「design」の検索結果

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the automotive standards landscape: ISO 26262, ASPICE, SAE J3016, UNECE R155, UNECE R156, and the NHTSA vehicle set. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate an automotive standard. Most are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; the one open path is the nhtsa-vehicle 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。

Knowledge base from NASA Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide (NASA/SP-2015-3709). Use for HSI process implementation, lifecycle phase activities, function allocation, ConOps development, HSI Plan writing, HSI metrics (MOE/MOP/TPM/KPP), HITL testing strategy, HSI team organisation, scaling/tailoring for program size, and V&V planning. Does not cover the specific human engineering design standards (NASA-STD-3001 content) or detailed HFE methods beyond what the guide itself provides.

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 Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).

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 FAA-STD-025f (Preparation of Interface Documentation). Use for IRD/ICD family definitions, common format and content, IRD shall-requirements, ICD design characteristics, verification/VRTM, and CM/revision/approval of FAA Enterprise Subsystem interfaces. Covers rev F preparation rules only; does not replace FAA-STD-005 drawing/spec prep, Order 1800.66 full CM procedures, or non-FAA interface standards.

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。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the functional safety standards landscape: IEC 61508, ISO 26262, ISO/SAE 21434, UL 4600, SAE J3016, and ASPICE. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate a functional safety standard. All six are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; open paths point at US Government packs, which are not equivalents.

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。

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。

Ideenschürf-Workflow für festgefahrene, schwere Probleme (Beweise, Forschungsfragen, hartnäckige Design-/Architekturprobleme): einen Ideenspeicher über acht Schürftechniken füllen (Wiedererkennung, Fern-Disziplin-Analogie, Alltags-Allegorie, Störgefühl/Ästhetik, Märchen-Reframing, Web-/Literatur-Recherche, Geschwisterprojekte, Bestandsquerlauf), dann gegen bereits Versuchtes filtern, eine Idee wählen und bis zur Substanz verfolgen. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein Problem trotz mehrerer Anläufe feststeckt, wenn „neue Ideen für X" gebraucht werden, bei „wir drehen uns im Kreis", oder für periodische Innovations-Läufe über ein Projekt. Für breites, freies Ideensammeln ohne festgefahrenes Problem stattdessen brainstorm (SCAMPER, Six Hats etc.).

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。

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design. Use when the user says "grill me", "grill mich", "grill mich zu diesem Plan", or explicitly invokes /grill-me. Does NOT fire on generic "review this", "poke holes", "stress-test", "devil's advocate" or "critique" phrasing -- for reviewing an already-written artifact (code, PR, paper) use code-review, 3agenten-review, 7phasen-review or caveman-review instead; grill-me interrogates a still-open plan or idea before it is 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。

Local, private capture of medical data: diagnoses, symptom histories and examination plans. No BACH origin — custom design with its own SQLite store. Strictly local, no cloud transfer.

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。

Übersetzt zwischen Benutzeroberfläche und Text — in beide Richtungen. Aus einer beschriebenen Oberfläche wird ein Skill; aus einem Skill wird eine Oberfläche. Nutzen, wenn eine Anwendung entworfen wird und der Ablauf noch unklar ist, wenn ein bestehendes Werkzeug als Skill verfügbar gemacht werden soll, wenn Oberfläche und Agentenzugang auseinanderdriften, oder wenn ein Skill zu lang wird und niemand weiß warum.

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。

Reviews the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan 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 course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, use onboarding-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。

Synthesises training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-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。

Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer 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 one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. 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。

Builds a DRAFT interface register between disciplines or parties from meeting notes, action lists and drawings or document lists: one row per interface with the requesting and providing party, the information needed, the related document number, the need-by date with its source, the status as minuted and a quoted source, plus UNKNOWN and questions where the notes are silent. Never sets a date, rates priority, assigns ownership beyond what the notes state or closes an interface. Use when the user asks to "build an interface register from these minutes", "list the interfaces between piping and civil", "who owes what to whom on this package", "update the interface register from this week's meeting" or "turn these action items into an interface list". Do not use for recording a design or document change raised in a meeting, use management-of-change-intake 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。

Render a web page on the host and measure it - screenshots, computed styles, element boxes and post-script text - when a page only exists after its scripts run or when the question is about layout. Covers choosing between web_fetch and a render, reading a design's real measurements, comparing viewports, and the egress policy that decides what may be reached.

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。

Write, compile, load, debug and re-use SuperCollider SynthDefs with sc_synthdef - the unit of sound design in SuperCollider. Covers Out and ReplaceOut, argument naming, envelopes and doneAction, why a def must be loaded on a specific server before /s_new works, and how to read the compiler's error rather than guessing.

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 starting creative work (features, components, functionality, or behavior changes) to clarify user intent, requirements, and design before implementation.

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。