8,758 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
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。
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 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。
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 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。
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。
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。
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。
Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-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。
Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, 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。
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。
Turns a campaign idea, its objectives and the supporting notes (audience material, offer facts, budget and dates, channel list) into one DRAFT one-page campaign brief: objectives, audience, one single-minded message with sourced proof points, channels and timeline, success measures with baselines, mandatories, risks and numbered open questions for the campaign owner. Use when the user asks to "write a campaign brief", "draft a creative brief for this launch", "turn this idea into a one-page brief", "tighten this brief to one page" or "build the marketing brief from these notes". Do not use for a message house, messaging pillars or a launch narrative on its own, use message-house-builder instead; for laying the campaign onto dated slots, use content-calendar-planner. 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 and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-drafter 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 one issue of an internal newsletter from the items the user provides (notes, messages, snippets, meeting outputs, contributor submissions): a running order with the reason for each position, a factual headline and one paragraph per item with its source line, one call to action per item with date and route, two subject-line options, an item register accounting for every item supplied, and a list of items that need an owner's confirmation before send. Use when the user asks to "draft this month's newsletter", "turn these items into the team update", "write the staff bulletin from these notes", "order and headline these items" or "prepare the internal digest". Do not use for one piece of news that needs its own send, use announcement-drafter instead; for a digest of external news, use news-monitor-digest; for a personal weekly status note, use weekly-status-update-writer. 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 one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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 one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-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。
Use when generating, modifying, explaining, or reviewing TBQ3 Bar-based trading strategies with OnBar, OnInit, OnReady, entries, exits, MarketPosition, stop profit/loss, sizing, slippage, commission, multi-symbol, or cross-period logic.
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。