「each」の検索結果

Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.

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。

Compile deep repository evidence into artifact-bound correctness doctrine — authority/law/proof maps, owned invariants, failure archaeology, and the strongest durable destination for each piece of knowledge, plus an optional minimal repository-specific skill portfolio. Use when the user wants both deep codebase understanding AND durable doctrine, knowledge routing, or repo-specific skill recommendations. Research discoverable facts before asking. Read-only. Not for quick onboarding, one isolated invariant, ordinary implementation, generic review, or direct skill creation.

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。

Build a rich, self-contained HTML explanation of a code change — diff, branch, commit range, MR/PR — with background, intuition, a code walkthrough, diagrams, and a glossary, then quiz the reader interactively in chat. Use when the user asks to explain a change, understand a PR/MR, walk through a diff, onboard onto a branch, or says "explain this PR", "what does this branch do", "teach me this change", or "/explain-diff".

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。

Apply the 90/10 visual-to-text rule when composing a piece on a canvas (poster, card, social post). Use when the deliverable lives on a single fixed surface where each element competes for attention.

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding. Use when fleshing out an idea, stress-testing a design, or when the user says "grill me".

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 NASA Systems Modeling Handbook for Systems Engineering (NASA-HDBK-1009A Rev A, 2025). Use for model-based systems engineering (MBSE) wired into NASA's NPR 7123.1 SE processes: the three aspects of MBSE (language / methodology / framework), the NASA SE Engine and its two OOSEM-derived steps (Model Planning, Setting Up the Model), the Modeling Plan as a SEMP subset, the tool-agnostic NASA SE metamodel of elements and relationships across the four SysML pillars (structure / behavior / requirements / parametrics), worked SysML diagrams and tables for stakeholders, requirements, structure and V&V, generating SE work products (ConOps, MOE, MOP, TPM, V&V), the MBSE Grid framework, alternative modeling approaches (PBR, Scenario, System Specification, Verification), and the ConOps model-content template. Scope is bounded to four common technical processes (Stakeholder Expectation Definition, Technical Requirements Definition, Product Verification, Product Validation). Does NOT teach SysML itself, mandate a tool, define NPR 7123.1 processes, cover technical-management processes 10-17, or reproduce the OMG SysML specification.

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 SD-22 DMSMS Guidebook (DSPO, FY24 working draft). Use for managing Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) and obsolescence across a long-lived system's life cycle: the five-step process (Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, Implement) plus the Strategize overlay; standing up a DMSMS Management Team (DMT) and Management Plan (DMP); risk-based monitoring and surveillance (the risk cube, predictive tools, vendor surveys, GIDEP/DLA PDNs, critical-materials analysis); health assessments and resolution timing; costing and selecting resolutions (life-of-need buys, substitutes, redesign, technology refreshment) by AoA/BCA; and budgeting/executing resolutions through modification funding and the ECP process. Defense-sustainment / DoD-acquisition framing throughout. Does NOT teach general systems engineering, parts-management standards, or contracting law in depth, and does not reproduce DoD policy text or the source's tables and figures.

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。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for OMG modelling specifications — UML, SysML, BPMN, UAF, SoaML, MOF, OCL, XMI, DDS. Contains NO source content: it only points to where the official specs live and what each is for. Use when you need an OMG modelling/architecture specification — the OMG licence forbids redistributing or transforming the text, so these cannot be reconstituted into a pack; download them from OMG directly.

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。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the systems-engineering standards landscape — ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, 24748, 29148, 42010, 15026, 24765; INCOSE SE Handbook & Vision 2035; OMG SysML; SAE/EIA 1001/649/748; ECSS space standards; NATO AAP-48; CMMI; NIST SP 800-160; and more. Contains NO source content: it lists each standard's designation, title, purpose, owning SDO, whether it's redistributable, and where to get it. Use when you need to identify or locate an SE standard — most are paywalled/all-rights-reserved and cannot be packaged, so this points you to the owner (and to the open packs where one exists).

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 NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.

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 FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.

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 OMB Circular A-94 (revised 2023-11-09) on guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of federal programs. Use for BCA principles, benefit/cost measurement, discount-rate policy, uncertainty/sensitivity, distributional incidence, and decision reporting. Rescoped at build to A-94 only (Army CBA Guide unreachable). Does not replace A-11 budget preparation detail, agency-specific statutory BCA rules, or Army CEAC process templates.

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。

Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. 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。

Sweeps a named list of news sources and blogs for items relevant to the user's role and returns a dated digest of 5 to 8 items, each with a one-line so-what, a source URL and a publication date, as a Markdown document or a ready-to-paste email. Use when the user asks to "run my news digest", "do my news sweep", "draft my morning news flash", "what happened in industry news this week" or to monitor vendor or industry news for their role. Do not use for the user's own inbox, calendar and mentions brief, use custom-daily-brief 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。

Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。

Builds DRAFT user personas from the research notes, interview summaries, survey free text and support themes the user provides: for each persona the goals, pains, jobs to be done, context of use, quotes exactly as supplied with their participant codes, and the evidence count behind every attribute, with names, demographics and any detail no participant stated left UNKNOWN rather than invented. Use when the user asks to "build personas from these interviews", "who are our users based on this research", "draft user personas", "turn these research notes into personas" or "update our personas with the new interviews". Do not use for theming a batch of customer feedback into counts, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis; for the requirements those personas imply, use product-requirements-draft. 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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack 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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-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。

Reviews one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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 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。

Drafts one weekly status update or team status email (done, in progress, blocked, next, asks) from the notes, task lists, tracker exports and messages the user attaches, pastes or makes reachable, every bullet traced to a source and every gap marked UNKNOWN, returned in the chat as Markdown for the user to review and send. Use when the user asks to "write my weekly status update", "draft the team status email", "turn my notes into a status report", "what did we get done this week", "summarise this week for my manager" or "prepare Friday's update". Do not use for maintaining a project's living logs or a project-level report built from them, use project-status-tracker 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。

Builds a DRAFT month-end, quarter-end or year-end close checklist and status table for a finance team from the close calendar, the open items list and last month's close issues that the user attaches, pastes or the agent can reach, marks every task on time, due, late, at risk or blocked, and flags dependency chains and repeat issues. Use when the user asks to "build the close checklist", "where are we on the month-end close", "what is late or blocked in the close", "refresh the close tracker as of today" or "prepare the close status note". Do not use for a project tracker or weekly project status, use project-status-tracker instead; for corrective actions from audits or NCRs, 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。

Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-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。