「impact」の検索結果

[Documentation] Use when updating impacted documentation after code, spec, or test changes.

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。

Master orchestration for repository governance, North Star impact, sub-Star boundaries, and repair-first or evidence-first drift checks. Guides an agent through the complete lifecycle of making architectural decisions, documenting them, writing FAQs, and cleaning up stale plans while adhering strictly to repo ethics and brand tone. Use whenever you need to make a structural change, write an ADR, update the doc lattice, or govern repository architecture.

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 when work produces a deliverable, factual claim, dataset, code change, decision, publication, deployment, automation, or irreversible action whose failure would matter; when the user asks for a quality gate, acceptance criteria, QA, completeness, validation, audit, evidence, preflight, release readiness, or a definition of done; or before claiming completion on medium- or high-risk work. Automatically decide whether a formal gate is warranted, derive task-specific pass/fail criteria, gather evidence, and block unsupported completion. Make sure to use this skill even when the user does not say "quality gate" if consequential work needs acceptance criteria or completion evidence. Skip formal gating for trivial, reversible, low-impact requests.

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。

Build an evidence-backed working model of an existing codebase. Use when you must orient in a large or unfamiliar repository; explain architecture or a subsystem; trace a request, runtime, control, or data flow for a concrete question or bug; analyze a branch, commit, diff, or pull request for behavioral impact and blast radius; or assess AI-generated or changed code against requirements, contracts, invariants, tests, and runtime evidence. Default to read-only investigation. Do not trigger only because a coding task touches an existing repository; use when understanding or verification is the requested outcome or a substantial prerequisite.

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 environmental scanning across six PESTEL categories — Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal. Not a one-time analysis but an ongoing radar. Three modes. Diagnostic mode runs a full scan and prioritises forces by impact, speed, and reversibility. Review mode checks the watch list monthly for movement and new signals. Alert mode defines concrete monitoring triggers for each top force. Use whenever someone wants to understand external forces acting on their business, assess macro risk, prepare for planning, or check whether the world has moved since last time they looked. Connects to the strategy map (forces act on the chain) and Wardley Map (forces drive component evolution). Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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。

Assists users in crafting high-impact pitches, presentations, and sales communications using the "STRONG" method and Frame Control. Use when users want to pitch an idea to investors, sell a product to a client, or need to overcome objections and command attention in business meetings.

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。

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

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。

You bring the third dimension to the web. You know when 3D enhances and when it's just showing off. You balance visual impact with performance. You make 3D accessible to users who've never touched a 3D app. You create moments of wonder without sacrificing usability.

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。

Produce a release test-impact analysis for a Tamanu version upgrade: compare two Tamanu releases and classify every functional area as Full Test, Smoke Test, or Skip, each with a short reason and the Linear card or PR reference. Use when the user wants a test plan, QA scope, regression scope, or "what to test" for a Tamanu release or upgrade, wants to compare or diff two Tamanu versions (e.g. v2.57 to v2.59), or asks which areas changed between two releases. Handles Tamanu's train-release model (release/X.Y branches vs vX.Y.Z tags) and maps changed files and PRs to Tamanu functional sections (Patient Management, Encounters/Charting, Surveys & Programs, Medications, Labs, Imaging, Appointments, Vaccinations, Sync, Settings, Reports, Admin/Permissions, Mobile, etc.). Optionally maps against a regression-testing spreadsheet's sections when one is provided.

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。

Check upgrade safety for a Tamanu upgrade that spans many versions: verify that every intermediate hotfix is included in the target version, and surface the new configuration/settings, data migrations, and FHIR rematerialisation impact the upgrade brings. Use when the user wants to check an upgrade from one Tamanu version to another (e.g. "check hotfixes from v2.31 to v2.47"), confirm no intermediate hotfix was dropped, or understand what config, migrations, and FHIR rework a multi-version jump requires. Handles Tamanu's train-release model (release/X.YY branches vs vX.YY.Z patch tags) and the cherry-pick model where the same logical fix has different SHAs on different branches. Purely git-based — no live database or Canopy access needed. Not for cutting a release (see release-cutoff-checks) or deciding which tests to run (see scope-tamanu-release-tests).

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 this card's specs with fresh eyes for gaps, contradictions, and cross-spec impact

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。

IT要求・活動のインパクトスコアを算出

IT要求・活動インパクトスコアの良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善点と改善のための問いを生成

検証結果に基づいてIT要求・活動インパクトスコアを洗練・修正する

IT要求・活動インパクトスコアの検証を行う時の観点を説明する

Answer whether a specific advisory reaches anything in THIS repository — which manifest declares the package, at what version, whether the version is in range, and whether the vulnerable code is reachable. Use when someone asks "does CVE-… affect us", when triaging an advisory against a real codebase, or before spending effort on a fix.

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 behavior-preserving rename, move, decomposition, dead-code removal, dependency cleanup, record/class conversion, or immutable contract migration that needs caller, flow, test, and impact analysis; not for feature work or one-line cleanup.

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 when diagnosing a bug, exception, regression, wrong result, failing flow, or unknown root cause in repository code using callers/callees, execution flows, recent changes, and impact analysis; not for implementing a known fix without investigation.

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。

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。

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。

Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. 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。

Resolve complex or high-impact problems when the cause, solution path, requirements, or proof boundary is genuinely uncertain. Use when work needs evidence-led diagnosis, consequential design or implementation, or a completion audit; do not trigger merely because work has multiple steps, or for simple facts, fully specified routine changes, or pure creative generation.

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。