「sec」の検索結果

Составить короткий план выбранной владельцем задачи с понятным результатом.

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。

Оставить короткую записку, чтобы следующий чат продолжил выбранную задачу.

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。

Найти прошлое решение по теме в выбранных владельцем файлах.

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。

Сверить полученный результат с исходными данными и требованием владельца.

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 connecting AI SDK for Python streams to AI SDK UI useChat clients.

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+fix protocol with optional pre-core git diff review and safety guardrails (unsoundness, invariants, footguns, incidental complexity). Use when prompts say "/tw-fix this PR", "fix current branch", "fix this diff", "repair CI red", or "apply a minimal patch", and when crash/corruption/invariant-break issues need correction with a validation signal. Stop only after self-review exhausts actionable changes, each full cycle reaches post-self-review rerun plus terminal diff-review closure, and two consecutive zero-edit full cycles are clean.

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。

Run a second, harder escalation pass using the original glazer prompt words verbatim. Use when prompts say `/tw-glazer`, when a first escalation still feels incremental, or when you want the exact original rhetoric preserved while forcing a sharper replacement rather than more polish.

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。

Run a targeted fresh-eyes blunder pass over code, specs, plans, reviews, closure gates, or skill edits. Use when asked to reread with fresh eyes, find obvious bugs, catch mistakes/oversights/omissions, check for embarrassing misses, or do a second independent pass before closure. Use it as the final falsification/check pass for another workflow, not as a substitute for implementation or verification.

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。

Comprehensive code review for quality, security, performance. Triggers on 'review code', 'code review', 'check this PR', 'audit 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。

Perform comprehensive exploratory testing on a website using browser automation, covering user journeys, forms, errors, accessibility, responsiveness, performance, and security basics. Use when asked to QA a site, explore an app, find bugs, or produce a browser testing report.

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 code for potential issues and improvements. Use when asked to review specific files, functions, or code sections.

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 the user asks to be grilled or stress-tested on a plan, OR when starting Tier 0 (Sovereign), Tier 1 (Security), or Tier 2 (Privacy) tasks with underspecified requirements.

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 working on Tier 0 Sovereign (payments, money, orders), Tier 1 Security (auth, tenancy, migrations), or Tier 2 Privacy (PII, erasure) tasks to enforce advanced model tier, Invariant-Breaker adversarial tests, and zero-PII telemetry validation.

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。

React bindings for TanStack Router: RouterProvider, useRouter, useRouterState, useMatch, useMatches, useLocation, useSearch, useParams, useNavigate, useLoaderData, useLoaderDeps, useRouteContext, useBlocker, useCanGoBack, Link, Navigate, Outlet, CatchBoundary, ErrorComponent. React-specific patterns for hooks, providers, SSR hydration, and createLink with forwardRef.

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。

Obtenir et gérer un access token pour l'API Merci Facteur (envoi de courrier papier, recommandé, recommandé électronique). Utiliser dès qu'un appel à l'API Merci Facteur doit être authentifié, ou quand apparaît une erreur de signature, de timestamp, de restriction d'IP ou un token expiré. Couvre le calcul HMAC-SHA256 de la secret key, getToken, la durée de vie du token jusqu'à 365 jours (timeLimit, force) et le stockage des identifiants.

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 AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 (NIST AI 100-1). Use for AI risk management, trustworthiness characteristics, GOVERN/MAP/MEASURE/MANAGE functions, bias management, AI actor roles, TEVV, AI RMF profiles, and socio-technical risk framing. Does not cover sector-specific regulations, EU AI Act, ISO 42001 in depth, or the AI RMF Playbook tactical detail.

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 OUSD(R&E) guidebook Implementing a MOSA in DoD Programs (Feb 2025). Use for the Modular Open Systems Approach as a DoD acquisition + design discipline: the statutory/regulatory basis (10 U.S.C. 4401–4403, FY2017/FY2021 NDAA, DFARS), the five OUSD(R&E) pillars, the plan→modularize→identify→define→standardize interface lifecycle, technical levers (WBS/MIL-STD-881F taxonomy, standards profiling, API-first software, COTS/cybersecurity), MOSA assessment metrics and tools (PART/OAAT/KOSS/SEAM/MAUT), technology-change and DMSMS management, roadmaps, MOSA across the six AAF pathways, and contracting/IP/data-rights mechanics. SCOPE LIMITS: this is U.S. DoD weapon-system acquisition policy, not a general open-architecture or interface-standards reference — it names standards (FACE, OMS, DISR) without reproducing them, is light on detailed engineering of any specific standard, and does not cover the underlying SE processes (use dau-se-guidebook / nasa-npr-7123) or general systems-engineering theory (use sebok).

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 Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).

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 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).

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 (August 2022 edition 8.02) with DOT&E-facing enterprise emphasis. Use for T&E enterprise roles (DOT&E vs USD(R&E)), DT&E/OT&E/LFT&E, cybersecurity T&E, MOSA/automation/digital enablers, suitability/reliability growth, and TEMP/Strategy/STE planning. Distinct routing from dod-te-guidebook (same guidebook family, pathway-deep pack). Guidance only—defer to DoDI 5000.89 and Title 10 for binding requirements.

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 NASA Fault Management Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1002, Draft 2, April 2012). Use for the systems-engineering discipline of designing what a system does when it fails — the fault/failure/anomaly vocabulary, the five FM strategies (two prevention strategies — design-time fault avoidance and operational failure avoidance — plus three tolerance strategies — failure masking, failure recovery, and goal change), the six FM process activities across NASA mission phases Pre-A to E, response-latency-versus-time-to-criticality (TTC) design trades, fault/failure containment regions and FEPPs, the four redundancy approaches, top-down FM requirements development, FM verification vs. validation, the seven dedicated FM milestone reviews (FMCR/FMARR/FMPDR/FMCDR/FMTRR/FMLRR/FMCERR), FM organizational structure, and mined NASA Lessons Learned. Space-mission oriented (flight/ground/operations); spacecraft examples throughout. IMPORTANT: built from an UNAPPROVED DRAFT — several sections (detailed architecture building blocks, the Assessment & Analysis guidance, and Operations & Maintenance) are placeholders in the source and are thin here. Thin on detailed FDIR algorithms, terrestrial/IT fault management, and any approved-standard terminology that may have changed since Draft 2.

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 Human Factors Design Standard (HF-STD-001B, 2016) — the FAA's consolidated human-factors / human-systems-integration design criteria for systems it manages, operates, or maintains. Use for requirement-level design rules on: general human-factors design principles; automation and function allocation; designing equipment for maintenance; displays, controls, and visual indicators; alarms, audio, and voice communications; the computer-human interface (information presentation, coding, interaction styles, windows, dialogue); keyboards, input devices, and workstation/workplace ergonomics; system security, personnel safety, environment, anthropometry, and user documentation; plus intended-use and tailoring guidance. It is a quantified, source-attributed synthesis (heavily citing MIL-STD-1472G, MIL-HDBK-759C, DOD-HFDG-ATCCS, NUREG-0700, NASA-STD-3000, ANSI, OSHA, ISO 9241). Complements nasa-hsi as a parallel HSI tradition from the civil-aviation domain. Scope limits: it is design criteria, NOT an HSI lifecycle/process model (use nasa-hsi, nasa-npr-7123, or dau-se-guidebook for process); it does NOT reproduce the third-party standards it cites; it is FAA-acquisition-oriented (ATC, towers, TRACONs, airway facilities), not a general consumer-UX guide; and it is thin on modern touchscreen/mobile, web, and AI-driven interface patterns and on quantitative human-reliability analysis.

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 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 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。