「discipline」の検索結果

[Code Quality] Use when reviewing UI/frontend changes for long-content overflow, responsive multi-screen layout (flex-wrap / row-to-column on small devices), flex-vs-fixed sizing, z-index discipline, SCSS/BEM styling quality, and async UI states & feedback (loading indicator, error surface, empty state).

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。

[Architecture] Use when grading project architecture and scalability quality for greenfield init or brownfield audit: build/CI scalability, distributed-monolith risk, module isolation, dependency discipline, loose coupling, horizontal scaling, DRY, abstraction, clean architecture, observability, and delivery.

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。

Run evidence-disciplined Xiaohongshu social listening for foreign pharma employee pain points. Use when the user asks to collect and analyze notes/comments about pharma companies, aliases, roles, compliance, medical affairs, or AI topics, then produce a cited and scored sampled-insight report. Includes independent-evidence counting, MediaCrawler batch collection, and CAPTCHA/461 fallback to Agent Reach/OpenCLI.

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。

Design and review client UI changes — visual token discipline, reuse-before-adding, feedback surfaces (toast vs in-place notice vs empty state), overlay and menu safety, platform window adaptation, loading states, and error copy placement. Use when adding or changing product-user-visible GUI behavior, or when reviewing such a PR.

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。

Semantic audit of the IDD instruction corpus for leaked session context, cross-file contradictions, fresh-memory completability gaps, automation blockers, and restatement-discipline drift. Use on request to audit .github/instructions, the issue-authoring skill bundle, and the installed agent entry files (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, .github/copilot-instructions.md). Read-only — never edits files or mutates issues.

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。

Discipline for repairing a false claim once it has propagated: select what depends on it, produce a replacement, and accept with an expiring verdict. Trigger when: - A claim, citation, premise, or documented fact is found wrong and its downstream consequences must be traced and fixed. - A refutation, a failed re-run, a retracted external source, or a human correction lands against something already closed or already promoted. - Prompt contains: /remediation, remediation, retraction, false claim, propagated error, scrub, correction propagation, born-false, became-false, currency verdict, impeachment queue.

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 LAW a council SEAT is bound by — deliberation protocol, pact obligations, governance, and decision-ledger recording — the discipline half of a seat. Trigger when: - Holding a seat on a bound council (architect, lead-maintainer, process-auditor, or a summoned guest). - Depositing an independent assessment, routing a decision, or recording assent or a finding. - Auditing whether the council honored the pact, the delegation table, or the barring lifecycle. - Prompt contains: /council, council seat, deliberation protocol, pact, delegation table, decision ledger, barring, merge-consent.

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 needs deeper thinking, less generic output, repo evidence, tradeoffs, monitoring signals, or stronger quality discipline.

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 before feature, bugfix, or refactor implementation when behavior can be tested; enforces Red-Green-Refactor discipline.

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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing; run verification and read the output before any success claim.

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 implementing a new function, adding a feature, fixing a bug, refactoring with test coverage, or writing a new test. Enforces strict outside-in red-green-refactor TDD with one-failure-per-turn discipline, predict-the-failure-before-every-run checks, hardcode-first minimum changes, triangulation, and property-based testing for large input spaces. Triggers on explicit TDD requests and on any task phrased as "implement", "add", "write a function", "build a feature", or "fix a bug" in a test-capable codebase. Reports red/green validation evidence.

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。

Two-phase code quality skill: (1) review codebase for structural smells — file LOC, method LOC, accidental complexity, test readability — producing a structured report, then (2) fix all smells via provable refactorings with ACN micro commits and green-bar-at-all-times discipline. Use this skill when the user says 'sweep', 'code review', 'find code smells', 'check method lengths', 'review for complexity', 'tidy up the codebase', 'refactor smells', or asks about long methods, test readability, or accidental complexity. Also trigger when users ask to 'clean up' or 'improve code quality' across multiple files.

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 synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.

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 NPR 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).

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 DOE Systems Engineering Methodology (SEM) Version 3 — the DOE SDLC for IT investments. Use for staged systems lifecycle planning through maintenance, Stage Exits, Structured Walkthroughs, In-Stage Assessments, requirements traceability, and CMM-aligned process discipline. Covers SEM3 (2002) guidance only; does not replace modern DevSecOps tooling standards, DOE O 413.3B capital-asset directives, or current CIO policy supersessions.

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 OUSD(R&E) guidebook Implementing a MOSA in DoD Programs (Feb 2025). Use for the Modular Open Systems Approach as a DoD acquisition + design discipline: the statutory/regulatory basis (10 U.S.C. 4401–4403, FY2017/FY2021 NDAA, DFARS), the five OUSD(R&E) pillars, the plan→modularize→identify→define→standardize interface lifecycle, technical levers (WBS/MIL-STD-881F taxonomy, standards profiling, API-first software, COTS/cybersecurity), MOSA assessment metrics and tools (PART/OAAT/KOSS/SEAM/MAUT), technology-change and DMSMS management, roadmaps, MOSA across the six AAF pathways, and contracting/IP/data-rights mechanics. SCOPE LIMITS: this is U.S. DoD weapon-system acquisition policy, not a general open-architecture or interface-standards reference — it names standards (FACE, OMS, DISR) without reproducing them, is light on detailed engineering of any specific standard, and does not cover the underlying SE processes (use dau-se-guidebook / nasa-npr-7123) or general systems-engineering theory (use sebok).

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-881F (13 May 2022), DoD Standard Practice for Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items. Use for Program/Contract/Subcontract WBS construction, 100% rule and dictionary discipline, commodity appendices A–J, Common Elements (K), sustainment CES reporting (L), Government ST&E (M), and RFP/post-award implementation. Technical planning & WBS and PM/measurement focus—not a cost manual substitute for CAPE policy.

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 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。

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。

Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-check. 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。

Disciplined diagnosis loop for hard bugs, regressions, flaky failures, and performance problems with unclear cause. Use for root-cause debugging after a concrete symptom exists; do not use for routine implementation or speculative cleanup.

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。

Operational guide for WordPress.org submission readiness of NV oOS standalone plugins (nvoos-docs-hub live at 0.5.3; nvoos-content-graph live at 1.0.10 in the re-submission loop; nvoos-design-system next in the pipeline — issue #6811). Covers the 18 wp.org guidelines, the Plugin Check (PCP) gate in CI and Docker, PCP finding triage, the reviewer-reply loop (findings taxonomy from the real 0.4.3 review, related-issue sweep checklist, reply-email template), packaging exclusion tri-sync, readme.txt standards, .wordpress-org listing assets, and the NV oOS Complete checkout-flow disclosure discipline (docs-hub 0.5.3, content-graph). Use when preparing a wp.org submission, responding to a reviewer email, fixing the plugin-check CI job, triaging PCP findings, or capturing listing screenshots.

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。