「what」の検索結果

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 NASA Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide (NASA/SP-2015-3709). Use for HSI process implementation, lifecycle phase activities, function allocation, ConOps development, HSI Plan writing, HSI metrics (MOE/MOP/TPM/KPP), HITL testing strategy, HSI team organisation, scaling/tailoring for program size, and V&V planning. Does not cover the specific human engineering design standards (NASA-STD-3001 content) or detailed HFE methods beyond what the guide itself provides.

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 IS-GPS-200 Rev N (NAVSTAR GPS Space Segment / Navigation User Segment Interfaces). Use as a worked ICD/IS exemplar: what an interface specification is, DIST-A and IRN/CCB change control, interface definition vs identification, composite-signal criteria patterns, NAV data as payload families, and time/definition hygiene. Covers Rev N synthesized notes only; does not transcribe Apps II–IV bit fields or PRN/Gold-code tables, and does not replace faa-std-025 preparation rules.

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。

Router and protocol for reading and extracting web content. Decides first WHAT is needed (main text vs. structure vs. screenshot) and then WHICH tool available on the system delivers it. If nothing suitable is present, it recommends installing the web-scraper module.

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。

Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review 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。

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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. 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。

Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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 control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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 weekly status update or team status email (done, in progress, blocked, next, asks) from the notes, task lists, tracker exports and messages the user attaches, pastes or makes reachable, every bullet traced to a source and every gap marked UNKNOWN, returned in the chat as Markdown for the user to review and send. Use when the user asks to "write my weekly status update", "draft the team status email", "turn my notes into a status report", "what did we get done this week", "summarise this week for my manager" or "prepare Friday's update". Do not use for maintaining a project's living logs or a project-level report built from them, 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。

Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. 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 one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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。

Prepares the trend update for a recurring emailed report: identifies report emails not yet processed, extracts the configured metrics from their spreadsheet, CSV or PDF attachments, returns new rows for an append-only trends sheet and writes a DRAFT summary with period-on-period deltas and flagged anomalies. Use when the user asks to "update the trends for the weekly report", "analyse the latest monthly report", "what changed in the latest report", "do the latest numbers look unusual" or "set up tracking for a report that arrives by email". Do not use for a single file with no trend state, use dataset-insight-pack 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。

Builds one DRAFT message house for a product, service, programme or initiative from the source material the user provides: an umbrella statement, two to four pillars and graded proof points under each, with every proof point that lacks a source flagged, a claim sensitivity table, an audience coverage check and open questions. Use when the user asks to "build a message house", "write our messaging framework", "what are the key messages for this launch", "turn this research into messaging pillars" or "test our current messaging against the evidence". Do not use for a campaign one-pager, use campaign-brief-builder instead; to check whether a written document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. 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 the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single SKILL.md, use skill-file-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。

Compares a changed HR policy with the version it replaces and drafts a clause-by-clause change log, a plain-language DRAFT employee briefing, a manager FAQ answered only from the policy text with clause references, and a list of open questions the people team must settle before release. Use when the user asks to explain, announce, summarise or brief a policy change, a new policy version or an updated handbook section, or says "what changed in the leave policy", "brief managers on the new handbook section" or "compare the old and new versions of this policy". Do not use for a single announcement with no version comparison, use announcement-drafter instead; for an FAQ from documents that are not a policy change, use faq-builder; for contract clauses, 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。

Prepares a change request pack (description and justification, scope, schedule, implementation plan, risk as stated, rollback, test evidence as provided, communications, approvals route) from an engineer's notes, ticket or pull request description, with UNKNOWN for anything not provided and a question list for the engineer. Never rates risk or marks a change tested or approved. Use when the user asks to "write the change request for this", "fill in the change ticket from my notes", "prepare the CAB submission" or "turn this pull request into an RFC". Do not use for the step-by-step procedure with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for release notes describing what shipped, use release-notes-writer. 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 set of questions (form exports, helpdesk logs, meeting Q and A, chat threads, a plain list) plus the source documents the user supplies into a DRAFT FAQ grouped by theme: every answer quoted or paraphrased from a named source with a reference, verbatim quotes for dates, figures, eligibility and obligations, UNKNOWN where the sources are silent, a source register with precedence, a conflicts table and a routing list of unanswered questions to owners. Use when the user asks to "build an FAQ from these documents", "answer these questions from the policy", "turn the Q and A into an FAQ page", "group these questions and answer them from the guide" or "what do our documents say about these questions". Do not use for the manager FAQ of a changed HR policy, use policy-change-briefing instead; for checking whether a document's own claims are evidenced, use claims-evidence-map. 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 meeting transcript or recap into a DRAFT action-items document (decisions, owned and dated action items with verbatim source quotes, open questions), a task list ready for the user to enter into their task tracker, and one DRAFT follow-up email per action owner, all returned in the chat for the user to store, create or send. Use when the user shares, names or points to a meeting transcript or recap and asks to "pull the action items from this transcript", "who owns what after today's call", "draft follow-up emails to each owner" or "turn this recap into tasks". Do not use for full minutes, use meeting-minutes-writer instead; a brief before a meeting is meeting-prep-onepager. 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 the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan 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。

Builds a DRAFT content calendar for a stated period from the themes, channels, cadence rules, fixed dates and owners the user provides: one dated row per planned item with theme, channel, format, working title, owner, status and source, plus a cadence check with its arithmetic, theme balance, owner load and the slots left open. Use when the user asks to "build the content calendar for Q4", "lay these themes onto dates", "plan a month of posts across our channels", "extend the editorial calendar" or "check this calendar against our cadence". Do not use for deciding what the campaign says or why it runs, use campaign-brief-builder instead; for writing the items themselves, use announcement-drafter or internal-newsletter-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。

Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-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。