「cro」の検索結果

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。

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 Systems Engineering Guidebook (OUSD R&E, February 2022). Use for the DoD SE process model — the 16 SE processes (8 technical management + 8 technical) mapped to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, the event-driven technical reviews and audits across the Major Capability Acquisition life cycle (ASR, SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR, SVR/FCA, PRR, PCA), the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), risk/issue/opportunity management, TPMs and leading indicators, system-of-systems and digital engineering, and the 24 design considerations (RAM, system safety, HSI, system security engineering, MOSA, supportability, etc.). Acquisition-program oriented: thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting law, and non-DoD or commercial life cycles.

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 (OUSD R&E, August 2022). Use for DoD test and evaluation (T&E) across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework — the four test communities (contractor testing, developmental DT&E, operational OT&E, live-fire LFT&E); the five operational events (Operational Demonstration, EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E) and the OTRR gate; the T&E Strategy / TEMP and its IDSK, with the upstream documents that feed it and the test plans that decompose it; the T&E organizations and oversight roles (USD(R&E), DOT&E, TRMC, the Service Executives and OTAs, the T&E WIPT, CDT); and pathway-specific T&E for all six acquisition pathways (Urgent Capability, Middle Tier, Major Capability, Software, Defense Business Systems). Statutory anchors include 10 U.S.C. §4171 (IOT&E) and §4172 (LFT&E/FUSL). This is guidance, not policy: it points outward to DoDI 5000.89 and the DoDI 5000-series for binding detail, and is thin on detailed test statistics/design-of-experiments methodology, cost estimating, the Acquisition of Services pathway, and any CUI/CAC-gated companion guides.

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。

Apply when writing stateful logic, or when code branches a lot or repeats a shape assumption across files. Encode the domain in a structure instead of scattered conditionals.

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。

Многомодельная оркестрация и стратегия переключения моделей. Выбор моделей на основе оценки (score), делегирование между агентами (Gemini, Codex, Ollama), связывание с advisor, триггеры эскалации, матрица разрешений и оптимизация затрат.

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。

多模型编排与模型切换策略。基于评分的模型选择、跨 Agent 委派（Gemini、Codex、Ollama）、Advisor 配对、升级触发器、权限矩阵与成本效率优化。

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。

Role-based multi-model strategy. The model catalog lives in a local configuration file instead of the skill text -- roles (thinker/decision-maker, long-running worker, draft generator, reviewer/acceptance, escalation), reasoning effort as an independent axis, mandatory review for draft models, provider switching for independent reviews, budgets, delegation flow, and cost/quality of small workers.

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。

Orquestación multimodelo y estrategia de cambio de modelos. Selección de modelos basada en puntuación, delegación entre agentes (Gemini, Codex, Ollama), emparejamiento con advisor, disparadores de escalado, matriz de permisos y optimización de eficiencia de costos.

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。

マルチモデルオーケストレーションとモデル切り替え戦略。スコアベースのモデル選択、クロスエージェント委任（Gemini、Codex、Ollama）、アドバイザーペアリング、エスカレーション条件、権限マトリクス、およびコスト効率の最適化。

Baut und betreibt ein anbieterneutrales Self-Care-Kernset für geplante LLM-Aufgaben und Desktop-App-Automationen. Ergänzt deterministisches Policy-Linting, Lock- und Modell-Governance, semantische Prompt-Prüfung, konsistente Mehrflächen-Updates, Mini-Checks und Regeldatei-Hygiene. Nutzen, wenn ein Agent seinen nativen Scheduler entdecken oder eine bestehende Automations-Flotte mit Rollback, Readback und Löschschutz kontinuierlich verbessern soll. Löst aus bei automation self-care, Scheduler-Task-Pflege, Desktop-App-Automations-Wartung, Automations-Flotten-Audit, selbstheilende Zeitpläne, core-set-textautomations, basic-text-automations, textbased-automation-core, textbased-automation-drivers, textbased-governance-automations oder textbased-desktopapp-automations.

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。

Extrahiert aus einem Chatverlauf (aktuelle Session oder Transkript-Dateien) einen wiederverwendbaren Skill — oder verbessert einen sehr ähnlichen existierenden Skill, statt ein Duplikat zu erzeugen. Nutze diesen Skill bei „mach daraus einen Skill", „das sollten wir als Skill festhalten", „extrahiere Skills aus diesem/alten Chatverläufen", „diese Arbeitsweise wiederverwendbar machen", oder bei `/skill-extract`. Deckt auch Bulk-Läufe über viele alte Transkripte ab (mit Datenreduktion über Subagenten). Für wiederkehrende AUTOMATISIERUNGEN (Cron/Schedule/Loop) stattdessen den Schwester-Skill workflow-extract nutzen.

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。

Dach-Skill für Cloud-gestützte Kommunikationsprotokolle zwischen Agenten auf unterschiedlichen Maschinen (Ping-Pong, agent-beam, Listener und künftige Protokolle). Nutzen, wenn Arbeit über Maschinen hinweg per gemeinsamem Sync-Ordner oder Message-Yard koordiniert wird.

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。

Provider-neutral planner for synchronizing MCP configuration, skills and rule files across agent providers and app classes. It discovers evidenced local options and lets the user choose truth, targets, direction and conflicts.

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 wants to send the same prompt to several LLMs and compare the answers - sequentially (stopwatch, clean per-lane timing) or in parallel (true race), with optional repetitions per model, judged by the starting model across quality, correctness, completeness, instruction fidelity and latency (time is only one dimension). Triggers on /compare-race, 'model race', 'vergleiche modelle', 'gleicher prompt an mehrere modelle'.

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。

Rollenbasierte Multi-Modell-Strategie. Modellkatalog liegt in einer lokalen Konfigurationsdatei statt im Skill-Text -- Rollen (Denker/Entscheider, Dauer-Worker, Entwurfsgenerator, Reviewer/Abnahme, Eskalation), Reasoning-Effort als eigene Achse, Abnahmepflicht für Entwurfsmodelle, Anbieterwechsel für unabhängige Reviews, Kontingente, Delegationsablauf und Kosten/Qualität kleiner Worker.

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。

Tiefe Pflegerunde für ein veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 2): enthält den vollständigen surface-after-care-Durchlauf und ergänzt ihn um drei teure Schritte — rechtliche Ersteinschätzung über die Law-Checker mit Wiedervorlage nach einem Jahr (Gutachten bleibt gitignored im Repo), Querverweise zu verwandten Repos über ALLE Organisationen hinweg sowie das Nachziehen aller Sprachen auf App-Ebene, nicht nur in der Doku. Nutze diesen Skill bei "full after care", "deep after care", "tiefe Repo-Pflege", "große Runde", "Repo grundlegend durchgehen", wenn ein Repo länger nicht geprüft wurde, vor größeren Releases oder wenn rechtliche Relevanz, Querverweise oder Mehrsprachigkeit ausdrücklich Thema sind. Für die günstige, oft wiederholte Runde stattdessen surface-after-care; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-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。

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-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。

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。

Builds a DRAFT content calendar for a stated period from the themes, channels, cadence rules, fixed dates and owners the user provides: one dated row per planned item with theme, channel, format, working title, owner, status and source, plus a cadence check with its arithmetic, theme balance, owner load and the slots left open. Use when the user asks to "build the content calendar for Q4", "lay these themes onto dates", "plan a month of posts across our channels", "extend the editorial calendar" or "check this calendar against our cadence". Do not use for deciding what the campaign says or why it runs, use campaign-brief-builder instead; for writing the items themselves, use announcement-drafter or internal-newsletter-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。

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。

Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-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。