「control」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the GAO Agile Assessment Guide (GAO-24-105506, 2023). Use for assessing and managing Agile software development in federal programs: the Agile Manifesto and framework family (Scrum, Kanban, XP, SAFe, DA, DSDM, Lean, DevOps); the three adoption perspectives (team dynamics, program operations, organization environment); requirements decomposition (epics, features, user stories, INVEST, MoSCoW, definition of done); Agile-aware federal contracting (FAR, modular contracting, SOO/PWS/SOW, product owner vs. COR); program monitoring and control (WBS, cost, schedule, EVM at the feature level); Agile metrics (velocity, lead/cycle time, CFD, burn charts); and the auditor's key-question bank. Oversight- and acquisition-oriented: it tells you how to *assess and govern* Agile programs, not how to code. Thin on hands-on engineering practice, deep cost/schedule checklists (see gao-cost, gao-schedule), and any non-US-federal context.

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 System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).

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-61B, the DoD Configuration Management (CM) guidance handbook (7 April 2020, cataloged with Change 1, 2025). Use for defense CM across the acquisition and sustainment life cycle: the five CM functions (planning, identification, control/change management, status accounting, verification & audit), the three configuration baselines (FBL/ABL/PBL) and FCD→ACD→PCD documentation, configuration items (CIs/HWCI/CSCI), change instruments (ECP/NOR/RFV), the CCB and Class I/II classification, CDCA/AA authority, FCA/PCA audits, data management and data rights (CDRL/DID, DFARS rights ladder, master/authoritative source), and tailoring CM by phase (EIA-649-1 R/T/NR matrix, Appendix C templates), plus digital-era CM (digital twin, viewpoints, MOSA). NOTE: 61B is advisory guidance that adopts and points to the SAE EIA-649 / EIA-649-1 / GEIA-HB-649 suite for the authoritative CM requirements — this pack names and describes that suite but does not reproduce its copyrighted requirement text. Thin on: the EIA-649 requirement clauses themselves, form-level detail (DD-form field instructions, full DID content), and non-DoD/commercial CM frameworks.

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。

Abbruchbedingung für autonome Loops: So weit wie möglich selbständig weiterarbeiten UND einen Loop erst beenden, wenn belegt ist, dass keine autonom ausführbare Aufgabe mehr vorliegt. Der bloße Eindruck "nichts mehr zu tun" reicht NICHT — er löst eine vierstufige Prüfkette aus (think/decide, _CONTROL/_DECISIONS, Gardener/USMC, decision-avatar/BYUM), die zuerst neue Aufgaben GEWINNEN muss, bevor der Loop enden darf. Jeder Kettenschritt meldet found/empty/unavailable statt eines binären Ergebnisses — "exhausted" gilt nur, wenn ALLE Quellen tatsächlich befragbar waren; ist mindestens eine Quelle unavailable, meldet der Skill "blind" statt "exhausted" und behauptet nichts Ungeprüftes. Nutze diesen Skill bei /work-autonomous, /waafap, "arbeite autonom weiter bis nichts mehr zu tun ist", als Goal-Bedingung innerhalb eines /loop, oder wenn geprüft werden soll, ob wirklich keine autonome Arbeit mehr übrig ist, bevor ein Loop/eine Session beendet wird.

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。

Operating Roblox Studio for game development — the visual editor in which the 3D scene is built, tested, and published. Use this skill for: Studio basics (Explorer, Workspace, play-test, saving the place as .rbxl), the interplay with Rojo (Connect, scene-vs-code mode), AI control of Studio via the Roblox-Studio-MCP (execute_luau, insert_from_creator_store, generate_material, screen_capture, Play/Stop, reading the Console), the complete asset-pipeline workflow (Creator Store → clean up → kit → scene → .rbxl → Rojo brings it to life), and above all the MANDATORY malware scan for marketplace assets. Also trigger on "embed an asset from the Store", "Studio MCP not working", "studios: []", "generate material", "save scene", "is this Roblox asset safe", "scripts disappear after Play".

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。

General Blender workflow skill for AI agents working with .blend, .fbx, .obj, .glb, glTF, materials, scene inspection, bpy automation, headless Blender batch runs, export/reimport validation, previews, and optional Blender MCP control. Use when a task asks to open, inspect, create, automate, convert, optimize, render, or verify Blender or 3D asset files in a user-agnostic way.

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。

Project-first Research pipeline with live gates, source/PDF evidence, claim boundaries, compute and publication controls; includes an optional PubMed/arXiv standard-library helper.

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。

Akademisches Studien- und Fristenmanagement mit Quellenprüfung, Datenschutz und realistischer Handlungsplanung.

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。

Calendar skill with user-adaptive backend selection (Flag 3). Default: local SQLite store. Optional: Google Calendar MCP, Routinika or UpToday as backend — controlled via assist/prefs.json. Without preference the LLM asks the user interactively.

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。

Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。

Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-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。

Reads one export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. 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。

Turns process notes, a walkthrough or interview transcript, a transcript of a meeting recording or a stale existing procedure into a draft standard operating procedure: purpose and trigger, scope, definitions, roles with a RACI table, numbered steps with the check that closes each one, records produced, controls as stated, and open questions for the process owner. Every step traces to the source or reads UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write an SOP from these notes", "turn this walkthrough into a procedure", "document how we do this", "draft the standard operating procedure for", "build a RACI for this process" or "tidy up this old procedure". Do not use for technical runbooks with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for meeting minutes and action lists, use transcript-to-actions. 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。

Reads a process flow diagram (image, PDF or native export) with its job header and returns a provenance-tagged extraction register: equipment, streams, tags, connectivity, instruments already shown, notes and legends, connectivity findings and an explicit UNKNOWN list, then holds at gate G1. Extracts and records only; never enriches, tags or proposes. Use when the user asks to "start a PFD to P&ID job", "read in the attached PFD", "extract the equipment and streams from this PFD" or "read this PFD into a register". Do not use for checking the model, use process-model-check instead; do not use to propose lines, instruments or tags, use piping-enrichment or instrumentation-and-control-enrichment after gate G2. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. 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 a master document register extract for gaps and returns a DRAFT question list for document control: missing or out-of-sequence revisions, overdue or slipping deliverables, numbering that breaks the project convention, duplicates and incomplete rows, each with row, test and quoted evidence. Never edits the register, re-baselines a date or marks a deliverable complete. Use when the user asks to "check the MDR", "find the gaps in the deliverables list" or "prepare questions on the drawing register". Do not use for drafting a transmittal from a document list, use transmittal-drafter instead. 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。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-check. 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 a document transmittal (header, one line per document with revision and purpose of issue, distribution with action required, blank acknowledgement block) from a document list and the project's transmittal template, with UNKNOWN for anything not stated and questions for document control. Never assigns a transmittal number, changes a revision or marks anything issued. Use when the user asks to "draft a transmittal for these documents", "fill in the issue sheet" or "prepare the document issue note". Do not use for checking a register or deliverables list, use master-document-register-check instead. 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。

Proposes tag and number structures for the new lines and instruments in a P&ID draft according to the project's numbering procedures, checks every tag extracted from the PFD against the quoted procedure format, and lists cross-section identifier mismatches and the registry checks a human must run. Never invents a numbering convention, never alters a PFD tag and never assigns a sequence number the procedure reserves for the registry. Use when the user asks to "run the tagging and numbering section", "check the tags against the numbering procedure", "propose the tag structure for the new lines and instruments" or "list the registry checks before validation" after the process safety flags. Do not use for validating the four sections, use validation-and-review-package instead; do not use for instrument content, use instrumentation-and-control-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. 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。

Drive the user's host machine directly through Cua, with no sandbox. Maps to Cua's Localhost API. Higher risk - the agent can click, type, and run shell commands on the real desktop. Use only when the user explicitly opts in and read the safety section first. Triggers - "control my computer", "click here", "use my real Chrome", "no sandbox", "내 컴퓨터 자동화".

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。

Mouse, keyboard, and scroll primitives for cua_click / cua_type / cua_key / cua_scroll. Reference for action shapes, modifier keys, key chord syntax, and screenshot-driven targeting 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。

Use when explaining or writing TBQ3 language syntax, including Params, Vars, Events, data types, variables, sequence variables, arrays, Map variables, control flow, operators, assignment, functions, and formula execution rules.

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。