「ppo」の検索結果

Split or contain large source files according to the source-file boundary ADR without changing behavior opportunistically.

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。

Repair confirmed architecture drift in small batches while preserving public canon and avoiding broad opportunistic refactors.

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。

TanStack Router bundler plugin for route generation and automatic code splitting. Supports Vite, Webpack, Rspack, and esbuild. Configures autoCodeSplitting, routesDirectory, target framework, and code split groupings.

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&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).

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 Digital Engineering Strategy (2018, OUSD/ODASD(SE)). Use for the Department of Defense's five digital engineering goals — (1) formalize the development, integration, and use of models; (2) provide an enduring authoritative source of truth; (3) incorporate technological innovation; (4) establish supporting infrastructure and environments; (5) transform the culture and workforce — plus their focus areas, the document-to-model and design-build-test→model-analyze-build shifts, model formalisms/provenance, governance and access control of the authoritative source of truth, and the coordinate→plan→pilot→sustain rollout. A vision-and-policy strategy, deliberately non-prescriptive. Does NOT provide a how-to method, tool tutorials, MBSE/SysML mechanics, or implementation-plan content; thin on metrics, acquisition-policy detail, and step-by-step procedure. Excludes the CAC-gated Digital Engineering Body of Knowledge (DEBoK).

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。

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 NASA NPR 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).

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。

Fetch video transcripts (subtitles) and metadata from online video sources and output them as Markdown, JSON, or plain text. Currently supported: YouTube. Prefers manually created subtitles, falls back to auto-generated ones.

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。

Erstellung von Arbeitsblättern und Übungsmaterialien für Unterricht und Förderung.

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。

Plant Unterricht, Lernangebote und individuelle Förderung ohne Berichtsgenerator oder persönliche Vorlagen.

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 planning from A to B via OSRM (Open Source Routing Machine). Supports car, bicycle and pedestrian. No API key required.

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 product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-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。

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。

Drafts one service catalogue entry (description, scope in and out, owners and support groups, service levels exactly as provided, request path, dependencies, charging, lifecycle) from the service team's notes, questionnaire answers or existing documents, with UNKNOWN and a question list for every field the inputs do not cover. Never invents a service level, owner or price. Use when the user asks to "write the catalogue entry for this service", "turn these questionnaire answers into a service description", "tidy this request catalogue item" or "check this draft entry for empty fields". Do not use for a how-to or known-error article, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for operating procedures, use runbook-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。

Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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 plain-language requests (emails, chat messages, form submissions, meeting asks, voicemail or call notes) into one intake record per request (what is asked, who asks and for whom, urgency as evidenced, category, suggested owner, missing information with draft clarifying questions) and a triage table sorted for the operations lead to act on. Use when the user asks to "log these requests", "triage this pile of asks", "turn this message into an intake record", "who should own this request", "what is missing before we can start" or "build today's intake list". Do not use for customer support tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for clearing a personal mailbox by reply bucket, use inbox-triage. 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 a campaign idea, its objectives and the supporting notes (audience material, offer facts, budget and dates, channel list) into one DRAFT one-page campaign brief: objectives, audience, one single-minded message with sourced proof points, channels and timeline, success measures with baselines, mandatories, risks and numbered open questions for the campaign owner. Use when the user asks to "write a campaign brief", "draft a creative brief for this launch", "turn this idea into a one-page brief", "tighten this brief to one page" or "build the marketing brief from these notes". Do not use for a message house, messaging pillars or a launch narrative on its own, use message-house-builder instead; for laying the campaign onto dated slots, use content-calendar-planner. 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 product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. 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。

Sorts a personal inbox backlog into five buckets (needs-reply-today, needs-reply-this-week, waiting-on-others, FYI, noise), writes DRAFT reply text for the messages that need an answer (up to 10 per run), and returns a dated triage report as one Markdown document. Lists moves or archives only as proposals for the user to perform, and only where a rule the user supplied says so; the agent changes nothing in the mailbox. Use when the user asks to "triage my inbox", "sort my mail", "clean up my inbox", "catch up after leave" or "what needs a reply today or this week". Do not use for a shared support queue or helpdesk export, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for what the user promised or is owed, use commitment-catcher; for one named thread, answer directly. 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 Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer 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。

Drafts an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-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。