3,307 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Route Composio work between the hosted MCP-backed app and the local Composio CLI. Use when a user wants to read or act on external services such as email, calendars, GitHub, Slack, Notion, Linear, Jira, or CRMs; discover an integration or tool; recover a missing connection; combine multiple apps; or automate those actions with local files and scripts.
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。
Route requests for current library, framework, SDK, API, CLI, or cloud-service documentation through available documentation tools and primary sources.
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。
Correlate events across multiple log files from different sources, systems, or time periods. Build unified timelines, identify causal relationships between events, and highlight anomalies that span multiple data sources. Supports timezone normalization and gap detection. Use when analyzing logs from multiple systems (frontend, backend, database, infrastructure), investigating distributed system failures, or building event timelines across services. Triggers: "correlate these logs", "build timeline from multiple logs", "cross-system analysis", "find related events across logs", "multi-source log analysis", "distributed trace analysis"
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。
Professional contract review skill for business agreements including NDAs, MSAs, SLAs, SOWs, and software license agreements. Provides systematic clause-by-clause analysis, risk assessment with quantified scoring, red flag detection, and negotiation guidance. Use this skill when reviewing vendor contracts, partnership agreements, service agreements, or any business contract requiring risk evaluation and negotiation preparation. Triggers include "review this contract", "analyze this NDA", "check this agreement for risks", "prepare for contract negotiation", or when evaluating terms and conditions.
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。
Use when designing, evaluating, documenting, modernizing, reviewing, refactoring, or implementing software architecture and code-level structure, including requirements, context, architecture style selection, microservices patterns, WebAssembly/WASI/Component Model, UMA portable capabilities, runtime contracts, capability graphs, governed MCP/agent orchestration, clean code, code smells, Rust crate/library API architecture, Cargo feature/MSRV/SemVer policy, unsafe/FFI/no_std/library testing, modularity, views, NFR tactics, IAM/auth, security patterns, cost estimation, architecture-as-code fitness functions, ADR/RFC work, and engineering execution plans.
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。
Load for Aspire AppHost work: start/stop/wait resources, inspect dashboard/logs/traces, add integrations/resources, rebuild a service, run isolated worktrees, or diagnose Aspire orchestration; not for plain dotnet apps, container-only deployments, or cloud deployment.
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。
Load for cross-layer refactors, record/class or value-object migrations, new services/interfaces/repositories, project references, dependency-direction failures, or deciding whether code belongs in Domain, Application, Persistence/Infrastructure, API, or Blazor; not for a local edit wholly inside an established layer pattern.
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 base synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.
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 base from DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) 2.02 — Volume II: Architectural Data and Models. Use for DoDAF viewpoints, DM2 meta-model, capability modeling, operational architecture, systems architecture, services architecture, data/information modeling, standards compliance, project/portfolio integration, and fit-for-purpose model selection. Does not cover DoDAF Volume I (policy/governance) or Volume III (enterprise-level guidance); also does not substitute for the live DISR or DARS registries.
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 base from the FAA AMS Lifecycle V&V Guidelines (verification and validation), Version 3.0, dated April 2017. Use for applying verification and validation across the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) lifecycle: the verify-vs-validate distinction (built right vs. right thing), the work-product/component/product tiers, the nine V&V planning elements, the four method catalogs (Appendix C), decision-point-gated V&V (SASP, CRD, Investment Analysis, Solution Implementation, In-Service Management), the Appendix B document checklists (PRD/APB/ISPD/PMP), and the DT/OT/IOA test triad. Scope limits: this is an FAA acquisition-V&V doctrine, NOT a general SE process model, requirements-engineering manual, or test-design textbook. It borrows its core V&V definitions from CMMI v1.2 (SEI, paraphrased) and presumes the surrounding AMS lifecycle (see the FAA SEM pack); its phase tables are policy snapshots as of April 2017 and it is thin on detailed test methods, tool specifics, and anything outside FAA acquisition governance.
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 base from MIL-HDBK-338B (Electronic Reliability Design Handbook). Use for electronic reliability engineering: R/M/A theory, reliability specification/allocation/prediction, parts management and derating, reliable circuit and fault-tolerant design, environmental and human performance reliability, FMEA/FMECA/FTA/sneak circuit analysis, design reviews and testability, FRACAS, reliability demonstration and growth testing, and systems-level R&M parameters. Covers selected Part 2 design-guidance topics only; skips large annex/part-stress tables. Guidance handbook — not a contractual requirement text. Does not replace MIL-HDBK-217 prediction libraries, service-specific reliability regs, or safety standards (see mil-std-882).
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 base from MIL-HDBK-516C (Airworthiness Certification Criteria). Use for DoD air-system airworthiness planning: tailoring a certification basis, systems engineering criteria, and domain clusters for structures, flight technology, propulsion/installation, avionics/electrical/E3/diagnostics, computer systems/software, and crew systems (including applicable UAS control-station elements). Qualitative guidance handbook — not raw contractual requirements. Does not replace service airworthiness authority policy, civil FAA certification rules as authorities, or detailed JSSG/MIL performance specs.
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 base from the DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (OUSD R&E, Sep 2023 incl. Change 2.2). Use for the defense-acquisition mechanics of program risk management: the RIO definitions (risk/issue/opportunity), the five-step risk process (plan-identify-analyze-mitigate-monitor), 1-5 likelihood/consequence scoring and the 5x5 risk matrix, the four mitigation options (accept/avoid/transfer/control), burn-down plans, issue management (probability=1), opportunity management toward should-cost, cross-program/interface risk, tailoring RIO to the six AAF acquisition pathways (UCA/MTA/MCA/Software/DBS/Services), specialized methods (RMF, MBCRA/Cyber Table Top, Agile metrics, FMECA, ITRA/DTRAM), and institutionalizing RIO via the PRMP, boards (RMB/JRMB/ROMB/RWG), tools, tiered roles, and WBS/IMP/IMS/EVM/TPM integration. This is the DoD-acquisition complement to nasa-risk (general CRM/RIDM theory) and dau-se-guidebook (the SE process frame). Does NOT teach general risk theory from scratch, and defers specialized risk regimes (system safety/ESOH, HSI, detailed cyber/RMF, spectrum) to their own DoD instructions and the relevant packs.
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 base from the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook (Version 2022, OSD ManTech / Joint Service–Industry MRL Working Group). Use for assessing and managing manufacturing maturity and producibility risk in defense acquisition: the 10-level MRL scale and its non-linear, target-not-grade nature; the five demonstration environments (laboratory → production-relevant → production-representative → pilot line → production line); the nine manufacturing-risk threads and sub-threads; how MRL targets map onto Adaptive Acquisition Framework milestones (MRL 4/6/7/8/9); conducting an MRL Assessment; building a Manufacturing Maturation Plan; putting MRL maturity into contract language (Section L/M, SOW, AS6500A, DIDs); tailoring criteria for S&T, single-system, ship, sustainment, and industry contexts; and screening operational-technology cybersecurity. Manufacturing-readiness focused — it measures producibility risk and frames mitigation; it is NOT a technology-readiness (TRL) guide, a full systems-engineering process model, a cost-estimating or schedule guide, or a deep cybersecurity audit method (see sibling packs for those).
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 base from the FAA Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).
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 base from DAFMAN 63-119 (15 April 2021), Mission-Oriented Test Readiness Certification. Use for continuous MOTRC replacing single-point OTRR thinking: framework/applicability, Certification Official vs PM roles, review cycle and exit criteria, certification memo/decertify gates, DT&E/contractor evidence, ITT integration and cyber resiliency, and the 31-template matrix. DAF T&E readiness process only—does not replace DoDI 5000.89, AFI 99-103, or multi-service lead policies.
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 base from the DoD M&S VV&A Recommended Practices Guide (RPG web edition). Use for verification, validation, and accreditation of models and simulations — role responsibilities (user, developer, M&S PM, V&V agent, accreditation agent), fidelity, validation fundamentals, data V&V, risk-informed accreditation, T&E/V&V integration, referent development, and conceptual-model validation. Complements nasa-ms-7009 and T&E packs; does not replace DoDI 5000.61 or Service VV&A policies.
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 one DRAFT message house for a product, service, programme or initiative from the source material the user provides: an umbrella statement, two to four pillars and graded proof points under each, with every proof point that lacks a source flagged, a claim sensitivity table, an audience coverage check and open questions. Use when the user asks to "build a message house", "write our messaging framework", "what are the key messages for this launch", "turn this research into messaging pillars" or "test our current messaging against the evidence". Do not use for a campaign one-pager, use campaign-brief-builder instead; to check whether a written document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
- Check and interpret data-breach exposure for an email, username, phone or name using Have I Been Pwned, the Pwned Passwords k-anonymity range API, DeHashed, IntelX and Snusbase. Use when checking breach or leak exposure, finding which services an account was registered with, interpreting a combolist or credential dump, assessing credential compromise, or auditing your own leaked personal data
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。
Review content quality before anything is shown or sent (vault notes, outgoing drafts, dedup merges, service files) and return an explicit pass, fail or manual-review verdict. The counterpart of a post-build test gate: that one asks whether the build works, this one whether the writing is fit to show. Triggers: "/taste-check <path|text>", "/taste", "check this note".
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。
Query the user's local and synced-device data via the screenpipe REST API at localhost:3030 — recordings, audio, UI, meetings, connected services, and memory. Use for screen activity, other-device or cross-device history, productivity, media export, connections, durable memory, or discovering and automating saved workflows.
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。
Set up and operate screenpipe from the terminal, including always-on recording, service modes, capture health, storage, local search, pipes, and connections. Use when the user asks to install, run, inspect, query, automate, or debug screenpipe without relying on the desktop app.
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。