「acceptance」の検索結果

Use when authoring or rewriting a roadmap in agents/roadmaps/ — phases, goal, acceptance criteria, council notes; fires even on 'write a plan for X' / 'draft a roadmap'.

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 a diff needs a requirement review — does it satisfy every stated acceptance criterion — dispatched by /review-changes, /do-and-judge, /judge. Never infers criteria from the diff.

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。

[Project Management] Use when converting ideas to PBIs, validating problem hypotheses, adding acceptance criteria, or refining requirements.

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。

[Project Management] Use when creating user stories, writing acceptance criteria, analyzing requirements, or mapping business processes.

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。

Virtual QA Lead that turns requirements into review-ready, TestRail-importable test cases in one conversation. Use it whenever the user has requirements, a spec, a user story, or acceptance criteria (PDF, DOCX, XLSX, TXT, MD, or pasted text) and wants test cases, a test plan, a checklist, test coverage, a regression suite, or a TestRail/Qase/Zephyr export, even without saying "test cases" ("write tests for this spec", "what should we check here?"). Especially useful when they attach their team's existing test cases to match. When the spec describes an API (endpoints, status codes, schemas, auth, OpenAPI/Swagger), Casely also builds a runnable Postman collection, so use it for "API tests", "Postman collection", or "tests I can run in Newman/CI". Triggers on the same request in any language.

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 Invoice-Downloader work involves mailbox batch tests, truth audit, regression validation, P0/P1/P2 decisions, packaged frontend acceptance, or clean reruns.

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。

GStack spec method for turning fuzzy intent into an executable spec with goals, non-goals, acceptance criteria, risks, and downstream role boundaries.

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 文档/交付 role maintains client-facing project delivery document packages, especially Word/DOCX deliverables such as delivery lists, demo scripts, acceptance forms, change confirmations, quote notes, contract-adjacent materials, README/docs indexes, and internal handoff notes.

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。

The crouton-conformance gate — the SECOND acceptance axis of graduation (the first is the experience side-by-side, /graduate stage C1). Checks a graduated app is a REAL crouton app — CLI-scaffolded, real collections, consumes the correct packages without reinventing them — by composing the existing probes (frontend-review, a11y, e2e-smoke, typecheck) plus crouton-structural checks, then renders a required, signed-off checklist on the graduation PR. Use at /graduate stage C2, or when asked "is this app crouton-native", "run the conformance gate", "check graduation conformance".

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。

QA Engineer role in AID methodology. Use for test strategy, BDD scenarios, bug reporting, acceptance testing, flaky test prevention.

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。

AID Phase 1 - PRD creation. Use for user stories, acceptance criteria, scoping features, transitioning from discovery to tech 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。

Bounded improvement loop: one artifact, fixed eval score, keep an edit only if strictly better. Use for AR_DESIGN/AR_FUNCTION/AR_ACCEPTANCE stages or standalone bounded iteration.

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。

AID Phase 5 - QA and Release. Use for validating implementations, acceptance tests, preparing releases, deployment, operational readiness.

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。

PM role in AID methodology. Use for requirements, user stories, acceptance criteria, stakeholder management, scope definition.

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。

Create structured GitHub issues from text, screenshots, or lists, with acceptance criteria and preserved reporter context. Use for filing bugs/features, batch creation, or template cleanup. Don't use for resolving, triaging, or deep issue 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。

Create or update feature specifications from natural language descriptions. Use when starting new features or refining requirements. Generates spec.md with user stories, functional requirements, and acceptance criteria following spec-driven development 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。

Interview me about this card to develop the acceptance criteria

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。

Break an application or feature into thin vertical user-story slices with clear acceptance criteria and user-observable value. Use when planning a backlog, decomposing a feature, writing implementation-ready stories, or turning requirements into deliverable slices.

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。

Acceptance-test newly added features using browser automation, happy-path flows, screenshots, UX notes, and a written report. Use when asked to test a feature, verify a recent UI change, or check whether an app workflow works.

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。

Define one thin vertical slice with target behavior, risks, and acceptance criteria. Use when scoping the next piece of work before building, or when a slice from `memory/PLAN.md` needs precise definition.

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 NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for information systems and organizations. Use for the seven RMF steps (Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, Monitor) and their tasks; the three-tier organization-wide risk model; authorization boundaries; the requirements-to-controls relationship; security categorization (FIPS 199/200 high-water mark) and control selection/tailoring (SP 800-53/53B baselines); assessment, the authorization decision and risk acceptance, continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; the security/privacy distinction; and supply chain risk management. This is the security-and-privacy-risk-governance edge of systems engineering — it governs how much protection and whether to accept residual risk, complementing the disciplines that decide how protection is built. Does NOT reproduce the SP 800-53 control catalog or its baselines, the FIPS impact tables, or the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text; it names and routes to them rather than restating them.

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 MIL-STD-882E (DoD System Safety). Use for the system safety process, hazard analysis tasks (PHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA), the risk assessment matrix (severity x probability), software safety criticality, and risk acceptance. US-gov public domain.

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。