「governance」の検索結果

Architecture design and governance protocol for system structure, boundaries, contracts, APIs, schemas, migrations, rewrites, and long-lived codebase health. Use when designing or reviewing architecture, planning structural refactors or migrations, governing tech debt, or containing rewrite risk. Keeps the load-bearing spine small, owned, checked, and deletable over time.

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。

Govern Clawix accessibility changes across screen reader behavior, keyboard navigation, focus order, contrast, reduced motion, text scaling, timed interactions, and agent-generated UI.

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。

Review or update stable, canonical, any-human, PMF, and adoption claims using adoption/canonicity governance packets.

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。

Load for global UI-system changes involving CSS `@layer`, primitive/semantic/component tokens, themes, reusable MudBlazor wrappers, or design-token governance; not for one component's isolated CSS.

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。

Load for footer settings, templates, social/legal links, copyright, tenant customization, instance governance locks, footer HAL capabilities, or footer admin UI/API changes; not for generic page layout footers.

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-STD-8719.14C (Process for Limiting Orbital Debris). Use for orbital-debris assessment planning, mission-related debris limits, explosion/passivation and collision risk, postmission disposal options, reentry casualty risk, and ODAR/EOMP governance. Covers STD-8719.14C (Approved 2021-11-05) synthesized notes only; does not replace NPR 8715.6 delivery timing, NASA-HDBK-8719.14 environment/modeling depth, or program-specific OSMA waivers.

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 DOE Order on Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE O 413.3 series). Use for Critical Decisions CD-0–CD-4, performance baselines, acquisition strategy and IPTs, cost/schedule/EVMS/PARS controls, risk-informed governance, reviews, and contractor requirements. Built from O 413.3C (2026-08-05), which cancels O 413.3B Chg 7 (2023-06-21); does not replace site-specific procedures, nuclear safety rules detail, or full estimating standards.

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-STD-8729.1A — NASA's R&M (Reliability and Maintainability) standard covering spaceflight and support systems (Revision A, 2017-06-13). Use for NASA's objectives-driven R&M framework — the R&M objectives hierarchy (one Top Objective decomposed into four sub-objectives, paired with tailorable strategies), how R&M requirements are established inside the SMA Plan required by NPR 7120.5, the SMA Technical Authority concurrence/independent-evaluation governance, milestone vs. readiness review gates, the reliability/maintainability/availability vocabulary (Ai vs. Ao, the failure causal chain, risk as a triplet), and the R&M Evidentiary Methods catalogue (FMEA/FMECA, FTA, RBDA, RCM, LORA, plus the space-environment and parts-pedigree analyses). Scoped to NASA spaceflight and support systems and to assurance planning: it is an objectives-and-strategies standard, so it deliberately does NOT prescribe step-by-step analysis procedures (those live in the referenced NASA Preferred Reliability Practices) and is thin on facility R&M, detailed math/derivations, and non-NASA or commercial life cycles.

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 DoD Digital Engineering Strategy (2018, OUSD/ODASD(SE)). Use for the Department of Defense's five digital engineering goals — (1) formalize the development, integration, and use of models; (2) provide an enduring authoritative source of truth; (3) incorporate technological innovation; (4) establish supporting infrastructure and environments; (5) transform the culture and workforce — plus their focus areas, the document-to-model and design-build-test→model-analyze-build shifts, model formalisms/provenance, governance and access control of the authoritative source of truth, and the coordinate→plan→pilot→sustain rollout. A vision-and-policy strategy, deliberately non-prescriptive. Does NOT provide a how-to method, tool tutorials, MBSE/SysML mechanics, or implementation-plan content; thin on metrics, acquisition-policy detail, and step-by-step procedure. Excludes the CAC-gated Digital Engineering Body of Knowledge (DEBoK).

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 EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Use for AI system classification (high-risk vs prohibited vs general), conformity assessment procedures, GPAI model obligations, transparency and disclosure requirements, governance structure (AI Office / AI Board), penalty tiers, value-chain operator obligations, post-market monitoring, and Annex III use-case analysis. Does not cover EU liability rules for AI (separate proposed directive) or implementation guidance documents issued after July 2024.

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 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 second edition.

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 AMS Lifecycle V&V Guidelines (verification and validation), Version 3.0, dated April 2017. Use for applying verification and validation across the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) lifecycle: the verify-vs-validate distinction (built right vs. right thing), the work-product/component/product tiers, the nine V&V planning elements, the four method catalogs (Appendix C), decision-point-gated V&V (SASP, CRD, Investment Analysis, Solution Implementation, In-Service Management), the Appendix B document checklists (PRD/APB/ISPD/PMP), and the DT/OT/IOA test triad. Scope limits: this is an FAA acquisition-V&V doctrine, NOT a general SE process model, requirements-engineering manual, or test-design textbook. It borrows its core V&V definitions from CMMI v1.2 (SEI, paraphrased) and presumes the surrounding AMS lifecycle (see the FAA SEM pack); its phase tables are policy snapshots as of April 2017 and it is thin on detailed test methods, tool specifics, and anything outside FAA acquisition governance.

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 DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) 2.02 — Volume II: Architectural Data and Models. Use for DoDAF viewpoints, DM2 meta-model, capability modeling, operational architecture, systems architecture, services architecture, data/information modeling, standards compliance, project/portfolio integration, and fit-for-purpose model selection. Does not cover DoDAF Volume I (policy/governance) or Volume III (enterprise-level guidance); also does not substitute for the live DISR or DARS registries.

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。

Erweitert automation-self-care um Letter Hooks, Preflight-Bootloader, Dokument-Traversierungsregeln und selbstheilende Prompt-Kontext- Anreicherung für KI-Agenten und CLIs ohne native, ereignisgetriebene JSON-Lifecycle-Hooks (wie Antigravity / Gemini CLI). Nutzen, wenn ein Agent Preflight-Regeln injizieren, vor Arbeitsbeginn Memory/Gardener durchsuchen, Verzeichnis-Dokument-Lesestrategien erzwingen (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md) oder Sidecar-Tasks dynamisch an Skills und Sicherheitsprotokolle routen soll.

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 stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, 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。

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。

Drafts an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, 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。

Research any open-source repository end to end and answer the core question — SHOULD YOU contribute to it? — with a GO / NO-GO / GO-IF verdict backed by evidence: snapshot, momentum, contribution landscape (PR acceptance rates, outside-contributor merge rates, first-timer outcomes), issue health, governance, community sentiment, and a final go/no-go recommendation. Use when the user asks 'should I contribute to X', wants a before-I-contribute due-diligence check on a project, asks whether a project accepts outside PRs, wants contribution-health numbers like PR merge rates or stale-PR counts, or asks for a deep dive on an open-source codebase's health and dynamics before investing time in it.

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。

Continuous production path for deployless repositories. Use after mainline governance and release controls exist, when a repo needs CI/CD changes to automatically deploy, publish, or promote artifacts from main across any language, runtime, or hosting platform.

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。

Single-mainline governance for deployless repositories. Use after a deployless audit when a repo needs trunk-based branch rules, branch protection, contribution guidance, review gates, merge queue policy, AI PR intake rules, or agent-ready mainline practices.

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。

Deployless delivery-model audit. Use first when adapting any repository toward single-mainline development, automatic deployment from main, runtime release controls, production-trace-driven iteration, AI PR governance, or multi-agent delivery workflows.

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 the NV oOS Model Foundry (Proposal 067) — the cluster fine-tuning flywheel. Phase 1 shipped: the Corpus Foundry (Pro addon, addons/pro/includes/model-foundry/) — consent-gated, deduplicated, PII-scrubbed corpus exporters (trajectory_v1, preference_v1, docs_v1) with deterministic holdout splits and R12 provenance manifests. Covers the governance contract, row schemas, output layout, filter seams, the registration pattern for foundry tool slices, how to add a new exporter, and the test/validation gates. Use when extending the Corpus Foundry, debugging corpus exports, wiring a new data source, or continuing Phases 2–6 (train-worker, registry/serving, eval gate, fleet sharing).

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。