「ty」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook (Version 2022, OSD ManTech / Joint Service–Industry MRL Working Group). Use for assessing and managing manufacturing maturity and producibility risk in defense acquisition: the 10-level MRL scale and its non-linear, target-not-grade nature; the five demonstration environments (laboratory → production-relevant → production-representative → pilot line → production line); the nine manufacturing-risk threads and sub-threads; how MRL targets map onto Adaptive Acquisition Framework milestones (MRL 4/6/7/8/9); conducting an MRL Assessment; building a Manufacturing Maturation Plan; putting MRL maturity into contract language (Section L/M, SOW, AS6500A, DIDs); tailoring criteria for S&T, single-system, ship, sustainment, and industry contexts; and screening operational-technology cybersecurity. Manufacturing-readiness focused — it measures producibility risk and frames mitigation; it is NOT a technology-readiness (TRL) guide, a full systems-engineering process model, a cost-estimating or schedule guide, or a deep cybersecurity audit method (see sibling packs for those).

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-STD-882E (DoD System Safety). Use for the system safety process, hazard analysis tasks (PHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA), the risk assessment matrix (severity x probability), software safety criticality, and risk acceptance. US-gov public domain.

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&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).

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 one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-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。

Compares one clause (liability, termination, confidentiality or any other) across several contracts, templates or successive versions and returns a DRAFT comparison table: verbatim clause text per document, the clause split into elements with every difference from the baseline highlighted and categorised, and neutral questions for counsel. Never says which wording is better or enforceable. Use when the user asks to "compare the liability caps across these five supplier contracts", "line up the termination clause in these three drafts", "show how the confidentiality clause changed between versions", "contrast this clause with our template" or "benchmark the indemnity wording across our customer agreements". Do not use for a whole-contract review, use contract-review-pack instead; for screening one NDA against standard positions, use nda-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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, 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。

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。

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。

MMI評価エージェント - Modularity Maturity Indexによるモジュール成熟度評価（Cohesion/Coupling/Independence/Reusability）。/evaluate-mmi [対象パス] で呼び出し。

Operational guide for the NV oOS assistant export/import track — the canonical nvoos-assistant bundle format (v1), the shared portability engine, its five surfaces (WP-CLI, REST, admin UI, AI tools, backup provider), the Pro blueprint exporter, credential-redaction rules, legacy/blueprint import compatibility, test conventions, and the Content Graph port checklist. Use when extending or debugging assistant export/import, adding a surface, changing the bundle schema, fixing round-trip fidelity, or continuing the portability track ("continue the portability plan", "add assistant export to X").

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 the user asks to "map our positioning", "name our competitive alternatives", or "pick a beachhead segment for the launch"; produces a Dunford-style positioning canvas — named competitive alternatives (including spreadsheet and status quo), unique attributes (verifiable, or routed to the claims ledger), value themes (attribute→benefit→value chains), a target beachhead segment scored on serviceability / pain intensity / reachability, and a one-sentence onlyness statement — the sole upstream of the message house and the entity-signal source for the canonical entity profile. Not for the message house or per-channel launch copy — use message-house-builder; not for audience/persona profiling itself — use audience-mapper; not for SEO keyword positioning — use keyword-research. 定位画布/竞争替代品/独特价值/滩头细分

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 auditing domain authority, trust, or citation credibility; runs a peer-relative 40-item CITE profile with evidence coverage and verified manipulation/penalty veto checks. Not for page-level content quality — use content-quality-auditor; not for backlink profiling alone — use offsite-signal-analyzer. 域名权威/网站可信度

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。

セキュリティ観点の通常レビューエージェント。 基本的なセキュリティチェック、認証・認可設計、プライバシー設計の個別スキルへルーティングする。 repository / subsystem の明示的な security audit は river-review-security-audit へ委譲する。

Repository または subsystem を対象に、source-only で明示的なセキュリティ監査を行う entry skill。 通常の PR セキュリティレビューとは分離し、reconnaissance、scope 固定、既存 security skill への委譲、 evidence と unresolved hypothesis、observe-only SecurityAuditCoverage、coverage critic、 structured audit artifact と repeat-run coverage を扱う。target-controlled code は実行しない。

Hive CE (Community Edition v2.19.x) NoSQL object database for Flutter providing blazing-fast key-value and object storage with TypeAdapters. Use this skill when implementing offline-first architecture, high-performance local data caching, NoSQL document-style object stores, custom TypeAdapter serialization for complex objects, lazy loading boxes for memory efficiency, encrypted boxes (HiveAES encryption), database compaction for size optimization, storing large datasets without SQL schema overhead, implementing local-first sync patterns, or migrating from SQLite to NoSQL. Supports primitive types, custom objects, lists, and maps. Ideal for apps requiring ultra-fast read/write operations (microsecond latency), object persistence without ORM complexity, or local-first data 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。

ジェネリクス、条件型、マップ型、テンプレートリテラル、ユーティリティ型を含むTypeScriptの高度な型システムを習得し、型安全なアプリケーションを構築します。複雑な型ロジックの実装、再利用可能な型ユーティリティの作成、TypeScriptプロジェクトでのコンパイル時型安全性の確保時に使用してください。

Use when working with Aws Guardduty — aWS GuardDuty finding analysis, detector management, suppression rule review, and member account oversight. Covers threat detection summary, finding severity distribution, finding type breakdown, trusted IP lists, and organization-wide security posture.

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 web quality audit covering performance, accessibility, SEO, and best practices. Use when asked to "audit my site", "review web quality", "run lighthouse audit", "check page quality", or "optimize my website".

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。

two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality), refactoring, and quality improvement. Use when reviewing code, eliminating code smells, reducing technical debt, refactoring methods, running self-critique loops, or improving maintainability and readability.

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。

Read a designer's taste through their typography decisions alone. Type is the fastest taste signal in any design. Use when evaluating design maturity, assessing portfolio quality, or understanding what typography reveals about design thinking.

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。

Monitor social platforms for security threats, vulnerability discussions, and breach intelligence using Xpoz. Use when asked to "find CVE discussions", "security threat monitoring", "OSINT social media", "vulnerability intelligence", "breach mentions", or "threat intel from Twitter/Reddit".

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 TypeScript with advanced types, generics, and strict type safety. Handles complex type systems, decorators, and enterprise-grade patterns.

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。

Liquid Glass material best practices for SwiftUI, UIKit, and AppKit on iOS 26+/macOS 26+ (Tahoe) through iOS 27/macOS 27. Use when implementing, reviewing, or migrating to glass: glassEffect, Glass variants (.regular/.clear/.identity), tint, interactive(), GlassEffectContainer, glassEffectUnion, toolbar glass, ToolbarSpacer, scrollEdgeEffectStyle, sharedBackgroundVisibility, tabBarMinimizeBehavior, backgroundExtensionEffect, NSGlassEffectView, UIGlassEffect, Tahoe window chrome, glass accessibility (Reduce Transparency/Increase Contrast), pre-26 Material fallbacks, UIDesignRequiresCompatibility. Also fires on symptoms: glass renders dark or muddy, glass looks like a flat tinted rectangle, glass button doesn't register taps, tap passes through glass, "'glassEffect' is only available in iOS 26.0 or newer", "ambiguous use of 'opacity'", "'cornerRadius' was deprecated", glass looks different in simulator vs device, screenshots of glass UI don't match. For glass animation, morphing, glassEffectID, transitions, Metal shaders, or performance profiling use the liquid-glass-motion skill instead.

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。