「fts」の検索結果

Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-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。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-check. 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。

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。

Builds a self-contained single-file HTML project dashboard (status banner, milestones table, risks heat list, decisions log, links) from the project tracker files the user attaches, pastes or holds in configured knowledge sources, and returns the complete HTML source in chat ready to save as dashboard-project-date.html. Use when the user asks to "build a dashboard for this project", "make a status page I can pin in the team channel", "give me an HTML overview of milestones, risks and decisions", "refresh the project dashboard from the tracker" or "turn these tracker files into a one-page visual summary". Do not use for creating or updating the tracker files or for the written weekly status report, 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。

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。

Turns reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, 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。

Turns one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-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。

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。

Reads a process flow diagram (image, PDF or native export) with its job header and returns a provenance-tagged extraction register: equipment, streams, tags, connectivity, instruments already shown, notes and legends, connectivity findings and an explicit UNKNOWN list, then holds at gate G1. Extracts and records only; never enriches, tags or proposes. Use when the user asks to "start a PFD to P&ID job", "read in the attached PFD", "extract the equipment and streams from this PFD" or "read this PFD into a register". Do not use for checking the model, use process-model-check instead; do not use to propose lines, instruments or tags, use piping-enrichment or instrumentation-and-control-enrichment after gate G2. 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。

Builds a role-tuned morning brief as a dated Markdown document covering emails that need replies, today's calendar with conflicts flagged, chat mentions and upcoming deadlines, in the section order set by a preset (project manager, executive assistant, IT admin, sales or custom) read from an editable config. Use when the user asks to "run my brief", "give me my morning brief", "start-of-day summary", "switch my brief to the sales preset" or "change what my brief covers". Do not use for tracking promises made or owed across days, use commitment-catcher 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 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。

Assembles a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-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。

Checks a master document register extract for gaps and returns a DRAFT question list for document control: missing or out-of-sequence revisions, overdue or slipping deliverables, numbering that breaks the project convention, duplicates and incomplete rows, each with row, test and quoted evidence. Never edits the register, re-baselines a date or marks a deliverable complete. Use when the user asks to "check the MDR", "find the gaps in the deliverables list" or "prepare questions on the drawing register". Do not use for drafting a transmittal from a document list, use transmittal-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 project or processing description and returns a DRAFT data protection impact assessment pack: processing description, necessity and proportionality questions, a risk table with blank rating cells, mitigations to consider and open questions. Never rates risk, determines the lawful basis or judges adequacy; the DPO assesses and signs. Works from descriptions, never personal data. Use when the user asks to "start a DPIA for the new monitoring tool", "draft a data protection impact assessment", "scaffold a DPIA from this processing description" or "what would the DPO need for a DPIA on this". Do not use for redacting or de-identifying a document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-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。

Sweeps the last 24 hours of email, chat messages and meeting transcripts for commitments in both directions, what the user promised others and what others promised the user, reconciles them against a running commitments ledger (open, done, overdue), lists overdue items first and returns the updated ledger plus a proposed task list as Markdown for the user to save. Use when the user asks to "check my commitments", "what did I promise", "what am I owed", "did anything slip" or "run the commitment sweep". Do not use for a general morning summary of mail, calendar and mentions, 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。

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。

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。

Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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 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。

Reads an accounts payable exception list (mismatches, possible duplicates, missing or exhausted purchase orders, missing receipts, vendor or bank detail differences) with any invoice, purchase order and receipt data supplied, and returns a DRAFT action sheet: per line, the exception as stated, the facts as read, the difference where both sides exist, one proposed next action for the accounts payable clerk to perform, who or what it needs, and a draft query, with UNKNOWN wherever the data is silent. Use when the user asks to "review these invoice exceptions", "work through the AP exception queue", "what should I do with these blocked invoices", "propose next steps for the three-way match failures" or "sort out the duplicate and missing PO invoices". Do not use for a purchase order log screened for anomalies, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for an expense claim against policy, use expense-policy-precheck. 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。

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。