「draft」の検索結果

Turns plain-language requests (emails, chat messages, form submissions, meeting asks, voicemail or call notes) into one intake record per request (what is asked, who asks and for whom, urgency as evidenced, category, suggested owner, missing information with draft clarifying questions) and a triage table sorted for the operations lead to act on. Use when the user asks to "log these requests", "triage this pile of asks", "turn this message into an intake record", "who should own this request", "what is missing before we can start" or "build today's intake list". Do not use for customer support tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for clearing a personal mailbox by reply bucket, use inbox-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。

Pre-checks one expense claim or travel plan, line by line, against the expense or travel policy the user supplies, and returns a DRAFT precheck sheet: the policy clause matched to each line, the limit quoted as the policy states it, whether the amount sits within, at or outside that limit, missing receipts, pre-approvals or justifications, and neutral questions for the approver and the claimant, with UNKNOWN wherever the policy or the claim is silent. Use when the user asks to "check this expense claim against policy", "pre-check my travel request", "is this claim within policy", "review these expenses before I submit them", "what receipts or approvals are missing" or "prepare the approver's questions for this claim". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; do not use to compare a policy against a standard or regulation, use policy-gap-review 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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。

Sorts a personal inbox backlog into five buckets (needs-reply-today, needs-reply-this-week, waiting-on-others, FYI, noise), writes DRAFT reply text for the messages that need an answer (up to 10 per run), and returns a dated triage report as one Markdown document. Lists moves or archives only as proposals for the user to perform, and only where a rule the user supplied says so; the agent changes nothing in the mailbox. Use when the user asks to "triage my inbox", "sort my mail", "clean up my inbox", "catch up after leave" or "what needs a reply today or this week". Do not use for a shared support queue or helpdesk export, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for what the user promised or is owed, use commitment-catcher; for one named thread, answer directly. 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, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-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。

Turns a list of KPIs or metrics into a DRAFT definition sheet: one row per KPI with the name as stated, formula quoted from a source, source system, owner, refresh cadence, unit, filters and known caveats, with UNKNOWN in every cell no source fills and a gap list grouped by data owner. Never composes a formula, sets a target or names an owner the sources do not state. Use when the user asks to "define these KPIs", "build a metrics definition sheet", "document how each KPI is calculated", "which of our KPIs have no owner or formula" or "reconcile the two KPI lists". Do not use for the weekly numbers report, use kpi-weekly-report-writer instead; for field-level definitions of a table, use data-dictionary-builder; for logging a wrong figure as a defect, use data-quality-issue-log. 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 vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-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。

Proposes tag and number structures for the new lines and instruments in a P&ID draft according to the project's numbering procedures, checks every tag extracted from the PFD against the quoted procedure format, and lists cross-section identifier mismatches and the registry checks a human must run. Never invents a numbering convention, never alters a PFD tag and never assigns a sequence number the procedure reserves for the registry. Use when the user asks to "run the tagging and numbering section", "check the tags against the numbering procedure", "propose the tag structure for the new lines and instruments" or "list the registry checks before validation" after the process safety flags. Do not use for validating the four sections, use validation-and-review-package instead; do not use for instrument content, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment. 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 Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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。

Prepares a DRAFT leadership-meeting briefing pack from the reports, meeting notes, emails and dashboard exports the user provides: one headline, metrics exactly as stated with period and source, decisions the meeting must take, risks as reported, talking points with anticipated questions, a source reference on every line and UNKNOWN where the material is silent. Use when the user asks to "brief the leadership team", "prepare the exec pack", "pull together a briefing for the steering committee", "summarise these reports for the CEO", "what do I tell the board on Monday" or "build the pre-read for the management meeting". Do not use for a formal board or committee paper seeking a resolution, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for a personal one-page prep drawn from the user's own calendar and inbox, use meeting-prep-onepager. 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 cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-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 plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。

Reads one spreadsheet, CSV export or pasted table together with the user's question and drafts an insight pack: a data profile, observations cited to named columns and values and framed as leads, caveats, and suggested charts and follow-up analyses. Every figure carries the label "as read, verify in source"; correlation is never stated as causation. Use when the user asks to "profile this spreadsheet", "what does this data say", "find anomalies in this extract", "give me a first read on this CSV" or "summarise this table". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer instead; for a report that arrives by email on a schedule, use report-attachment-analyzer 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 data dictionary from a schema export, table definition, sample rows or a partial existing dictionary: one row per field with the name as stated, type as stated or observed, meaning quoted from the documentation supplied, owner, allowed values, and UNKNOWN wherever no source defines the field, plus a gap list for the data owner. Never infers a definition from a column name. Use when the user asks to "build a data dictionary for this table", "document these columns", "what does each field mean", "turn this schema export into a dictionary" or "fill in the field definitions from these documents". Do not use for profiling values or finding patterns in the data, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for metric definitions, use kpi-definition-sheet; for logging data defects, use data-quality-issue-log. 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 Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-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 Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around 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 plan in character as a Chief Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-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 product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。

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。

Proposes the instrumentation and control content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: instruments drawn carried over as facts, measurement points and control loops the control philosophy requires, tag structure per the project instrument numbering procedure, system interfaces, and alarms, interlocks, trips and fail actions as quoted. Never assigns safety functions, ranges or setpoints. Use when the user asks to "run the instrumentation and control enrichment", "add the instrument section to the P&ID draft", "list the control loops the philosophy requires" or "carry the PFD instruments into the P&ID" after the piping section. Do not use for safety flags, SIL or trip classification, use process-safety-flags instead; do not use to assign tag numbers, use tagging-and-numbering. 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。