「eac」の検索結果

Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.

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 base from the DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (OUSD R&E, Sep 2023 incl. Change 2.2). Use for the defense-acquisition mechanics of program risk management: the RIO definitions (risk/issue/opportunity), the five-step risk process (plan-identify-analyze-mitigate-monitor), 1-5 likelihood/consequence scoring and the 5x5 risk matrix, the four mitigation options (accept/avoid/transfer/control), burn-down plans, issue management (probability=1), opportunity management toward should-cost, cross-program/interface risk, tailoring RIO to the six AAF acquisition pathways (UCA/MTA/MCA/Software/DBS/Services), specialized methods (RMF, MBCRA/Cyber Table Top, Agile metrics, FMECA, ITRA/DTRAM), and institutionalizing RIO via the PRMP, boards (RMB/JRMB/ROMB/RWG), tools, tiered roles, and WBS/IMP/IMS/EVM/TPM integration. This is the DoD-acquisition complement to nasa-risk (general CRM/RIDM theory) and dau-se-guidebook (the SE process frame). Does NOT teach general risk theory from scratch, and defers specialized risk regimes (system safety/ESOH, HSI, detailed cyber/RMF, spectrum) to their own DoD instructions and the relevant packs.

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。

Use for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime behavior.

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。

Trauma psychoeducation: Trauma definition, normal reactions, window of tolerance, trigger management, and self-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。

Psicoeducación sobre el trauma: definición de trauma, reacciones normales, ventana de tolerancia, manejo de desencadenantes y autocuidado.

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。

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。

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。

Reviews marketing, packaging, web or sustainability text against the environmental-claim rules the user supplies (house policy, regulator guidance extract, industry code) and returns a DRAFT claims review: every environmental claim quoted verbatim with location and family, the evidence the text or evidence pack offers for it with date and scope, the supplied rule passages that bear on each claim, observations as read, and separate question lists for legal and for marketing. No compliance, greenwashing or substantiation verdict. Use when the user asks to "review these green claims", "check this copy against our environmental claims policy", "what evidence do we have for carbon neutral here", "list the sustainability claims in this brochure" or "prepare questions for legal on this eco campaign". Do not use for mapping general factual claims to evidence, use claims-evidence-map 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 DRAFT user personas from the research notes, interview summaries, survey free text and support themes the user provides: for each persona the goals, pains, jobs to be done, context of use, quotes exactly as supplied with their participant codes, and the evidence count behind every attribute, with names, demographics and any detail no participant stated left UNKNOWN rather than invented. Use when the user asks to "build personas from these interviews", "who are our users based on this research", "draft user personas", "turn these research notes into personas" or "update our personas with the new interviews". Do not use for theming a batch of customer feedback into counts, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis; for the requirements those personas imply, use product-requirements-draft. 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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter 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。

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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-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 a DRAFT proposal skeleton from a discovery summary (call notes, discovery brief, CRM record, emails) and the organisation's own proposal template: every template section in order, pre-filled only where the discovery material supports it with the source beside each line, and every section still needing a human input marked HUMAN INPUT with the owner role and the question to answer. Use when the user asks to "start the proposal for <prospect>", "build the proposal skeleton from the discovery notes", "pre-fill our proposal template", "what do we already have for the proposal" or "first cut of the proposal". Do not use for answering a formal RFP, RFQ or tender question set, use rfp-response-drafter instead; for turning a priced estimate into a statement of work use estimate-to-sow. 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。

Synthesises training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-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。

Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, 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。

Builds a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-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。

Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, use rfp-requirements-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。

Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table 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。