「document」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (GAO-20-48G, 2020). Use for evaluating technology maturity in acquisition programs and projects: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9) and related scales (MRL, IRL), identifying Critical Technology Elements (CTEs), the five-step process for a high-quality TRA, the four characteristics of a reliable TRA (comprehensive, well-documented, credible, defensible), Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs), and using TRA results in knowledge-based, milestone decisions. Assessment/maturity oriented: it measures readiness and frames risk — it is not a full SE process model, cost-estimating, or schedule guide (see sibling packs for those).

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-HDBK-61B, the DoD Configuration Management (CM) guidance handbook (7 April 2020, cataloged with Change 1, 2025). Use for defense CM across the acquisition and sustainment life cycle: the five CM functions (planning, identification, control/change management, status accounting, verification & audit), the three configuration baselines (FBL/ABL/PBL) and FCD→ACD→PCD documentation, configuration items (CIs/HWCI/CSCI), change instruments (ECP/NOR/RFV), the CCB and Class I/II classification, CDCA/AA authority, FCA/PCA audits, data management and data rights (CDRL/DID, DFARS rights ladder, master/authoritative source), and tailoring CM by phase (EIA-649-1 R/T/NR matrix, Appendix C templates), plus digital-era CM (digital twin, viewpoints, MOSA). NOTE: 61B is advisory guidance that adopts and points to the SAE EIA-649 / EIA-649-1 / GEIA-HB-649 suite for the authoritative CM requirements — this pack names and describes that suite but does not reproduce its copyrighted requirement text. Thin on: the EIA-649 requirement clauses themselves, form-level detail (DD-form field instructions, full DID content), and non-DoD/commercial CM frameworks.

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-40051-2C (15 Dec 2015), Preparation of Digital Technical Information for Page-Based Technical Manuals. Use for TM/TDP structure, work packages, front/back matter, style/format, warnings/HAZMAT, change packages, content selection matrices, and plate exemplars. Primary Training & Documentation pack (cluster 25) with Ops & Maintenance procedure use—page-based (-2C) only, not IETM 40051-1.

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。

Protocolo para crear, publicar, lanzar, auditar y mantener repositorios de GitHub de forma segura: verificar reglas locales y bloqueos, crear .gitignore antes del primer git add, realizar verificaciones de privacidad, preparar README/i18n/banner/metadatos, verificar etiquetas de release y lanzamientos de GitHub, y actualizar perfiles de organización, archivos llms.txt y enlaces a registros.

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。

Протокол для безопасного создания, публикации, релиза, аудита и обслуживания репозиториев GitHub: проверка локальных правил и блокировок, создание .gitignore перед первым git add, проверка конфиденциальности, подготовка README/i18n/баннера/метаданных, проверка тегов релиза и релизов GitHub, а также обновление профилей организаций, файлов llms.txt и ссылок в реестрах.

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。

安全创建、发布、Release、审计和维护 GitHub 仓库的规范协议：检查本地规则与锁文件，在首次 git add 前创建 .gitignore，运行隐私检查，准备 README/i18n/Banner/元数据，验证 release 标签与 GitHub releases，并更新组织 Profile、llms.txt 文件及注册表链接。

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。

GitHub リポジトリを安全に作成、公開、リリース、監査、保守するためのプロトコル。ローカルルールとロックの確認、最初の git add 前の .gitignore 作成、プライバシーチェックの実行、README/i18n/バナー/メタデータの準備、リリースタグおよび GitHub releases の検証、組織プロファイル、llms.txt ファイル、レジストリリンクの更新を行います。

Strukturiert bereitgestellte Finanz- und Versicherungsunterlagen als neutrale Übersicht und Checkliste.

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。

Einmaliger Tasksolver+Writer+Maintainer-Durchlauf fuer den Projektordner, in dem die Session gerade sowieso gearbeitet hat (inkl. Unterordner) — kein systemweiter Sweep. Loest offene triviale/autonome Register-Punkte, aktualisiert Dokumentation auf den gemessenen Ist-Stand (im Projekt UND in der Root der Pipeline, in der das Projekt liegt) und raeumt Strays/Temp- Dateien nach dem Papierkorb-Prinzip weg. Nutze diesen Skill bei /tidy-up, "raeum das Projekt auf", "mach hier sauber bevor wir weitermachen", am Ende einer Arbeitssitzung an einem Projekt, oder als faellige autonome Aufgabe innerhalb von /work-autonomous + /goal.

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。

Tiefe Pflegerunde für ein veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 2): enthält den vollständigen surface-after-care-Durchlauf und ergänzt ihn um drei teure Schritte — rechtliche Ersteinschätzung über die Law-Checker mit Wiedervorlage nach einem Jahr (Gutachten bleibt gitignored im Repo), Querverweise zu verwandten Repos über ALLE Organisationen hinweg sowie das Nachziehen aller Sprachen auf App-Ebene, nicht nur in der Doku. Nutze diesen Skill bei "full after care", "deep after care", "tiefe Repo-Pflege", "große Runde", "Repo grundlegend durchgehen", wenn ein Repo länger nicht geprüft wurde, vor größeren Releases oder wenn rechtliche Relevanz, Querverweise oder Mehrsprachigkeit ausdrücklich Thema sind. Für die günstige, oft wiederholte Runde stattdessen surface-after-care; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Regelmäßiger Pflegedurchlauf für ein bereits veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 1, günstig und oft wiederholbar): zuerst alle Distributionsflächen des Projekts ermitteln (npm, PyPI, Registries, Marketplaces, Stores, Website) und Änderungen später dorthin spiegeln, dann Topics setzen, Privacy-Gate, Dokumente auf Veröffentlichungsabsicht prüfen und interne Planungsdateien nachträglich ignorieren, Banner ergänzen, Aussagen im README gegen den echten Code-Stand abgleichen, Darstellung verbessern, Sprachfassungen der README vervollständigen, Sichtbarkeitsmaßnahmen umsetzen, Eintrag auf der Organisationsseite prüfen sowie offene Issues und Pull Requests abarbeiten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein bestehendes Repo gepflegt, aufgeräumt, aktualisiert, aufgehübscht oder "mal wieder durchgesehen" werden soll, wenn ein Repo veraltet oder unaufgeräumt wirkt, bei Formulierungen wie "Repo-Pflege", "after care", "Nachpflege", "Repo auf Stand bringen", "aufräumen und pushen" oder bei rotierenden Qualitätsrunden über mehrere Repos. Für die tiefe Runde inkl. Rechtscheck und orga-übergreifenden Querverweisen stattdessen full-after-care nutzen; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Protocol for safely creating, publishing, releasing, auditing, and maintaining GitHub repositories: check local rules and locks, create .gitignore before the first add, run privacy checks, prepare README/i18n/banner/metadata, verify release tags and GitHub releases, and update organization profiles, llms.txt files, and registry 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。

Drafts answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-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。

Turns a schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. 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 slide-by-slide presentation draft on the user's own slide template and checks every slide against written brand rules (colours with hex codes, fonts, logo placement, slide archetypes, tone, banned visuals), returning the approved outline, the DRAFT deck content and a compliance report as Markdown. Use when the user asks to "build this deck on our template", "make these slides on-brand", "check this presentation against our brand guidelines", "rebuild these slides to corporate identity (CI)" or asks for a CI-compliant or corporate-template presentation. Do not use for an accessibility review of slides, use document-accessibility-check 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 account plan from the CRM notes, emails, meeting notes and contracts the user provides: situation, stakeholder map, opportunities as recorded, risks, open commitments and proposed next actions, every line traced to a source and gaps marked UNKNOWN. Returns a DRAFT Markdown document in the chat. Use when the user asks to "build an account plan", "refresh the key account plan", "what do we know about this account", "account review for <customer>" or "what should happen next on this account". Do not use for preparing a first call with a prospect, use discovery-call-prep instead; for scoring inbound 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。

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。

Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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 personal voice profile from roughly 90 days of the user's own sent messages and meeting speech, then drafts emails and documents that match how the user actually writes, returning the profile and every draft as Markdown for the user to keep, paste or send themselves. Use when the user asks to "write this like me", "match my voice", "draft this in my tone", "build my voice profile" or "refresh my voice profile". Do not use for an announcement in the organisation's voice, use announcement-drafter instead, nor for a weekly status email, use weekly-status-update-writer 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。

Sweeps a named list of news sources and blogs for items relevant to the user's role and returns a dated digest of 5 to 8 items, each with a one-line so-what, a source URL and a publication date, as a Markdown document or a ready-to-paste email. Use when the user asks to "run my news digest", "do my news sweep", "draft my morning news flash", "what happened in industry news this week" or to monitor vendor or industry news for their role. Do not use for the user's own inbox, calendar and mentions brief, use custom-daily-brief 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。

Maintains four living project files (overview and progress log, decision log, RAID log, links) from the mail, channel posts, documents and meeting notes the user attaches or the agent can reach, returns each touched file complete in the chat for the user to save, and builds a weekly DRAFT status report from those files. Use when the user asks to "set up tracking for project X", "catch the project files up", "log this decision against the project", "add this risk to the RAID log", "save this link to the project" or "write this week's status report". Do not use for reviewing an existing RAID log for stale or ownerless entries, use raid-log-review instead; for an HTML status page, use project-dashboard-builder; for minutes of one meeting, use meeting-minutes-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。

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. 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。