「its」の検索結果

`git commit` / `git commit --amend` を実行する前、または「commit」「amend」「コミット」「コミットして」の一語・短文だけを渡された時点で必ず発火する git コミット実施ルール。理由や差分の説明が一切無くても、ファイル全文を読んでメッセージを組み立てる前に先に参照する。主目的は論理的に独立した修正を都度・適切な粒度でコミットすること。メッセージは Conventional Commits 形式、素材は同梱の決定論スクリプト commit-context.sh が出す staged diff のみ。「コミット分けて」と依頼される、独立した複数修正をまとめるか分けるか判断する、レビューコメント対応をコミットする、rebase / squash / cherry-pick 後のメッセージを整える、`gh pr create` の PR タイトルをコミット流儀へ揃える場面でも参照する。plan モードでのコミット計画の立案は commit-plan スキルの領分。

Review someone else's pull request by measuring which of its own guards its own test suite actually catches, via a small mutation matrix. Use when reviewing a PR, checking whether a regression test is real, or asked 'is this change actually tested?', 'does this test do anything', 'mutation test this'.

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-only measurement of an agent's autonomy debt from its approvals log: how many times it asked the human for permission in a window, how many asks expired unanswered, and which classes they fall into (machine noise, login or 2FA, physical UAC, money). Use to find asks the agent should have decided itself and to cut needless interruptions. Triggers: /ask-debt, autonomy debt, how often do I ask, expired asks.

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。

Decide-as-cofounder mode: the owner hands over the decision itself, so the agent does not ask back, does not offer a menu of options and does not wait, but picks, acts and reports the call with its reasoning. Triggers: /decide, /ds, decide yourself, your call, up to you, you know better, do as you see fit.

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。

Audit a codebase as a read-only senior advisor, prioritize evidence-backed improvements, and write self-contained implementation plans. Use for codebase audits, improvement roadmaps, focused planning, plan review, plan reconciliation, or executing an existing improve plan through an isolated Codex worktree. The advisor never edits source code; execution uses codex-improve and returns to the main agent for 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。

コンプライアンス・内部統制支援の専門スキル。J-SOX/SOX対応、リスクコントロールマトリクス（RCM）作成、 内部監査計画策定をサポート。内部統制の整備・運用評価から監査対応まで一貫した支援を提供。 日英両言語のテンプレートを提供し、グローバル企業にも対応。COSO内部統制フレームワーク（2013年版）に準拠。 Use when: creating J-SOX/SOX compliance documentation, building risk control matrices, planning internal audits, or assessing internal control effectiveness. Triggers: "J-SOX", "SOX", "内部統制", "コンプライアンス", "RCM", "リスクコントロールマトリクス", "内部監査", "compliance", "internal control", "internal audit", "risk assessment", "COSO"

変更が波及する全モジュール・全フローを特定し、集計ルール、状態遷移、符号反転、 コピペ差分、表示/帳票/APIの整合性を監査するスキル。Impact Mapで変更核から 影響範囲を可視化し、Consistency Matrixで横断整合を検証し、Copy Propagation Review戦略でコピペ実装を効率的にレビューする。 Use when one change affects multiple modules, reports, flows, or copied implementations. Audits aggregation totals, state transitions, sign inversion, and cross-module consistency.

Weekly read-only repository audit. Grades one rotating rubric from .claude/audit-rubrics/, files between zero and five GitHub issues for what it finds, and changes no files. Use when the user asks to audit the repo, or when the audit-weekly workflow invokes it. It never edits, commits, branches, or opens pull requests.

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。

Create a look-alike audience from a seed audience and a candidate population dataset. Classifies Rosetta Stone attributes, generates the same materialized-view scoring pipeline Lookalike Studio emits (Naive-Bayes categorical weights + Gaussian continuous similarity), gates on approval, submits via `narrative_workflows_create`, and monitors the build to completion. Use when: "create a lookalike audience", "find more users like this segment", "expand my seed audience to 500k similar users", "score the population against my customers", "build a look-alike of dataset X". (narrative-audience)

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 NRC software assurance guidance for digital computer software in nuclear power plant safety systems, built from seven public-domain sources (Regulatory Guide 1.168 Revision 2, July 2013; Regulatory Guides 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.172, and 1.173 Revision 1, July 2013; NUREG-0800 Branch Technical Position 7-14 Revision 6, August 2016; pinned 2026-10-12). Use for software life cycle process questions, software requirements specifications, software configuration management plans, verification and validation with reviews and audits, test documentation and unit testing, and what NRC staff examine in a BTP 7-14 software review of plans, implementation, and design outputs. SCOPE LIMITS: NRC Regulatory Guides and the BTP 7-14 staff review position only; the endorsed IEEE standards (IEEE Std 603-1991, 7-4.3.2-2003, 828-2005, 829-2008, 830-1998, 1008-1987, 1012-2004, 1028-2008, 1074-2006), IEC 60880, IEC 61513, IEC 62138, and IAEA guides are cited by designation and edition only, with no standard text; RG 1.152 Rev 4, BTP 7-18, BTP 7-19, other SRP Chapter 7 sections, and NUREG/CR contractor reports are outside the pack; reflects the pinned 2013 and 2016 editions, not later agency actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal or licensing advice and not a substitute for the source 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。

Reconstructed reference notes on EU and UK medical-device software, built from six sources captured 2026-10-13: MDCG 2019-11 rev.1 (June 2025), MDCG 2020-6 (April 2020), MDCG 2020-13 (July 2020), MDCG 2020-7 (April 2020), MDCG 2020-8 (April 2020), and the MHRA software-applications guidance (2023-07-01) with its stand-alone software PDF. Use for SaMD qualification and classification, legacy-device clinical evidence, the clinical evaluation assessment report, the PMCF plan, and the PMCF evaluation report, under EU MDCG guidance or UK MHRA guidance. SCOPE LIMITS: EU MDR and UK MHRA device software only; no IEC 62304, ISO 13485, or ISO 14971 text; no MDR or IVDR regulation body text; MDCG guidance is not legally binding; MHRA guidance is UK-specific; synthesized notes, not legal advice. LICENCE: Per-document: European Commission reuse policy (Decision 2011/833/EU, CC BY 4.0, attribution and indication of changes) for the MDCG documents; Open Government Licence v3.0 for the MHRA guidance; reconstructed notes with attribution; official PDFs not redistributed.

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。

METAINFORMANT rules for directory src/metainformant/ecology/traits. Use when editing, adding tests, or reviewing code under this path. Read the linked AGENTS.md first; use uv only, write outputs to output/, real implementations.

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 public, contributor-safe commit hygiene without maintainer-private automation, timestamps, ledger rules, or push policy.

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。

Advisory checkpoint for deciding whether planning-document edits should be split into a separate planning branch/PR. Use only when the user explicitly asks where to commit `memory/SPEC.md` or `memory/PLAN.md` changes, mentions planning-doc merge conflicts, asks for a planning PR, or instructs you to prepare/submit one. Do not trigger for ordinary ln-* planning edits, one-line status updates, or routine canonical reconciliation.

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 Systems Modeling Handbook for Systems Engineering (NASA-HDBK-1009A Rev A, 2025). Use for model-based systems engineering (MBSE) wired into NASA's NPR 7123.1 SE processes: the three aspects of MBSE (language / methodology / framework), the NASA SE Engine and its two OOSEM-derived steps (Model Planning, Setting Up the Model), the Modeling Plan as a SEMP subset, the tool-agnostic NASA SE metamodel of elements and relationships across the four SysML pillars (structure / behavior / requirements / parametrics), worked SysML diagrams and tables for stakeholders, requirements, structure and V&V, generating SE work products (ConOps, MOE, MOP, TPM, V&V), the MBSE Grid framework, alternative modeling approaches (PBR, Scenario, System Specification, Verification), and the ConOps model-content template. Scope is bounded to four common technical processes (Stakeholder Expectation Definition, Technical Requirements Definition, Product Verification, Product Validation). Does NOT teach SysML itself, mandate a tool, define NPR 7123.1 processes, cover technical-management processes 10-17, or reproduce the OMG SysML specification.

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 pack from 'Towards Digital Engineering: The Advent of Digital Systems Engineering' (Huang et al., Old Dominion University, arXiv:2002.11672, 2020). Use when reasoning about digital engineering, the DoD Digital Engineering Strategy and its five goals, the Authoritative Source of Truth, digitalization vs. digitization, digital augmentation, digitalized models, provenance, unique identification, and the four-level (vision/strategy/action/foundation) DSE research framework. Covers the conceptual/vision layer of the field. SCOPE LIMITS: this is a single ~28-page vision paper, not a methods handbook — it is thin on step-by-step procedures, tooling, case studies, and quantitative evaluation, and it predates 2020 so it does not cover later digital-engineering standards or recent AI/LLM advances. Use the sebok pack for established SE canon and MBSE depth.

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 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。

Erzeugt aus einem Bestand offener und gefallener Entscheidungen einen strukturierten ASCII-Abhängigkeitsgraphen (maximal 100 Spalten) für das Terminal. Bewertet Knoten nach fünf festen Kriterien: sinnvoll, empfohlen, usertypisch (Richtung und decision-avatar-Konfidenz getrennt), zusammenpassend und widersprechend; Kanten tragen Beziehungstyp und Belegstatus. Deckt Blocker, Freischaltungen, Reihenfolgen und widersprüchliche Empfehlungen gnadenlos auf. Nutze diesen Skill bei "welche Entscheidungen hängen voneinander ab", "Abhängigkeitsgraph der Entscheidungen", "Entscheidungspfad visualisieren", "Widersprüche zwischen Entscheidungen prüfen", "Reihenfolge der Beschlüsse", /decision-path. NICHT nutzen, um Entscheidungen erst zu inventarisieren -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um das empfohlene Gesamtkonzept zur Abnahme zu bündeln -- das macht decision-draw; NICHT für kompakte Fünfteiler- Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT für die Einzelfall-Erwägung mit Frameworks -- das macht decide.

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。

Erweitert automation-self-care um Letter Hooks, Preflight-Bootloader, Dokument-Traversierungsregeln und selbstheilende Prompt-Kontext- Anreicherung für KI-Agenten und CLIs ohne native, ereignisgetriebene JSON-Lifecycle-Hooks (wie Antigravity / Gemini CLI). Nutzen, wenn ein Agent Preflight-Regeln injizieren, vor Arbeitsbeginn Memory/Gardener durchsuchen, Verzeichnis-Dokument-Lesestrategien erzwingen (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md) oder Sidecar-Tasks dynamisch an Skills und Sicherheitsprotokolle routen soll.

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。

Regelmäßiger Pflegedurchlauf für ein bereits veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 1, günstig und oft wiederholbar): zuerst alle Distributionsflächen des Projekts ermitteln (npm, PyPI, Registries, Marketplaces, Stores, Website) und Änderungen später dorthin spiegeln, dann Topics setzen, Privacy-Gate, Dokumente auf Veröffentlichungsabsicht prüfen und interne Planungsdateien nachträglich ignorieren, Banner ergänzen, Aussagen im README gegen den echten Code-Stand abgleichen, Darstellung verbessern, Sprachfassungen der README vervollständigen, Sichtbarkeitsmaßnahmen umsetzen, Eintrag auf der Organisationsseite prüfen sowie offene Issues und Pull Requests abarbeiten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein bestehendes Repo gepflegt, aufgeräumt, aktualisiert, aufgehübscht oder "mal wieder durchgesehen" werden soll, wenn ein Repo veraltet oder unaufgeräumt wirkt, bei Formulierungen wie "Repo-Pflege", "after care", "Nachpflege", "Repo auf Stand bringen", "aufräumen und pushen" oder bei rotierenden Qualitätsrunden über mehrere Repos. Für die tiefe Runde inkl. Rechtscheck und orga-übergreifenden Querverweisen stattdessen full-after-care nutzen; 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。

Interaktives Reißverschluss-Audit-Verfahren für eine Serie von Apps/Prüfobjekten: der User testet live und gibt kurzes Feedback im Chat, der Agent startet dabei bereits das nächste Objekt UND wertet parallel das Feedback des vorigen aus (strukturiert erfassen, Reparaturaufträge sofort an Worker delegieren) — statt sequenziell zu warten. Nutze diesen Skill bei "human-loop-audit", "lass uns die Apps im Reißverschluss durchtesten", "ich teste, du wertest aus und reparierst", oder wenn eine Reihe von GUIs/Produkten gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer durchgetestet werden soll und Befunde sofort in Reparaturen münden sollen. Abschluss ist eine strukturierte Befundliste je Objekt (Funktioniert/Defekt/Wunsch) plus die Liste der bereits gestarteten Reparaturen.

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。