「pack」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the FAA AMS Lifecycle V&V Guidelines (verification and validation), Version 3.0, dated April 2017. Use for applying verification and validation across the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) lifecycle: the verify-vs-validate distinction (built right vs. right thing), the work-product/component/product tiers, the nine V&V planning elements, the four method catalogs (Appendix C), decision-point-gated V&V (SASP, CRD, Investment Analysis, Solution Implementation, In-Service Management), the Appendix B document checklists (PRD/APB/ISPD/PMP), and the DT/OT/IOA test triad. Scope limits: this is an FAA acquisition-V&V doctrine, NOT a general SE process model, requirements-engineering manual, or test-design textbook. It borrows its core V&V definitions from CMMI v1.2 (SEI, paraphrased) and presumes the surrounding AMS lifecycle (see the FAA SEM pack); its phase tables are policy snapshots as of April 2017 and it is thin on detailed test methods, tool specifics, and anything outside FAA acquisition governance.

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&S VV&A Recommended Practices Guide (RPG web edition). Use for verification, validation, and accreditation of models and simulations — role responsibilities (user, developer, M&S PM, V&V agent, accreditation agent), fidelity, validation fundamentals, data V&V, risk-informed accreditation, T&E/V&V integration, referent development, and conceptual-model validation. Complements nasa-ms-7009 and T&E packs; does not replace DoDI 5000.61 or Service VV&A policies.

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。

Knowledge base from the DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (OUSD R&E, Sep 2023 incl. Change 2.2). Use for the defense-acquisition mechanics of program risk management: the RIO definitions (risk/issue/opportunity), the five-step risk process (plan-identify-analyze-mitigate-monitor), 1-5 likelihood/consequence scoring and the 5x5 risk matrix, the four mitigation options (accept/avoid/transfer/control), burn-down plans, issue management (probability=1), opportunity management toward should-cost, cross-program/interface risk, tailoring RIO to the six AAF acquisition pathways (UCA/MTA/MCA/Software/DBS/Services), specialized methods (RMF, MBCRA/Cyber Table Top, Agile metrics, FMECA, ITRA/DTRAM), and institutionalizing RIO via the PRMP, boards (RMB/JRMB/ROMB/RWG), tools, tiered roles, and WBS/IMP/IMS/EVM/TPM integration. This is the DoD-acquisition complement to nasa-risk (general CRM/RIDM theory) and dau-se-guidebook (the SE process frame). Does NOT teach general risk theory from scratch, and defers specialized risk regimes (system safety/ESOH, HSI, detailed cyber/RMF, spectrum) to their own DoD instructions and the relevant packs.

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 Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH) v4.0. Use for NASA's 12-step, three-part cost estimating process (Project Definition, Cost Methodology, Cost Estimate); the WBS, CADRe, and ONCE data backbone; estimating methodologies (analogy, parametric/CER, engineering build-up, EVM, Delphi); ground rules and assumptions, data normalization and inflation (BY/CY/RY); the point-estimate-to-S-curve cost-risk chain and Unallocated Future Expense (UFE) reserves; Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analysis via probabilistic cost-loaded schedules; decision-support analyses (sensitivity, trade studies, make/lease-vs-buy, affordability, CAIV); and economic analysis (discounting, NPV, OMB Circular A-94). The cost-estimating complement to NASA's SE and risk packs. Does NOT reproduce the handbook's tool-specific procedures, worked examples, or appendix-depth methods (it names the appendices), nor cover full DoD/GAO cost guides, schedule construction, or formal risk management beyond the cost interface.

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 MIL-HDBK-61B, the DoD Configuration Management (CM) guidance handbook (7 April 2020, cataloged with Change 1, 2025). Use for defense CM across the acquisition and sustainment life cycle: the five CM functions (planning, identification, control/change management, status accounting, verification & audit), the three configuration baselines (FBL/ABL/PBL) and FCD→ACD→PCD documentation, configuration items (CIs/HWCI/CSCI), change instruments (ECP/NOR/RFV), the CCB and Class I/II classification, CDCA/AA authority, FCA/PCA audits, data management and data rights (CDRL/DID, DFARS rights ladder, master/authoritative source), and tailoring CM by phase (EIA-649-1 R/T/NR matrix, Appendix C templates), plus digital-era CM (digital twin, viewpoints, MOSA). NOTE: 61B is advisory guidance that adopts and points to the SAE EIA-649 / EIA-649-1 / GEIA-HB-649 suite for the authoritative CM requirements — this pack names and describes that suite but does not reproduce its copyrighted requirement text. Thin on: the EIA-649 requirement clauses themselves, form-level detail (DD-form field instructions, full DID content), and non-DoD/commercial CM frameworks.

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。

Hosting-Muster, um eine lokal gebaute Anwendung (eigene Datenbank, eigener API-Key, In-Process-State) sicher hostbar zu machen, ohne Nutzerverwaltung zu bauen. Kernzug — der Host speichert nichts, der Browser des Besuchers speichert alles — sodass Pro-Besucher-Accounts, Zugriffsprüfungen und Löschfristen gegenstandslos werden, statt gelöst werden zu müssen. Nutzen, wenn eine lokal gebaute App für mehrere Besucher gehostet werden soll, bei "mach das ohne Login hostbar", "keine Nutzerkonten bauen", "Datenschutzerklärung für ein gehostetes Tool verkleinern", "wer ist verantwortlich, wenn wir nichts speichern" oder beim Wählen/Implementieren eines Server-Modus (`local`, `huckepack-gift`, `huckepack-only-host`, `pay-membership`). Liefert eine Data-Flow-Plan-Vorlage, eine Datenschutz-Vorlage und eine rechtliche Ersteinschätzung (DSGVO/TDDDG/UWG, deutsch) als Referenzen.

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 marketing, packaging, web or sustainability text against the environmental-claim rules the user supplies (house policy, regulator guidance extract, industry code) and returns a DRAFT claims review: every environmental claim quoted verbatim with location and family, the evidence the text or evidence pack offers for it with date and scope, the supplied rule passages that bear on each claim, observations as read, and separate question lists for legal and for marketing. No compliance, greenwashing or substantiation verdict. Use when the user asks to "review these green claims", "check this copy against our environmental claims policy", "what evidence do we have for carbon neutral here", "list the sustainability claims in this brochure" or "prepare questions for legal on this eco campaign". Do not use for mapping general factual claims to evidence, use claims-evidence-map 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 export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. 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。

Drafts answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-pack. 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。

Produces a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-request-pack. 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 change request pack (description and justification, scope, schedule, implementation plan, risk as stated, rollback, test evidence as provided, communications, approvals route) from an engineer's notes, ticket or pull request description, with UNKNOWN for anything not provided and a question list for the engineer. Never rates risk or marks a change tested or approved. Use when the user asks to "write the change request for this", "fill in the change ticket from my notes", "prepare the CAB submission" or "turn this pull request into an RFC". Do not use for the step-by-step procedure with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for release notes describing what shipped, use release-notes-writer. 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。

Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table 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。

Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. 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 weighted supplier evaluation matrix from supplier responses and the panel's agreed criteria, weights and scale: a provisional score per cell with the quoted evidence and anchor behind it, a register of every missing or partial answer, and calibration and sensitivity flags. Provisional for panel moderation; never recommends, awards or disqualifies. Use when the user asks to score, weight or rank supplier, bid or tender responses against agreed criteria, for example "score these bids", "build the evaluation matrix", "weight the tender responses" or "rank the suppliers against our criteria". Do not use for a side-by-side comparison without scores, use rfp-comparison-pack instead; for writing the criteria, use rfp-requirements-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。

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。

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。

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。

Turns an actuals-versus-budget extract (spreadsheet, export or pasted table) into a DRAFT variance table with absolute and percentage variances, favourable or adverse marking and a ranking by size, then drafts plain-language driver hypotheses for each material variance as questions to verify with a named owner, never as asserted causes. Use when the user asks to "explain these variances", "why are we over budget on this line", "write the variance commentary for the management pack", "actuals versus budget analysis" or "which lines drive the variance". Do not use for a dataset with no budget or comparison column, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for weekly operational figures against last week, use kpi-weekly-report-writer. 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。

Triages a batch of customer support tickets (helpdesk export, shared mailbox, chat transcripts, web forms) into one row per ticket with category, urgency graded on the evidence in the ticket, suggested next action and owner, plus a DRAFT customer reply for every ticket that needs one, returned as one Markdown pack. Use when the user asks to "triage these tickets", "sort the support queue", "what needs an answer first", "categorise this backlog", "draft replies for these tickets" or "build today's queue review". Do not use for internal requests from colleagues, use request-intake-triage instead; for one long thread that needs handing over, use escalation-summary; for a personal mailbox, 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。

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. 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。

Generate Zod v4 TypeScript schemas from OpenAPI (openapi.yaml / openapi.json) definitions. This skill exists because npm packages like openapi-zod-client do not support Zod v4 — Claude reads the YAML/JSON directly and writes the conversion. Use this skill whenever the user wants to convert OpenAPI/Swagger definitions to Zod schemas, generate TypeScript types from API specs, or create validation schemas from openapi.yaml. Trigger on keywords: 'openapi', 'swagger', 'zod', 'API schema', 'yaml to types', 'schema generation', 'validation generation'. OpenAPI定義からZodスキーマを生成するスキル。openapi.yamlから型を作りたい、APIスキーマをTypeScriptの型にしたい、Zodバリデーションを作りたい、といったリクエストで使う。「openapi」「swagger」「zod」「APIスキーマ」「yamlから型」「スキーマ生成」「バリデーション生成」などのキーワードが出たら積極的にこのスキルを使うこと。

UI stack, build, and test conventions for NV oOS React SPA addons (toolkit-shell, chat-spa, schedule-anything-spa, saas-controller) — three sanctioned build patterns plus the standalone Pro SPA Vite app (examples/nvoos-pro-spa-vite), dual-React guard, headless component rules, NDS tokens, Tailwind v4, @xyflow/react v12, vitest/jsdom gotchas, the full-JS-rebuild map, and the TS-shadows-JS webpack gotcha. Use when building or modifying SPA addon UI, writing SPA JS tests, upgrading SPA deps, or rebuilding JS for packaging.

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。