「the」の検索結果

Propose the test(s) FIRST and get a human to sign off on the behaviour before writing the code — the test analog of /schema-review and /ui-proposal. For hand-written LOGIC in packages/* (apps opt-in, pocs exempt). Renders the proposed failing test as a reviewable contract, holds for lgtm/approve, then you write the code to make it green. Use when an agent is about to implement packages/* logic, or when asked to "write the test first", "TDD this", "agree on the test", run /test-review.

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。

Verified lookup pack for crouton's schema→CRUD generation domain — the fieldsFile JSON format, the complete field-type catalog with aliases, the naming contract, the exact artifact list one generate run produces, the seed/default-layout pipeline, dialect defaults, and rollback semantics. Use when writing or reviewing a collection schema, when asking "what field types exist / what does `crouton config` actually generate / where did this file name come from / why did I get a pg schema", when a generated file's name or path doesn't match the docs, or when removing/regenerating a collection. Trigger phrases — "what field types are supported", "schema JSON format", "what files does crouton generate", "naming convention for collections", "rollback a collection", "dialect default". The generation WORKFLOW (steps + sign-off gates) lives in the `crouton` skill — this is the reference it doesn't carry.

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。

System reference for the crouton layout engine (@fyit/crouton-layout) — the LayoutTree/layout_configs data model, the croutonLayoutBlocks registry and sizing contract, the viability metric, the deterministic placer (#709), and how layouts persist and seed. Use when reasoning about WHY a layout renders/composes/persists the way it does, when a question is shaped like "what is a LayoutTree / where do layouts live / why did the placer pick this arrangement / why won't this pane shrink / where does minWidth get read", or when a generated POC boots with the wrong (or no) default layout. Trigger phrases: "layout tree", "layout_configs", "viability check", "composeDefaultLayout", "block sizing contract", "why is my layout not viable". For authoring a block component, use the block-authoring 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。

Capture a POC's signed-off behaviour into its spec ledger (`<poc>/spec.json`) — the structured, walkable behaviour contract graduation freezes as authoritative. Run at the moment a behaviour gets signed off ("ok, this works"), while it's fresh — the same trigger as the HANDOFF.md update, but capturing the *behaviour as a testable entry* rather than the *decision as prose*. Use when a POC behaviour is approved, or asked to "capture this spec", "write the spec entry", "log this to the ledger".

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。

Process the batch of incoming Bridge Classroom feedback. Pull open `classroom-feedback` issues from the PBS repo, cluster them by defect class, verify each against the actual board, and fix at the right altitude — patch a single board, or (when a class recurs) build a gate, sweep the whole corpus, and regenerate/drop collectively. Engine bugs route to the Classroom repo; bridge-judgment calls go to Rick. Nothing leaves the machine without David's OK. Invoke as `/issue` (optionally with an issue number or scenario to restrict the run).

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。

Solves complex, open-ended problems using an evolutionary search mechanism inspired by genetic algorithms. Generates a diverse population of candidate answers, scores them against a rubric, then iteratively applies selection, crossover, and mutation to breed progressively better solutions. Use this skill whenever the user wants to explore a solution space deeply, asks for the "best" answer to a subjective or multi-dimensional problem, wants to evaluate competing approaches and distill the strongest, or uses any of these triggers: "evolutionary search", "genetic algorithm", "evolve an answer", "breed solutions", "population-based search", or phrases like "give me multiple approaches and refine the best one". Also trigger when the problem is complex, open-ended, or has no obvious single correct answer and the user wants a high-quality, well-explored result, not just a quick response.

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。

Solves complex, open-ended problems using a knockout tournament mechanism. Generates an initial population of diverse candidate answers, pairs them into head-to-head matches, produces a hybrid "child" solution from each pair, and advances the best of the three through a bracket until a winner emerges. Use this skill whenever the user wants to competitively select the best answer from a field of alternatives, asks for a "tournament" or "bracket" style search, wants a faster alternative to full evolutionary search, or uses phrases like: "run a tournament on this", "bracket-style search", "let solutions compete", "knockout search", "find the best answer by elimination", or "which solution wins?". Also trigger when the problem is open-ended and the user wants a clear winner quickly rather than a deep multi-generation refinement.

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。

The Eterdis Strategy Diagnostic — an AI-guided conversation that helps leadership teams understand their strategic situation before committing to a direction. This is the entry point skill. It runs an open-ended discovery conversation, detects which strategic frameworks are most relevant, and produces a strategy-ready brief. Use this skill when someone asks for a general strategic assessment, when they don't know which framework they need, when they want to "figure out where we stand," or when they're preparing for a strategy engagement. This skill orchestrates other Eterdis skills — it does not replace them. Triggers on: "help me think through our strategy," "where should we start," "we need to figure out what's going on," "strategic health check," "prepare for a strategy review," or any open-ended request for strategic thinking. Based on 20 years of consulting practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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 pack synthesized from JSP 376 Defence Acquisition Safety Policy V1.1 (April 2024, Ministry of Defence, Open Government Licence v3.0): acquisition safety requirements, safety artefacts, and their application across the standard acquisition lifecycle. Covers the policy frame and legislative baseline, SRO and User responsibilities, safety management and safety requirements, test and evaluation and the safety case, supervision and approvals decision support, and the seven lifecycle phases. SCOPE LIMITS: single-source (JSP 376 V1.1); MOD policy and guidance, not statute; builds on JSP 815 and cites JSP 655, neither reproduced here (use jsp-815 for the SMS); Chapter 4 (Non-Standard Acquisition) is unpublished in V1.1 and is not in this pack; no DEF-STAN text (Def Stan 00-056 is named, not quoted); no other JSP reproduced. Reconstructed reference notes, not MOD guidance, and no official status.

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。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the avionics development assurance standards landscape: RTCA DO-178C / EUROCAE ED-12C and its supplements (DO-330/ED-215, DO-331/ED-218, DO-332/ED-217, DO-333/ED-216); RTCA DO-254 / EUROCAE ED-80; SAE ARP4754B and ARP4761A; and the free regulator documents that recognise them (FAA AC 20-115D, AC 20-152A, Order 8110.49A; EASA AMC 20-115D and AMC 20-152A). Contains no source content: each row carries only the designation, title, edition, owner, redistributability status, and the owner's URL. Use when you need to identify, cite, or locate an avionics standard; paywalled rows point to the owner, free rows point to the regulator text, and the FAA rows also name the in-repo faa-8110-49 pack.

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。

Reconstructed reference notes on US FDA medical-device software regulation, built from seven public-domain FDA sources (the QMSR final rule 89 FR 7496, FDA device software guidance documents, and the eSTAR program page; pinned 2026-10-12). Use for regulatory pathways and premarket submissions (510(k), De Novo, PMA, eSTAR), premarket software documentation levels (Basic or Enhanced), software validation and Computer Software Assurance, the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR, 21 CFR 820), medical-device cybersecurity (secure product development, SBOMs, FD&C Act section 524B, labelling), clinical decision support boundaries, off-the-shelf software, MDDS and other software-function scope questions, and the 510(k) software-change trigger. SCOPE LIMITS: US FDA device regulation only; no EU MDR or UKCA content (see `med-device-eu`); no ISO 13485, ISO 14971, or IEC 62304 text, which are named and summarized only as FDA obligations; no drug, biologic, or combination-product rules; reflects the pinned source dates, not later FDA actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal advice and not a substitute for the guidance documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. 105).

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 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 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 DoD Digital Engineering Strategy (2018, OUSD/ODASD(SE)). Use for the Department of Defense's five digital engineering goals — (1) formalize the development, integration, and use of models; (2) provide an enduring authoritative source of truth; (3) incorporate technological innovation; (4) establish supporting infrastructure and environments; (5) transform the culture and workforce — plus their focus areas, the document-to-model and design-build-test→model-analyze-build shifts, model formalisms/provenance, governance and access control of the authoritative source of truth, and the coordinate→plan→pilot→sustain rollout. A vision-and-policy strategy, deliberately non-prescriptive. Does NOT provide a how-to method, tool tutorials, MBSE/SysML mechanics, or implementation-plan content; thin on metrics, acquisition-policy detail, and step-by-step procedure. Excludes the CAC-gated Digital Engineering Body of Knowledge (DEBoK).

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 FAA-HDBK-006D (2020), the FAA's System Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) Handbook for National Airspace System (NAS) hardware and software. Use for RMA figures of merit (MTBF, MTBO, MTTR, the availability variants), the bathtub curve and probability distributions, the four-stage RMA lifecycle mapped to the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), the six-task RMA technical-management/acquisition process, service-thread criticality and the NAS-RD severity-to-target table, the RMA analysis toolbox (RBD, FMEA/FMECA, FTA, Ishikawa, Monte Carlo, Bayesian, FRACAS, ALT, reliability-growth/recovery tests), software reliability (early prediction + reliability growth), and tailorable example RMA requirements for a Program Requirements Document. Scope limits: it is FAA/NAS-specific guidance (not a requirement, by its own statement), centred on hardware-plus-software availability — it brackets out human/service/facility/communications availability, names but does not reproduce the math derivations or external standards (MIL-STDs, IEEE 1633, RTCA DO-178C/DO-278A, SAE JA1011), is thin on detailed worked numerical examples and on safety-case method, and predates any current revision beyond 006D.

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。

Operating Roblox Studio for game development — the visual editor in which the 3D scene is built, tested, and published. Use this skill for: Studio basics (Explorer, Workspace, play-test, saving the place as .rbxl), the interplay with Rojo (Connect, scene-vs-code mode), AI control of Studio via the Roblox-Studio-MCP (execute_luau, insert_from_creator_store, generate_material, screen_capture, Play/Stop, reading the Console), the complete asset-pipeline workflow (Creator Store → clean up → kit → scene → .rbxl → Rojo brings it to life), and above all the MANDATORY malware scan for marketplace assets. Also trigger on "embed an asset from the Store", "Studio MCP not working", "studios: []", "generate material", "save scene", "is this Roblox asset safe", "scripts disappear after Play".

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 an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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。

Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, 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。

Prepares a discovery call brief from what the user has on a prospect (CRM record, inbound form, emails, notes, public material the user supplies): what is known with sources, gaps against the qualification dimensions, hypotheses to test, questions in priority order and what to listen for. Returns a DRAFT Markdown brief in the chat. Use when the user asks to "prep me for the discovery call with <prospect>", "what should I ask on this first call", "intro call brief", "questions for the qualification call" or "what do we know before we speak to them". Do not use for scoring leads against a rubric, use lead-qualification-scorer instead; for an existing customer's account review use account-plan-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。

Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-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。

Drafts a nonconformance report from inspection notes, test results and the governing specification or procedure: what was observed, where, the evidence with references, the requirement cited quoted verbatim with the departure from it, and containment proposals for the quality lead to decide. Never classifies severity, dispositions the item, names a root cause or closes the report. Use when the user asks to "write up this nonconformance", "draft an NCR from my inspection notes", "formalise this deviation" or "turn this snag into a defect report". Do not use for tracking the actions an NCR raises, use corrective-action-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。

Reviews a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, 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。