6,364 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Load before external product/design research, competitor comparison, clean-room implementation, or adding/updating code, packages, images, fonts, datasets, generated artifacts, or other dependencies whose source/provenance/license may affect outbound licensing; not for purely internal source use with no dependency change.
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 Senior CTO critique, architectural audit, risk review, sequencing correction, or refinement of an existing implementation-plan triad; edits the requested plan/context/tasks in place without creating a worktree or review file. Not for open-ended CTO advice, product implementation, or implementation workspace setup.
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。
Throwaway design probe for logic, state models, UI variations, and affordances before production work. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a model, make something playable, compare UI directions, or explore a design before ln-spec/ln-plan/ln-scope.
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。
Time-boxed throwaway investigation to answer one hard question. Use when facing technical uncertainty before committing to a frontier item or scoped slice — the output is knowledge, not production code.
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。
Guidance on writing high-quality requirements: the requirement quality characteristics and the EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) patterns — ubiquitous, event-driven, state-driven, optional-feature, unwanted-behaviour — for unambiguous, singular, verifiable requirements, plus defect/anti-pattern review and verification & traceability. Use when authoring or reviewing requirements. Original synthesis citing EARS (Mavin et al.) and NASA public-domain guidance; not a reproduction of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 or the EARS paper.
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 7123.1D — Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. Use for the 17 common SE processes (SE Engine), life-cycle reviews and entrance/success criteria, SEMP structure and content, ETA roles and tailoring/customizing rules, Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9), SE work product maturity terminology, contracted project oversight, and MOE/MOP/TPM measurement frameworks. Does not cover NASA programme financial management, human spaceflight medical standards, or software engineering requirements in depth (see NPR 7150.2 for the latter).
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 Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.
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 Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev 2). Use for NASA's systems-engineering process model — the SE Engine and 17 common technical processes, the program/project life cycle (Pre-Phase A through F), Key Decision Points and technical reviews (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/…), stakeholder expectations, technical requirements, design solution, product verification and validation, and crosscutting technical management (planning, risk, configuration, interfaces, data, assessment, decision analysis). Strong for aerospace/spaceflight project SE and lifecycle gating; NASA-specific terminology (KDPs, NPR 7123.1).
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。
Knowledge base from the DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).
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 Agile Assessment Guide (GAO-24-105506, 2023). Use for assessing and managing Agile software development in federal programs: the Agile Manifesto and framework family (Scrum, Kanban, XP, SAFe, DA, DSDM, Lean, DevOps); the three adoption perspectives (team dynamics, program operations, organization environment); requirements decomposition (epics, features, user stories, INVEST, MoSCoW, definition of done); Agile-aware federal contracting (FAR, modular contracting, SOO/PWS/SOW, product owner vs. COR); program monitoring and control (WBS, cost, schedule, EVM at the feature level); Agile metrics (velocity, lead/cycle time, CFD, burn charts); and the auditor's key-question bank. Oversight- and acquisition-oriented: it tells you how to *assess and govern* Agile programs, not how to code. Thin on hands-on engineering practice, deep cost/schedule checklists (see gao-cost, gao-schedule), and any non-US-federal context.
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-7009B (Standard for Models and Simulations) with implementation depth from NASA-HDBK-7009B. Use for M&S criticality and programmatics, development evidence and capability assessment, verification/validation domains, uncertainty and sensitivity, use-phase results assessment, risk-informed decision reporting, and handbook life-cycle products. Covers STD-7009B (2024-03-05) + HDBK-7009B (2026-02-03) synthesized notes only; does not replace program-specific TA direction, NPR 7150.2 software requirements detail, or full PRA methodology.
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。
Apply when product, UX, or feature-scope tradeoffs come up. Choose user delight over implementation convenience; ship fewer polished features over more rough ones.
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。
KI-gestuetzte Textproduktion in drei Teilskills: Allgemeine Texte (Blogpost, Social, Newsletter, Copy, E-Mail, Bericht), narrative Storys (Skript, Kurzgeschichte, RPG, Weltenbau) und PR-Kommunikation (Pressemitteilung, Positionspapier) mit lokalem LaTeX-PDF-Compiler. Kein externer Dienst zwingend erforderlich.
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。
Turns a business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them 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。
Synthesises exit interview notes or leaver survey responses into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim evidence, breakdowns by broad group only for groups that meet a minimum group size, referred items and open questions for the people team, without naming or identifying any individual. Use when the user asks to analyse, summarise, code, theme or report on exit interviews, leaver feedback, attrition interviews or departure surveys, or says "what are our leavers telling us", "theme these exit interviews" or "summarise the leaver survey". Do not use for customer or product feedback, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for redacting one document with no theming, use document-deidentification-pass. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. 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。
プロダクト要求仕様書(PRD)の新規作成・更新・レビューを支援する。AI駆動開発成果物フローのビジネス要求(D1)に位置する成果物で、方針・概念・体験設計・制約・受け入れ基準を扱う文書。具体的な横断要求(機能要求・非機能要求・UI/UX・セキュリティ・法務 等)は独立成果物のドメイン共通要求仕様書に集約し、PRD は要求 ID を持たない。BRD・アクター一覧・ドメイン定義書 を上流とし、BRD策定後、ドメイン共通要求仕様書の作成前に呼び出す。
Query PostHog product analytics via REST API — event analytics, HogQL SQL queries, feature flags, experiments, session recordings, insights, persons, cohorts. Use when the user wants to answer an analytics question, toggle/inspect a flag, or pull event data programmatically without opening the PostHog UI or installing the PostHog MCP.
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。
Query Sentry issues, events, releases, replays, and org/project metadata via REST API. Use when the user wants to diagnose a production error, pull stack traces, list recent issues, inspect a release, or fetch event data programmatically — prefer this over asking for UI screenshots or guessing from memory.
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。