「party」の検索結果

Use when answering factual or explanatory questions about the current project — codebase, architecture, conventions, workflows, constraints — with minimal cited evidence. Triggers on "how does X work here", "what does X mean", "why is X structured this way", "is this claim true in the repo", "explain X with sources". NOT for brainstorming or comparing approaches (mk:brainstorming), trade-off decisions (mk:party), debugging/root cause (mk:investigate), code review (mk:review), plans (mk:plan-creator), security audits (mk:cso), visual explanations/diagrams (mk:preview --explain), test-coverage gaps (mk:nyquist), library docs (mk:docs-finder), or workflow navigation (mk:help).

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。

Turn a raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until the problem, requirements, goals, non-goals, and constraints are CONFIRMED, then deliver a single verdict — do, don't, cheaper alternatives, trade-offs, ordered checklist, success metrics. Required: the user wants exactly ONE recommendation — not options, not a debate — and their framing is open to challenge (advise may answer a different question than the one asked). Triggers on "what should I do about X", "advise me on X", "am I approaching this right", "is this the right move". Do NOT use to be interrogated with no recommendation (→ mk:grill) — advise also interviews one question at a time, but only to reach a verdict. Do NOT use when the framing is settled and only the options are open (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to decide whether something is worth building (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when you want several perspectives to argue it out (→ mk:party).

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。

Managing third-party dependencies — version pinning, security auditing, license compliance, update workflows, lockfile management, supply chain security. Activate on "npm audit", "dependabot", "renovate", "pin versions", "dependency update", "supply chain", "license compliance", "lockfile", "security advisory", "typosquatting", "SBOM". NOT for internal monorepo package management (use monorepo-management) or publishing your own packages to npm/PyPI.

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。

Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services.

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。

Search the web and open-source code for library usage, API syntax, and documentation via Exa. Use this whenever verifying an API signature, looking up how a library is used, checking a config file format, or resolving an error from a third-party dependency -- including when you think you already know the answer, since library APIs drift. Also use for questions documentation cannot answer: release timing, breaking changes, "is X still maintained", licensing, security advisories, and ecosystem comparisons.

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。

Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform. Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover. Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself.

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 running verbose CLI commands — wraps them with rtk (Rust Token Killer, third-party Apache-2.0; upstream reports 60-90% token savings). Covers installation, configuration, and usage patterns.

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。

Regenerate docs/THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md from provenance/borrows.jsonl after any ledger change — even a single new entry — never hand-edit the notices file

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 configuring Laravel Reverb — the first-party WebSocket server with Pusher protocol compatibility, horizontal scaling, and Pulse monitoring.

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 reviewing a contract clause-by-clause from your party's side — buyer/seller/vendor/licensee. Triggers on 'review this contract', 'redline this MSA', 'is this clause a problem'.

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。

[Code Quality] Use when you need to perform a security review or audit on any scope — application code (OWASP Top 10 2025), secrets exposure, dependency/supply-chain malware, third-party repository vetting before install, infrastructure/config, CI/CD pipeline, AI-agent risks, and host/VPS compromise detection.

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。

Audit or update this Windows computer's fixed third-party Codex helper toolchain when the user requests local helper-tool maintenance. Always show the complete registered list and obtain confirmation for each update group; exclude Codex itself and general runtimes unless explicitly added.

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。

Measure and audit C/C++ code size, namespace distribution, function complexity, nesting, recurrence, and namespace coupling in the EMULATORS framework. Use when Codex needs codebase statistics, complexity baselines, namespace comparisons, duplication indicators, hotspots, architectural growth analysis, or before/after complexity reports while excluding third-party code.

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。

Scan code, dependencies, containers, IaC and SBOMs with Snyk via its first-party MCP server: authenticate, trust a folder, run the right scanner, read the findings, fix and re-scan. Includes package-health checks before adding a dependency.

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。

Audit an existing agent skill or instruction file for lines that do not change behavior, routing overlap, and portability, or vet a third-party skill before installing it. To create or edit a skill, use the platform's skill-creator instead. Not for running a skill's own task.

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。

Concrete remediation proposal with Safe Harbour confidence — version bump, inline as first-party code, patch, workaround, or advisory. Use when applying a fix for a triaged CVE, evaluating fix-type trade-offs across registry / source / distro patches, producing rollback-safe manifest edits with dry-run verification, or generating a CycloneDX SBOM after the fix lands.

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。

Playwright workflows for deterministic third-party responses using page.route().

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 Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems (SP 1500-201/202/203, v1.0, 2017). Use for engineering and analyzing cyber-physical systems (CPS) and IoT: the CPS Framework's aspect × facet grid (nine aspects of concern examined through conceptualization, realization, and assurance facets), cross-property trustworthiness risk management (safety/security/privacy/reliability/resilience together), data interoperability (syntactical/semantic/contextual, canonical models, identifiers, provenance), the timing aspect (time-interval classes, time domains, time-aware networking) and secure/resilient time (GNSS jamming/spoofing, PTP/NTP attacks, holdover, the clock-error model and Allan/MTIE metrics), plus the use-case requirements method. Bridges IT and OT under a clock. Scope limits: a 2017 living/draft document, thin on post-2017 standards and on detailed control catalogs; it names but does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 and 15288 process text or permission-licensed third-party 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。

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 the FAA Human Factors Design Standard (HF-STD-001B, 2016) — the FAA's consolidated human-factors / human-systems-integration design criteria for systems it manages, operates, or maintains. Use for requirement-level design rules on: general human-factors design principles; automation and function allocation; designing equipment for maintenance; displays, controls, and visual indicators; alarms, audio, and voice communications; the computer-human interface (information presentation, coding, interaction styles, windows, dialogue); keyboards, input devices, and workstation/workplace ergonomics; system security, personnel safety, environment, anthropometry, and user documentation; plus intended-use and tailoring guidance. It is a quantified, source-attributed synthesis (heavily citing MIL-STD-1472G, MIL-HDBK-759C, DOD-HFDG-ATCCS, NUREG-0700, NASA-STD-3000, ANSI, OSHA, ISO 9241). Complements nasa-hsi as a parallel HSI tradition from the civil-aviation domain. Scope limits: it is design criteria, NOT an HSI lifecycle/process model (use nasa-hsi, nasa-npr-7123, or dau-se-guidebook for process); it does NOT reproduce the third-party standards it cites; it is FAA-acquisition-oriented (ATC, towers, TRACONs, airway facilities), not a general consumer-UX guide; and it is thin on modern touchscreen/mobile, web, and AI-driven interface patterns and on quantitative human-reliability analysis.

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。

Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. 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 Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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 interface register between disciplines or parties from meeting notes, action lists and drawings or document lists: one row per interface with the requesting and providing party, the information needed, the related document number, the need-by date with its source, the status as minuted and a quoted source, plus UNKNOWN and questions where the notes are silent. Never sets a date, rates priority, assigns ownership beyond what the notes state or closes an interface. Use when the user asks to "build an interface register from these minutes", "list the interfaces between piping and civil", "who owes what to whom on this package", "update the interface register from this week's meeting" or "turn these action items into an interface list". Do not use for recording a design or document change raised in a meeting, use management-of-change-intake 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。