「engine」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 DOE Systems Engineering Methodology (SEM) Version 3 — the DOE SDLC for IT investments. Use for staged systems lifecycle planning through maintenance, Stage Exits, Structured Walkthroughs, In-Stage Assessments, requirements traceability, and CMM-aligned process discipline. Covers SEM3 (2002) guidance only; does not replace modern DevSecOps tooling standards, DOE O 413.3B capital-asset directives, or current CIO policy supersessions.

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 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 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 NASA Fault Management Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1002, Draft 2, April 2012). Use for the systems-engineering discipline of designing what a system does when it fails — the fault/failure/anomaly vocabulary, the five FM strategies (two prevention strategies — design-time fault avoidance and operational failure avoidance — plus three tolerance strategies — failure masking, failure recovery, and goal change), the six FM process activities across NASA mission phases Pre-A to E, response-latency-versus-time-to-criticality (TTC) design trades, fault/failure containment regions and FEPPs, the four redundancy approaches, top-down FM requirements development, FM verification vs. validation, the seven dedicated FM milestone reviews (FMCR/FMARR/FMPDR/FMCDR/FMTRR/FMLRR/FMCERR), FM organizational structure, and mined NASA Lessons Learned. Space-mission oriented (flight/ground/operations); spacecraft examples throughout. IMPORTANT: built from an UNAPPROVED DRAFT — several sections (detailed architecture building blocks, the Assessment & Analysis guidance, and Operations & Maintenance) are placeholders in the source and are thin here. Thin on detailed FDIR algorithms, terrestrial/IT fault management, and any approved-standard terminology that may have changed since Draft 2.

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 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 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 the NASA Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH) v4.0. Use for NASA's 12-step, three-part cost estimating process (Project Definition, Cost Methodology, Cost Estimate); the WBS, CADRe, and ONCE data backbone; estimating methodologies (analogy, parametric/CER, engineering build-up, EVM, Delphi); ground rules and assumptions, data normalization and inflation (BY/CY/RY); the point-estimate-to-S-curve cost-risk chain and Unallocated Future Expense (UFE) reserves; Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analysis via probabilistic cost-loaded schedules; decision-support analyses (sensitivity, trade studies, make/lease-vs-buy, affordability, CAIV); and economic analysis (discounting, NPV, OMB Circular A-94). The cost-estimating complement to NASA's SE and risk packs. Does NOT reproduce the handbook's tool-specific procedures, worked examples, or appendix-depth methods (it names the appendices), nor cover full DoD/GAO cost guides, schedule construction, or formal risk management beyond the cost interface.

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 poteto's rigorous engineering workflow to non-trivial coding, investigation, review, migration, and verification tasks.

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。

How game development works as a process — roles, subtasks, workflows and role descriptions, especially (but not only) for Roblox. Use this skill when it's about the ORGANIZATION of game dev rather than concrete code: Which roles exist (Creative Director, Engineer, Artist, Polish/Audio, Business, QA-Tester, Game Critic)? Who does which subtask? What does a development chain (concept → backend → frontend → polish → test) look like? How do you write a Game Design Document / KONZEPT.md? How do several (AI) agents divide up a game? Also trigger on "plan a new game", "create Game Design Document", "which roles do I need for my game", "development workflow for a game", "who tests the game", "structure a game idea", "Roblox genre/monetization".

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。

Turns an engineer's notes, a ticket history or a chat thread into a draft step-by-step runbook with preconditions, stop conditions, numbered steps with checks, verification, rollback and escalation, for the team to validate before use. Commands verbatim, placeholders marked, every gap UNKNOWN; never executes a step or fills a gap from general knowledge. Use when the user asks to "write a runbook from these notes", "turn this resolved ticket into a runbook", "document the steps we ran" or "check this runbook for gaps". Do not use for a business process without commands, use sop-drafter instead; for a knowledge article or known-error record, use knowledge-article-drafter; for the 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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. 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。

Turns one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, 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。

Dual-layer PR review tool (Raven's Verdict). Runs adversarial cynical review and edge case hunter in parallel, merges and deduplicates findings into professional engineering output. Use when user asks to 'review a PR' and provides a PR url or id.

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, debug and review code with focused checks. Use to fix a bug or failing test, refactor, remove code, perform a code review, or plan engineering work in repository records. Combine with UI for interface concerns and Plan for its native records. Excludes conceptual questions unrelated to a codebase.

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。

Score how much attention a person deserves: classify them (investor, engineer, student, partner, community, noise, personal), estimate the value they can bring in the next 90 days, their temperature, and the next move. Triggers: /worth, how valuable is <who>, who is <who>, should I reply to <who>, score this person, score this lead.

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。

Write a public post in the owner's own voice with a role model's style and idea palette layered on top, reading a style-palette file so the same engine works for any thinker the owner has profiled. Draft-first. Triggers: "/speak-as <name>", "write in the style of <X>".

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 a website codebase and makes code changes so AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) can better discover, parse, quote, and cite the site. Covers structured data, content structure, technical signals, and freshness.

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。

Researches what prompts people ask AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude) about a product category and produces a prompts.csv artifact — a prioritized, strictly-schema'd list of the queries where the brand should be cited. Feeds the monitor workflow.

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。