テスト・セキュリティのスキル

Reconstructed reference notes on US NRC software assurance guidance for digital computer software in nuclear power plant safety systems, built from seven public-domain sources (Regulatory Guide 1.168 Revision 2, July 2013; Regulatory Guides 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.172, and 1.173 Revision 1, July 2013; NUREG-0800 Branch Technical Position 7-14 Revision 6, August 2016; pinned 2026-10-12). Use for software life cycle process questions, software requirements specifications, software configuration management plans, verification and validation with reviews and audits, test documentation and unit testing, and what NRC staff examine in a BTP 7-14 software review of plans, implementation, and design outputs. SCOPE LIMITS: NRC Regulatory Guides and the BTP 7-14 staff review position only; the endorsed IEEE standards (IEEE Std 603-1991, 7-4.3.2-2003, 828-2005, 829-2008, 830-1998, 1008-1987, 1012-2004, 1028-2008, 1074-2006), IEC 60880, IEC 61513, IEC 62138, and IAEA guides are cited by designation and edition only, with no standard text; RG 1.152 Rev 4, BTP 7-18, BTP 7-19, other SRP Chapter 7 sections, and NUREG/CR contractor reports are outside the pack; reflects the pinned 2013 and 2016 editions, not later agency actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal or licensing advice and not a substitute for the source documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. § 105).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge pack synthesized from JSP 376 Defence Acquisition Safety Policy V1.1 (April 2024, Ministry of Defence, Open Government Licence v3.0): acquisition safety requirements, safety artefacts, and their application across the standard acquisition lifecycle. Covers the policy frame and legislative baseline, SRO and User responsibilities, safety management and safety requirements, test and evaluation and the safety case, supervision and approvals decision support, and the seven lifecycle phases. SCOPE LIMITS: single-source (JSP 376 V1.1); MOD policy and guidance, not statute; builds on JSP 815 and cites JSP 655, neither reproduced here (use jsp-815 for the SMS); Chapter 4 (Non-Standard Acquisition) is unpublished in V1.1 and is not in this pack; no DEF-STAN text (Def Stan 00-056 is named, not quoted); no other JSP reproduced. Reconstructed reference notes, not MOD guidance, and no official status.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge pack reconstructed from JSP 815 Defence Safety Management System V1.3 (Ministry of Defence, Open Government Licence v3.0): the SMS Framework, all 12 Elements with their Expectations and Performance Statement themes, and Annexes A to F plus H. Covers the Defence Safety Function and which JSP applies, leadership and safety culture, organisation and SEMS applicability, legislation and exemption certificates, risk assessment and safety cases, supervision and contracting, competence and letters of delegation, equipment and infrastructure safety, performance and incident management, and assurance, audit, and the ISO 45001 clause mapping. SCOPE LIMITS: single-source (JSP 815 V1.3 with Annex H V1.2); carries no DEF-STAN 00-051 or DEF-STAN 00-970 content, no JSP 375, JSP 816; acquisition safety policy is in jsp-376, no Annex G (Assurance Toolkit), and no ISO 45001 text (clause numbers only). This pack is reconstructed reference notes, not MOD guidance, and has no official status.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reconstructed reference notes on US FDA medical-device software regulation, built from seven public-domain FDA sources (the QMSR final rule 89 FR 7496, FDA device software guidance documents, and the eSTAR program page; pinned 2026-10-12). Use for regulatory pathways and premarket submissions (510(k), De Novo, PMA, eSTAR), premarket software documentation levels (Basic or Enhanced), software validation and Computer Software Assurance, the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR, 21 CFR 820), medical-device cybersecurity (secure product development, SBOMs, FD&C Act section 524B, labelling), clinical decision support boundaries, off-the-shelf software, MDDS and other software-function scope questions, and the 510(k) software-change trigger. SCOPE LIMITS: US FDA device regulation only; no EU MDR or UKCA content (see `med-device-eu`); no ISO 13485, ISO 14971, or IEC 62304 text, which are named and summarized only as FDA obligations; no drug, biologic, or combination-product rules; reflects the pinned source dates, not later FDA actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal advice and not a substitute for the guidance documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. 105).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Native Linear integration using internal tracker tools. Supports issue querying, state transitions, and audit logging.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scaffold a new Forge tool end-to-end — implementation, registration, permission/risk metadata, sandbox routing, and a unit test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scaffold a new Forge tool end-to-end — type, implementation, registration, permission/risk classification, and unit test. Use when adding anything to src/tools/.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scaffold a new model provider for Forge — class implementation, registry wiring, providerEnum entry, local-catalog classification, and unit test with mocked transport. Use for anything under src/models/.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run Forge's canonical verification chain (format:check + lint + typecheck + build + test). Use before claiming any task done or opening a PR.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scaffold a new model provider for Forge — class, registry wiring, providerEnum entry, local-catalog classification, router check, and a unit test with mocked transport.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run the full Forge verification suite (format:check + lint + typecheck + build + test). Use this before claiming any task complete or before opening a PR.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scaffold a new Forge tool — implementation, registration, permission/risk metadata, sandbox routing, and a unit test. Use when adding anything to src/tools/.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run Forge's canonical verification chain (format:check + lint + typecheck + build + test). Use before claiming any task complete or opening a PR.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pre-release checklist for Forge — verify, version bump, changelog, docs, docker build, smoke test. Run before tagging v*.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestrates the full law interpretation pipeline: MvT research, machine_readable generation with validation/BDD testing, and reverse validation. Invokes /law-mvt-research, /law-generate, and /law-reverse-validate sequentially. Use this skill proactively when: user wants to make a law executable, add machine_readable sections, or mentions "interpret" in the context of a Dutch law YAML file. Activate automatically when user opens a corpus YAML file without machine_readable sections and wants to make it executable.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds and audits a concept-ontology for a regelrecht corpus to decide and verify reference types — cross-law source-binding vs intra-law source-binding vs open-norm leaf vs external-fact leaf — and to catch concept conflation across laws. Core principle: a value's reference type is fixed by WHO derives it, and a binding is sound only when producer and consumer denote the SAME concept; the lexical surface (the word in the text) is not the concept. Detects false friends (one term, different concepts — e.g. a register-based vs a factual "naar de omstandigheden"-based residence/ingezetene concept), orphan plain-params (a value a regulation actually derives, modeled as a brute input), negation/complement re-entry (¬X modeled as an independent leaf next to X), and duplication (one concept re-entered as several independent leafs, losing the single-source-of-truth invariant). Produces a law-level glossary and a stelsel-level concept map with sound same-concept binding edges and flagged lexical-match-but-concept-mismatch edges. Use when deciding whether a value should be cross-law/intra-law/leaf, when the same term means different things across laws, or when a binding might silently conflate concepts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Genereert uit een (semi-)gevalideerd regelrecht-corpus een geloofwaardige service-PoC (burger- + behandelaar-portaal, of een headless beslis-service) en zet die in als validatie-instrument met uitvoeringsexperts — om tastbaar te maken wat nodig is om een wet rechtvaardig in de praktijk te brengen, gezien vanuit de betrokkene. Gebruik dit als workshop-fase ná de logica-/scenariovalidatie (audit-products) om de dienstverlening-kant te valideren: welke service impliceert de wet, waar zit menselijk oordeel, welke last ligt bij de burger, welke termijnen, waar is de wet hard of onduidelijk. Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode (hooks, legal_character, untranslatables, source/implements, type_spec, receipts) is de vaste taal. Voor de logica-/scenariovalidatie zelf: zie de zusterskill regelrecht-audit-products.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audits whether a machine-readable regelrecht law model is faithful to the LETTER of the wettekst — and strictly separates the wettekst (leading) from the toelichting (Nota/Memorie van Toelichting; explanatory, not a norm). Runs in critical passes per article/lid and detects four deviation classes: toelichting-bleed (a modeled criterion that the letter only states as an open norm, or not at all), missing verbatim elements (a word/condition such as a "tenzij" or a qualifier dropped from the model), wrong legal_basis anchoring (an endpoint hung on a "kapstok"-article while the operative norm lives elsewhere), and verbatim-drift in text: (an ingetrokken/older redaction). Also detects positief-lid vs uitsluitings-lid conflicts and checks the chapeau for an explicit derogation rule ("zo nodig in afwijking van het eerste lid") before judging precedence. Classifies every finding as modelfout (fix), wettekst-gevolg (report, do not fix), or letter-vs-toelichting-question (jurist decides what is leading + revision signal). Use when the user wants to know if a model is "dicht bij de letter", mentions letter vs toelichting/bedoeling, fidelity, "natuurgetrouw", or before trusting feature outcomes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Voert de iteratieve desk-review-&-completion-cyclus uit op een regelrecht-corpus — plannen, harvesten/migreren/uitbreiden, multi-agent valideren, bevindingen 4-weg classificeren (modellering-fout / wetgevings-fout / engine-limitatie / acceptabele untranslatable), synthese + heroverweging, documenteren (wetgevings-/stelselfouten-analyse, fixes-plan, engine-limitaties, diagrammen, corpus-status), verifiëren tegen externe bronnen (resolutie-tracker + bronnen-dossier), en een eindrapport per cyclus. Gebruik dit bij corpus-review op correctheid/coverage zonder live expert-sessie, het opstellen van een wetgevings-notitie-bron, schema-migratie, het harvesten van nieuwe wetten, of het aansturen van een autonome completion-loop. Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode is de vaste taal. Voor live-validatie met experts: zie regelrecht-audit-products.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Works through the surviving mutants that cargo-mutants reports for packages/engine — classify each one as a real test gap, a mutant not worth killing, or dead code, then fix it and verify with `just mutants-diff`. Use when picking up the weekly "Mutatietesten" issue, when asked to improve engine test coverage, or when a pull request fails the Mutation Testing (diff) gate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Front-door router voor het werken aan een regelrecht-dossier. Gebruik dit aan het begin van een dossier, of bij twijfel over waar te beginnen — het triageert de situatie en routeert naar de juiste skill (regelrecht-stelselanalyse voor desk-review/corpus-completion, regelrecht-audit-products voor live expert-validatie) en de juiste volgorde. Bevat het routeringsprincipe: feitelijke defecten routeren naar de desk, oordeels-/praktijkvragen naar de workshop. Dossier-agnostisch.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Processes all open Dependabot PRs sequentially — rebases if needed, analyzes for breaking changes and security issues, then merges or requests changes. Use when you want to handle pending Dependabot dependency updates.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Bouwt de audit- en workshop-producten waarmee juridische experts een machine-leesbare (regelrecht-YAML) vertaling van wet- en regelgeving valideren in een live sessie. Gebruik dit bij het voorbereiden van een expert-workshop of validatie-sessie over een dossier, het maken van een scope-/stelselanalyse, per-artikel audit-checklists, facilitator-materiaal, testcase-scenario's, of sessie-verslagen (intern + extern). Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode (YAML, formules, untranslatables, source/override, legal_basis, engine-trace) is de vaste taal. Voor analytische desk-review van een corpus zonder live sessie (wetgevings-/stelselfouten, coverage, multi-agent review): zie de zusterskill regelrecht-stelselanalyse.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Maakt regelrecht-scenario's vindbaar en hun norm-ketens leesbaar/geassert. Aan de invoerkant — vertaal een platte lijst leaf-parameters naar benoemde casus-assen + een herbruikbare persona-bibliotheek, met een reverse-lookup casus-matrix. Aan de uitvoerkant — maak de norm-keten zichtbaar via keten-checkpoints (assert elke knoop op het kritieke pad, niet alleen de endpoint) en golden-trace-snapshots + branch-coverage. Gebruik dit bij het schrijven of opschonen van scenario-/feature-files, het terugvinden of ontwerpen van een specifieke casus in een grote variabelenlijst, het reviewen van engine-traces, of het regressie-bestendig maken van cross-law-ketens zodat een ketenfout niet stil achter een correcte endpoint verdwijnt. Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode is de vaste taal. Haakt aan op regelrecht-stelselanalyse (engine-tests / meta-check) en regelrecht-audit-products (testcase-scenario's).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。