TIP database using normalized value + type as composite key. Enrich surviving IOCs:
Export enriched indicators via TAXII 2.1 push to SIEM (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel), firewalls (Palo Alto XSOAR playbooks), and EDR platforms. Set TTL (time-to-live) per indicator type: IP addresses 30 days, domains 90 days, file hashes 1 year.
| Term | Definition | |------|-----------| | STIX 2.1 | Structured Threat Information Expression — OASIS standard JSON schema for CTI objects including indicators, threat actors, campaigns, and relationships | | TAXII 2.1 | Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information — HTTPS-based protocol for sharing STIX content between servers and clients | | IOC | Indicator of Compromise — observable artifact (IP, domain, hash, URL) that indicates a system may have been breached | | TLP | Traffic Light Protocol — color-coded classification (RED/AMBER/GREEN/WHITE) defining sharing restrictions for CTI | | Confidence Score | Numeric value (0–100 in STIX) reflecting the producer's certainty about an indicator's malicious attribution | | Feed Fidelity | Historical accuracy rate of a feed measured by true positive rate in production detections |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +22 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.