「state」の検索結果

Plan a cyclist's training week as a standalone coaching package with integrated workout building. Use whenever the athlete asks to plan a week or the upcoming week ("plan my week", "build my training week", "week schema", "plan a week workout schedule", or any localized equivalent), or states a goal for the week. The flow reads a per-athlete config, pulls recent Strava data, classifies rider type from the athlete's own power curve, then produces one weekly markdown plan and structured bike workouts (ZWO for Zwift) per structured bike session without relying on another skill. Works for any cyclist, not one fixed person.

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。

Validate bugs and features that depend on local hosts, localhost, filesystem home state, auth, polling, installed apps, real conversations, or signed native helpers.

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。

Implement functional Clawix UI wiring while respecting visual mutation boundaries, pattern contracts, protected surfaces, and debt baselines.

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。

Add or change stable public state, contracts, routes, migrations, adapters, rescue behavior, or compatibility-sensitive surfaces through the evolution ledger.

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 protection with beforeLoad, redirect()/throw redirect(), isRedirect helper, authenticated layout routes (_authenticated), non-redirect auth (inline login), RBAC with roles and permissions, auth provider integration (Auth0, Clerk, Supabase), router context for auth state.

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。

React bindings for TanStack Router: RouterProvider, useRouter, useRouterState, useMatch, useMatches, useLocation, useSearch, useParams, useNavigate, useLoaderData, useLoaderDeps, useRouteContext, useBlocker, useCanGoBack, Link, Navigate, Outlet, CatchBoundary, ErrorComponent. React-specific patterns for hooks, providers, SSR hydration, and createLink with forwardRef.

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。

Capture volatile session state into a structured handoff document before context is lost. Use when ending a session, switching threads, approaching context limits, or at any juncture the user chooses.

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。

Throwaway design probe for logic, state models, UI variations, and affordances before production work. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a model, make something playable, compare UI directions, or explore a design before ln-spec/ln-plan/ln-scope.

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。

Guidance on writing high-quality requirements: the requirement quality characteristics and the EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) patterns — ubiquitous, event-driven, state-driven, optional-feature, unwanted-behaviour — for unambiguous, singular, verifiable requirements, plus defect/anti-pattern review and verification & traceability. Use when authoring or reviewing requirements. Original synthesis citing EARS (Mavin et al.) and NASA public-domain guidance; not a reproduction of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 or the EARS paper.

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 Digital Engineering Acquisition Framework Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1004). Use for acquiring digital/model-based data under contract: the Data Requirements Description (DRD) instrument and the Appendix A DRD suite (TDP, MBx, CDMP, CSA, CR, FCA/PCA, SDT, EMDAL, REF, MRI); the Data Type 1-5 control scale; SOW/RFP/Cost-Volume contract language and data rights (FAR/DFARS, Table 3 license categories); the Requirements Exchange Format (REF/ReqIF, UUID schema) and Master Records Index; model-based data definition (MBSE, CAD/PMI, M&S credibility, BOM, release-state mapping, PLM); digital data collaboration, the four owned architectures, and interoperability standards (MIL-STD-31000, STEP/ISO 10303, ASME Y14); the four MBE interoperability use cases; and MBE Plan development. Scope is the acquisition and contracting side of digital engineering. Does not reproduce ISO/STEP/ASME/MIL-STD/SAE standard text, and the companion NASA-HDBK-1009A carries the deeper digital-engineering practitioner detail this handbook defers to.

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 Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.

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 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 second edition.

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 FAA-HDBK-006D (2020), the FAA's System Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) Handbook for National Airspace System (NAS) hardware and software. Use for RMA figures of merit (MTBF, MTBO, MTTR, the availability variants), the bathtub curve and probability distributions, the four-stage RMA lifecycle mapped to the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), the six-task RMA technical-management/acquisition process, service-thread criticality and the NAS-RD severity-to-target table, the RMA analysis toolbox (RBD, FMEA/FMECA, FTA, Ishikawa, Monte Carlo, Bayesian, FRACAS, ALT, reliability-growth/recovery tests), software reliability (early prediction + reliability growth), and tailorable example RMA requirements for a Program Requirements Document. Scope limits: it is FAA/NAS-specific guidance (not a requirement, by its own statement), centred on hardware-plus-software availability — it brackets out human/service/facility/communications availability, names but does not reproduce the math derivations or external standards (MIL-STDs, IEEE 1633, RTCA DO-178C/DO-278A, SAE JA1011), is thin on detailed worked numerical examples and on safety-case method, and predates any current revision beyond 006D.

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。

Meta-skill for complete Roblox game development with Rojo — the entry point that knows and unifies the three specialist skills `/rojo` (filesystem→Studio sync, project setup), `/rbx-studio` (editor, MCP, assets, malware scan) and `/game-design` (roles, workflows, GDD). Use this skill for ANY Roblox game-dev undertaking: planning/building/setting up a Roblox game, scaffolding a new project, defining code architecture (Main + manager modules, _G.ClientState + HUD, remotes in GameEnums), avoiding Luau/Roblox pitfalls, or when it is unclear which of the Roblox specialist skills fits — routing happens from here. Also trigger on "develop Roblox game", "build Roblox game", "new Roblox project", "Luau project structure", "how do I organize Roblox code", "Roblox dev setup".

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。

Erstellt oder überarbeitet einen Skill FÜR DIESES ÖKOSYSTEM: delegiert die generische Interview-/Entwurfs-/Eval-Schleife an das offizielle skill-creator-Plugin (Anthropic, Apache-2.0), setzt aber zusätzlich die ellmos-Anforderungen durch, die das offizielle Plugin nicht kennt — Haus-Frontmatter (9 Felder), Kategorie/Sichtbarkeits-Regeln, anbieter-/nutzer-/ellmos-neutrale aber ellmos-sensitive Erkennung via grounding-seed, mitgelieferte config.json (inkl. Lernvertrag) + connections.json, Anbieter-/Vendor-Bewusstsein (State-of-the-Art-Alternativen inkl. eigener ellmos-Komponenten vorschlagen), einen Selbstaktualisierungs-Abschnitt UND einen wiederverwendbaren Lern-/Abdeckungs-Dateisatz (user-usecases.json, usecase-gaps.json, known-providers-and-abilities.json, gap-closing-analysis.json — an skill-creators evals.json und A2A/AgentSkill angelehnt, kein Parallelstandard). IMMER nutzen, wenn ein NEUER Skill für dieses System entstehen oder ein bestehender auf ellmos-Konformität nachgerüstet werden soll — auch bei "erstelle einen Skill", "bau mir einen Skill für X", "skill-creator nutzen", "neuen Skill anlegen", "diesen Skill ellmos-konform machen", "Lernvertrag/Verhaltenscodex für einen Skill anlegen", "Usecase-Abdeckung eines Skills prüfen". Für reines Skill-FINDEN/ROUTEN stattdessen skill-finder, für Landschafts-Audit skill-explorer.

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。

Hosting-Muster, um eine lokal gebaute Anwendung (eigene Datenbank, eigener API-Key, In-Process-State) sicher hostbar zu machen, ohne Nutzerverwaltung zu bauen. Kernzug — der Host speichert nichts, der Browser des Besuchers speichert alles — sodass Pro-Besucher-Accounts, Zugriffsprüfungen und Löschfristen gegenstandslos werden, statt gelöst werden zu müssen. Nutzen, wenn eine lokal gebaute App für mehrere Besucher gehostet werden soll, bei "mach das ohne Login hostbar", "keine Nutzerkonten bauen", "Datenschutzerklärung für ein gehostetes Tool verkleinern", "wer ist verantwortlich, wenn wir nichts speichern" oder beim Wählen/Implementieren eines Server-Modus (`local`, `huckepack-gift`, `huckepack-only-host`, `pay-membership`). Liefert eine Data-Flow-Plan-Vorlage, eine Datenschutz-Vorlage und eine rechtliche Ersteinschätzung (DSGVO/TDDDG/UWG, deutsch) als Referenzen.

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。

8-phase development cycle: Feature requests, current state, functional planning, frontend, backend planning, backend code, tests, use cases. Iterative framework for systematic software development.

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。

Builds a DRAFT stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-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。

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。

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。

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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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 internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, 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。