「trace」の検索結果

Create, revise, and validate publication-ready academic paper figures and tables. Use for LaTeX tables, related-work comparison tables, result tables, notation/dataset/taxonomy tables, precise source-data-driven experiment plots from CSV/JSON/logs, generated conceptual figures such as system overviews/pipelines/architectures/threat models, captions, artifact specs, source-data traceability, and paper-ready PDF/SVG/PNG/LaTeX exports. Do not use for prose-only paper writing, self-review, reviewer response, rebuttal drafting, or external literature-management workflows.

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。

Build an evidence-backed working model of an existing codebase. Use when you must orient in a large or unfamiliar repository; explain architecture or a subsystem; trace a request, runtime, control, or data flow for a concrete question or bug; analyze a branch, commit, diff, or pull request for behavioral impact and blast radius; or assess AI-generated or changed code against requirements, contracts, invariants, tests, and runtime evidence. Default to read-only investigation. Do not trigger only because a coding task touches an existing repository; use when understanding or verification is the requested outcome or a substantial prerequisite.

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。

Reconstruct workflow behind a past coding-agent artifact using local ax sessions/commits/skills/tool traces. Use when asked how X was built.

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。

Traces ransomware cryptocurrency payment flows using blockchain analysis tools such as Chainalysis Reactor, WalletExplorer, and blockchain.com APIs. Identifies wallet clusters, tracks fund movement through mixers and exchanges, and supports law enforcement attribution. Activates for requests involving ransomware payment tracing, bitcoin wallet analysis, cryptocurrency forensics, or blockchain intelligence gathering.

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。

Parse and analyze email headers to trace the origin of phishing emails, verify sender authenticity, and identify spoofing through SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation.

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。

Synthesize user interviews, observations, surveys, support tickets, reviews, or feedback into traceable themes, insights, tensions, opportunities, and research gaps; use when evidence must inform product or design decisions.

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。

Correlate events across multiple log files from different sources, systems, or time periods. Build unified timelines, identify causal relationships between events, and highlight anomalies that span multiple data sources. Supports timezone normalization and gap detection. Use when analyzing logs from multiple systems (frontend, backend, database, infrastructure), investigating distributed system failures, or building event timelines across services. Triggers: "correlate these logs", "build timeline from multiple logs", "cross-system analysis", "find related events across logs", "multi-source log analysis", "distributed trace analysis"

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。

Cross-reference project artifacts (WBS, meeting minutes, requirements docs) by date, participant, and action items. Extract commitments from meeting minutes and link to WBS tasks. Generate traceability reports showing which decisions were captured in which documents.

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。

Diagnostic Playwright workflows for flaky or failing tests, including trace analysis, UI mode, and state isolation.

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。

Analyze Codex provider rollout JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to identify slow or failed individual tasks, tool retries, token/cost anomalies, and differences in agent execution paths. Use when users ask to analyze a Codex session or rollout, explain why a Codex task was slow or failed, inspect a Codex provider execution trace, compare Codex runs, count function_call or tool output events, or investigate agent-home/.codex/sessions.

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。

Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.

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。

Mitigate incidental code complexity when control flow is tangled, nesting is deep, names are hard to parse, or reasoning requires cross-file hops. Use when a review stalls on readability, you need an analysis-first refactor plan before edits, or you want essential-vs-incidental verdicts, ranked simplification steps, a small structural sketch, and a TRACE assessment (analysis-only; no edits).

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 and compare Clawix UI performance budgets for critical flows before optimizing visible or runtime UI behavior.

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。

Load for .NET observability changes involving structured logs/Loki, Prometheus metrics, OpenTelemetry traces, exception handling, correlation IDs, dashboards, alerts, or production error diagnosis; not for ordinary business validation errors.

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。

Load for Aspire AppHost work: start/stop/wait resources, inspect dashboard/logs/traces, add integrations/resources, rebuild a service, run isolated worktrees, or diagnose Aspire orchestration; not for plain dotnet apps, container-only deployments, or cloud deployment.

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。

Uses the chrome-devtools-axi CLI for browser automation, accessibility-tree snapshots, console and network inspection, screenshots, Lighthouse audits, and performance traces. Use when interacting with Chrome from the shell, especially when the user mentions chrome-devtools-axi, AX snapshots, browser debugging, or DevTools automation from the command line.

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。

Guidance on writing high-quality requirements: the requirement quality characteristics and the EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) patterns — ubiquitous, event-driven, state-driven, optional-feature, unwanted-behaviour — for unambiguous, singular, verifiable requirements, plus defect/anti-pattern review and verification & traceability. Use when authoring or reviewing requirements. Original synthesis citing EARS (Mavin et al.) and NASA public-domain guidance; not a reproduction of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 or the EARS paper.

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 GAO Schedule Assessment Guide (GAO-16-89G, 2015). Use for building, assessing, or auditing a program's integrated master schedule (IMS): the ten best practices of a reliable schedule (capture, sequence, resource, duration, traceability, valid critical path, reasonable total float, schedule risk analysis, updating, baseline), the four characteristics (comprehensive, well-constructed, credible, controlled), critical path method arithmetic (forward/backward pass, total float), schedule risk analysis (Monte Carlo, contingency), statusing and baseline control, and the Appendix II audit triad. Scheduling/time-management oriented: it is the authority on schedule reliability, but it is NOT a cost-estimating guide, a full SE process model, an agile guide, or a risk-management framework — see sibling packs (gao-cost, dau-se-guidebook, nasa-schedule, nasa-risk) 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 NASA NPR 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).

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 System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).

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 DOE Systems Engineering Methodology (SEM) Version 3 — the DOE SDLC for IT investments. Use for staged systems lifecycle planning through maintenance, Stage Exits, Structured Walkthroughs, In-Stage Assessments, requirements traceability, and CMM-aligned process discipline. Covers SEM3 (2002) guidance only; does not replace modern DevSecOps tooling standards, DOE O 413.3B capital-asset directives, or current CIO policy supersessions.

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 merged changes, closed work items or commit messages the user provides into DRAFT release notes under the version heading and date the user supplies, grouped as features, fixes and other, in the organisation's tone from the style guide or prior notes given, with every entry traced to its source item, breaking changes and required actions flagged first, and internal-only items held back for the release owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write the release notes for this version", "turn these merged pull requests into a changelog", "summarise what shipped this sprint for customers", "draft the what's new for this release" or "group these closed tickets into release notes". Do not use for an announcement email or intranet post about a launch, use announcement-drafter instead; for a change ticket, use change-request-pack; for a how-to article about one fix, use knowledge-article-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。

Builds a DRAFT stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, 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。

Drafts an account plan from the CRM notes, emails, meeting notes and contracts the user provides: situation, stakeholder map, opportunities as recorded, risks, open commitments and proposed next actions, every line traced to a source and gaps marked UNKNOWN. Returns a DRAFT Markdown document in the chat. Use when the user asks to "build an account plan", "refresh the key account plan", "what do we know about this account", "account review for <customer>" or "what should happen next on this account". Do not use for preparing a first call with a prospect, use discovery-call-prep instead; for scoring inbound 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。