「eth」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook (Version 2022, OSD ManTech / Joint Service–Industry MRL Working Group). Use for assessing and managing manufacturing maturity and producibility risk in defense acquisition: the 10-level MRL scale and its non-linear, target-not-grade nature; the five demonstration environments (laboratory → production-relevant → production-representative → pilot line → production line); the nine manufacturing-risk threads and sub-threads; how MRL targets map onto Adaptive Acquisition Framework milestones (MRL 4/6/7/8/9); conducting an MRL Assessment; building a Manufacturing Maturation Plan; putting MRL maturity into contract language (Section L/M, SOW, AS6500A, DIDs); tailoring criteria for S&T, single-system, ship, sustainment, and industry contexts; and screening operational-technology cybersecurity. Manufacturing-readiness focused — it measures producibility risk and frames mitigation; it is NOT a technology-readiness (TRL) guide, a full systems-engineering process model, a cost-estimating or schedule guide, or a deep cybersecurity audit method (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 the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-20-195G). Use for program cost estimating: the four characteristics of a reliable estimate (comprehensive, well documented, accurate, credible) and the 18 best practices; the 12-step cost estimating process (purpose, plan, technical baseline, WBS, ground rules and assumptions, data, point estimate, sensitivity, risk/uncertainty, document, present, update); estimating methods (analogy, parametric, engineering build-up, learning curves); Monte Carlo risk/uncertainty analysis, confidence levels and contingency; auditing and validating an estimate against the characteristics; earned value management (EIA-748, BCWS/BCWP/ACWP, CPI/SPI/TCPI, EAC, PMB, IBR); and specialized techniques (software cost estimating, learning curves, Analysis of Alternatives, WBS templates, the Green Book internal-control framework). This is the cost-estimating companion to the GAO Schedule and Technology Readiness Assessment guides. Does not cover schedule estimating/risk in depth (see the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide), agency-specific cost models, or the full text of referenced standards (EIA-748, MIL-STD-881D, the Green Book) — these are named, not reproduced.

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 pack from 'Towards Digital Engineering: The Advent of Digital Systems Engineering' (Huang et al., Old Dominion University, arXiv:2002.11672, 2020). Use when reasoning about digital engineering, the DoD Digital Engineering Strategy and its five goals, the Authoritative Source of Truth, digitalization vs. digitization, digital augmentation, digitalized models, provenance, unique identification, and the four-level (vision/strategy/action/foundation) DSE research framework. Covers the conceptual/vision layer of the field. SCOPE LIMITS: this is a single ~28-page vision paper, not a methods handbook — it is thin on step-by-step procedures, tooling, case studies, and quantitative evaluation, and it predates 2020 so it does not cover later digital-engineering standards or recent AI/LLM advances. Use the sebok pack for established SE canon and MBSE depth.

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 Test & Evaluation Enterprise Guidebook (OUSD R&E, August 2022). Use for DoD test and evaluation (T&E) across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework — the four test communities (contractor testing, developmental DT&E, operational OT&E, live-fire LFT&E); the five operational events (Operational Demonstration, EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E) and the OTRR gate; the T&E Strategy / TEMP and its IDSK, with the upstream documents that feed it and the test plans that decompose it; the T&E organizations and oversight roles (USD(R&E), DOT&E, TRMC, the Service Executives and OTAs, the T&E WIPT, CDT); and pathway-specific T&E for all six acquisition pathways (Urgent Capability, Middle Tier, Major Capability, Software, Defense Business Systems). Statutory anchors include 10 U.S.C. §4171 (IOT&E) and §4172 (LFT&E/FUSL). This is guidance, not policy: it points outward to DoDI 5000.89 and the DoDI 5000-series for binding detail, and is thin on detailed test statistics/design-of-experiments methodology, cost estimating, the Acquisition of Services pathway, and any CUI/CAC-gated companion guides.

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 Risk Management Handbook (NASA/SP-2011-3422). Use for risk-informed decision making, continuous risk management, performance commitments, risk scenario diagrams, risk disposition types, risk burn-down schedules, objectives hierarchies, deliberation and alternative selection, risk driver identification, and RM planning for space and safety-critical programmes. Does not cover domain-specific PRA methods (fault trees, event trees) in procedural depth — see NASA PRA Procedures Guide 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 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 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 FAA-HDBK-006D (2020), the FAA's System Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) Handbook for National Airspace System (NAS) hardware and software. Use for RMA figures of merit (MTBF, MTBO, MTTR, the availability variants), the bathtub curve and probability distributions, the four-stage RMA lifecycle mapped to the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), the six-task RMA technical-management/acquisition process, service-thread criticality and the NAS-RD severity-to-target table, the RMA analysis toolbox (RBD, FMEA/FMECA, FTA, Ishikawa, Monte Carlo, Bayesian, FRACAS, ALT, reliability-growth/recovery tests), software reliability (early prediction + reliability growth), and tailorable example RMA requirements for a Program Requirements Document. Scope limits: it is FAA/NAS-specific guidance (not a requirement, by its own statement), centred on hardware-plus-software availability — it brackets out human/service/facility/communications availability, names but does not reproduce the math derivations or external standards (MIL-STDs, IEEE 1633, RTCA DO-178C/DO-278A, SAE JA1011), is thin on detailed worked numerical examples and on safety-case method, and predates any current revision beyond 006D.

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 Schedule Management Handbook (2024 edition, Revision 2). Use for program/project schedule management of aerospace and large engineering efforts: the five sub-functions (Planning, Development, Assessment & Analysis, Maintenance & Control, Documentation & Communication); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the WBS/OBS/CBS breakdown structures; the Schedule Management Plan (SMP) and Basis of Estimate (BoE); Critical Path Method, logic, durations, float and margin; tiered schedule assessment (Requirements/Health/Basis checks, the Shock Test) and the Dimensions of Schedule Reliability; Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA), Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis (ICSRA), Monte Carlo, correlation, merge bias, and the Joint Confidence Level (JCL); baselining, replan vs. rebaseline, EVM schedule metrics (SPI, BEI, CEI, HMI, Earned Schedule, CPLI), and status/progress/forecast reporting. This is NASA's scheduling doctrine grounded in NPR 7120.5 and the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. Thin on the underlying mechanics of CPM, statistics, and EVM (it points to companion handbooks); aerospace/space-flight-centric; anchored to the 2024 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 Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.

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。

Neutrale moralisch-rechtliche Prüfinstanz für Politik und Entscheidungen — der lauffähige Prototyp des Forschungsprojekts "Die Position der Ungeborenen" (Schattenmodus Stufe 1). Nutze diesen Skill, wann immer eine politische Entscheidung, ein Gesetz(entwurf), eine Reform, ein Haushaltsbeschluss oder eine gesellschaftliche Streitfrage analysiert, geprüft oder begutachtet werden soll — auch bei Formulierungen wie "prüfe aus Sicht künftiger Generationen", "Gesetzespass", "was sagt das Grundgesetz dazu", "Superposition-Prüfung", "Gesetzesgeschichte/Containeranalyse", "Folgenabschätzung", "analysiere diese Reform", "lebende Verfassung" oder wenn der User eine Politik-Fragestellung mit Bitte um neutrale, mehrstufige Bewertung einbringt. Orchestriert die 5-CORE-Architektur (config.json): moralische Superposition-Instanz, Gesetzbuch-Verkörperungen, zweistufige Folgenabschätzung (retrospektiv/prospektiv mit Evidenzhierarchie), Wissens-Handler mit lokalem Speicher, einstellbarer Workflow.

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。

Structured creativity methods for idea generation: SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats, Mind Mapping, Reverse Brainstorming, TRIZ, and Rapid Ideation.

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。

Systemic and solution-focused methods: miracle question, scaling, exception exploration, circular questions, hypothetical questions, worsening questions, coping questions. Merged from solution-focused-therapy and systemic-questioning.

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 whenever several decisions are pending or have accumulated -- whether within a topic, project, document, or over the course of a session: inventory them, present a numbered briefing with options A/B/C/D and a marked recommendation, accept letter answers (including batches), record the results, and write them back into the source documents.

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。

Übersetzt zwischen Benutzeroberfläche und Text — in beide Richtungen. Aus einer beschriebenen Oberfläche wird ein Skill; aus einem Skill wird eine Oberfläche. Nutzen, wenn eine Anwendung entworfen wird und der Ablauf noch unklar ist, wenn ein bestehendes Werkzeug als Skill verfügbar gemacht werden soll, wenn Oberfläche und Agentenzugang auseinanderdriften, oder wenn ein Skill zu lang wird und niemand weiß warum.

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。

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。

Builds a DRAFT structured interview scorecard from a job description: five to eight competencies traced to it, past-behaviour and situational evidence questions with probes, four-level rating anchors written as observable behaviours, a blank scoring sheet, a panel plan and the items the hiring manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an interview scorecard for this job description", "write competency questions for this role", "draft the interview guide for the panel", "set up a rating scale for the interviewers", "put together a structured interview kit" or "create a hiring rubric from the JD". Do not use for writing or fixing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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 employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new hire from the role, the team context and the systems list: phase outcomes traced to the role, activities with a named owner and due window, an access and equipment request table, learning items, manager checkpoints and the items the manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an onboarding plan for our new hire", "draft the induction plan for this role", "write a first 90 days plan", "put together a new starter plan with owners", "create a ramp plan from this job description" or "plan the integration of an internal mover". Do not use for writing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for interview questions or a scorecard, use interview-scorecard-builder. 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 anonymised DRAFT case study (situation, approach, outcome as evidenced, optional lessons) from engagement notes, status reports, closing reports, emails and metrics extracts the user supplies, with a fact trace to the notes, an evidence grade on every result, quotes only where the user supplied them with speaker role and permission, an anonymisation log and a confidentiality checklist that must be completed before publication. Use when the user asks to "write a case study from these notes", "turn this engagement into a customer story", "draft a success story for the website", "anonymise this project write-up" or "prepare a reference case for the proposal". Do not use for redacting identifiers from an existing document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; for checking whether a 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。

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。