「assumptions」の検索結果

Validates a plan before committing to it - checks whether the ranking survives the assumptions, finds the most likely way it fails, and makes the trade-offs explicit via a Pareto frontier instead of an invented single score. Use before a launch, price change, migration, infrastructure change or major commitment, when running a premortem, when two objectives conflict, or when a decision depends on an assumption nobody has tested.

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。

Finalize an implemented rolling-wave slice for user review. Use when the user wants Codex to review the current branch state against a ready-for-review or in-review slice contract, confirm and fix required findings, repeat review and verification until no required findings remain, ask before accepting findings that materially change project shape or contradict project assumptions, record review state, and leave the clean slice in review for complete-slice.

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。

Review local git changes before opening a PR or merging. First review all local tracked and untracked files; if none exist, review the current branch against a requested base branch or the Git Town parent branch. Use zero to three review subagents only when risk, diff size, language specificity, or uncertainty justifies the token cost, then report high-confidence bugs, regressions, risky assumptions, and missing tests. Use when the user asks for code review, local review, branch sanity check, pre-PR review, or review of work-in-progress changes.

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。

Reconstruct a free-form prompt into actionable AC + assumptions + confidence band before the engine plans — '/work "…"', 'baue X', 'ist der Prompt klar genug für die Engine?'.

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Use to audit a past architectural decision — did the chosen option hold up, what assumptions drifted, should the ADR be superseded? Backward review only; does not lock new choices.

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。

Examine a plan, decision, belief, or problem through question rounds that explore assumptions, alternatives, and consequences before acting.

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。

Stress-test plans before committing by imagining they've already failed. Three modes. Diagnostic mode runs a full pre-mortem session — vivid failure scene-setting, six failure categories, the monkey test, and concrete plan adjustments. Review mode checks previous findings monthly for changed probabilities and new failure modes. Alert Triggers mode defines and monitors early warning signals across four trigger categories. Use before any major commitment — strategy, investment, product launch, partnership — or regularly to keep assumptions honest. The planning fallacy is real. The spreadsheet looked great so everyone stopped thinking. This is the antidote. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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。

First-principles strategy — strip away conventional assumptions and find the theoretical maximum for your business. Three modes. Diagnostic mode runs a full session (45+ min) to define your theoretical maximum, map the gap honestly, classify constraints, invert for failure modes, set strategic intent, and work backwards to your first intervention. Review mode (15-20 min) checks whether your theoretical maximum has shifted, whether the gap has changed, and whether you're still climbing the right peak. Alert mode defines constraint-shift, peak-shift, and local-peak triggers that tell you when to reassess. Use when someone is stuck optimising incrementally, when conventional wisdom is driving strategy, when a new technology or regulation changes what's physically possible, or when you suspect the business is climbing a local peak. Integrates with company-context.md. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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 work is ambiguous or has multiple viable paths; compares options, assumptions, evidence, tradeoffs, and the best next action.

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 the user starts a non-trivial coding/building task in Claude Code (e.g. "帮我做个 X", "help me build Y", "add feature Z", "搭一个 Z"). Layers an AI-native pedagogical coat over normal coding work — surfaces implicit assumptions in user intent, annotates non-trivial design decisions inline with brief concept-scaffolding for terms the user may not know, and replaces "should I run it?" handoffs with rigorous AI self-verification plus a clean list of what only the user can verify. Skip for pure Q&A, single-line edits, read-only investigation, or refactoring along an existing pattern.

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。

Conduct a Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.

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。

XP-style plan review that identifies gaps, hidden assumptions, and critical misses. Triggers on 'review the plan', 'check the plan', 'audit the plan'. Reviews plans for YAGNI violations, missing feedback loops, and over-engineering.

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。

Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked decisions.

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。

Clarify ambiguous or conflicting requests by researching first, then asking only judgment calls. Use when prompts say "grill me", ask hard questions, request relentless interrogation, pressure-test assumptions, clarify scope/requirements, define success criteria, or request system-design/optimization decisions before implementation; stop before implementation.

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。

Crystallize shared understanding into a reviewable spec, or update an existing one. Use when the problem needs a written specification, when assumptions or decisions have changed, or when the user says 'write a spec'.

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。

Econometrics skill for OLS regression and linear models. Activates when the user asks about: "run OLS", "linear regression", "ordinary least squares", "interpret regression results", "heteroskedasticity", "multicollinearity", "regression assumptions", "robust standard errors", "GLS", "WLS", "fit a regression model", "check regression diagnostics", "OLS假设", "最小二乘法", "线性回归", "回归系数", "残差检验", "异方差", "多重共线性", "普通最小二乘", "稳健标准误", "回归诊断"

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 NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods (NIST HB 151) — the practical statistics reference for engineering, metrology, and quality. Use for: exploratory data analysis and the four univariate assumptions (4-plot); measurement process characterization including bias/precision, calibration designs, gauge R&R, and ISO/GUM uncertainty budgets; production process characterization (stability vs. capability); process modeling and regression (LS/WLS/NLS/LOESS); design of experiments (screening, fractional/factorial, response-surface, Taguchi); statistical process control (Shewhart/CUSUM/EWMA charts, capability indices, acceptance sampling); product/process comparisons (hypothesis tests and confidence intervals for 1/2/3+ groups, ANOVA, multiple comparisons); and reliability (lifetime & repair-rate models, accelerated testing, reliability growth). Scope limits: this is applied frequentist statistics for measurement and quality — it does NOT reproduce the per-distribution formula galleries, worked case studies, datasets, plot images, or Dataplot/R code of the original web Handbook (those are described, not copied); it is thin on modern machine learning, Bayesian methods beyond conjugate reliability priors, time-series/forecasting, and Bayesian experimental design.

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 GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-20-195G). Use for program cost estimating: the four characteristics of a reliable estimate (comprehensive, well documented, accurate, credible) and the 18 best practices; the 12-step cost estimating process (purpose, plan, technical baseline, WBS, ground rules and assumptions, data, point estimate, sensitivity, risk/uncertainty, document, present, update); estimating methods (analogy, parametric, engineering build-up, learning curves); Monte Carlo risk/uncertainty analysis, confidence levels and contingency; auditing and validating an estimate against the characteristics; earned value management (EIA-748, BCWS/BCWP/ACWP, CPI/SPI/TCPI, EAC, PMB, IBR); and specialized techniques (software cost estimating, learning curves, Analysis of Alternatives, WBS templates, the Green Book internal-control framework). This is the cost-estimating companion to the GAO Schedule and Technology Readiness Assessment guides. Does not cover schedule estimating/risk in depth (see the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide), agency-specific cost models, or the full text of referenced standards (EIA-748, MIL-STD-881D, the Green Book) — these are named, not reproduced.

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。

Reviews a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, 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。

Assembles a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-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。

Have the second brain ask the owner five hard questions about their own long-held beliefs and codex entries that have not been revisited, so assumptions stop fossilizing. Monthly or on demand. Triggers: "/five-hard", "challenge my beliefs", "pressure-test my views".

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 Karpathy-inspired coding behavior guidelines — think before coding, prefer simplicity, make surgical changes, and execute toward verifiable goals. Reduces wrong assumptions, overengineering, and unintended side-effects.

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。