1,642 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Runtime iOS app security testing with Objection (Frida): inspect keychain and filesystem data, explore app internals at runtime, and validate/bypass client-side protections during authorized mobile assessments.
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。
Professional contract review skill for business agreements including NDAs, MSAs, SLAs, SOWs, and software license agreements. Provides systematic clause-by-clause analysis, risk assessment with quantified scoring, red flag detection, and negotiation guidance. Use this skill when reviewing vendor contracts, partnership agreements, service agreements, or any business contract requiring risk evaluation and negotiation preparation. Triggers include "review this contract", "analyze this NDA", "check this agreement for risks", "prepare for contract negotiation", or when evaluating terms and conditions.
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。
This skill should be used when creating bug/defect reports during system testing. Use this skill when you discover a bug, need to document test failures, or want to create comprehensive bug tickets with proper reproduction steps, severity assessment, and environment details. Guides users through interactive questioning to gather all necessary information and generates professional bug ticket documents in Markdown format. Supports Japanese (default) and English.
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 diagnosing a repeated conceptual mistake and designing a targeted correction loop to replace the faulty mental model.
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 verifying whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.
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 simulating a technical interview to build confidence, expose reasoning gaps, and train structured communication under pressure.
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 personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.
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 evaluating a completed or in-progress project across scope, correctness, quality, testing, and learning outcomes using structured Praise-Critique-Grow feedback.
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 advising, planning, reviewing, reporting, operating, or improving CTO and technology leadership work across strategy, cybersecurity management, SME/COE, functional and technical requirements, framework selection, people, organization, delivery, risk, KPI, roadmap, budgeting, governance, audit, R&D, stakeholder communication, culture, politics, and sector-specific leadership.
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 designing, evaluating, documenting, modernizing, reviewing, refactoring, or implementing software architecture and code-level structure, including requirements, context, architecture style selection, microservices patterns, WebAssembly/WASI/Component Model, UMA portable capabilities, runtime contracts, capability graphs, governed MCP/agent orchestration, clean code, code smells, Rust crate/library API architecture, Cargo feature/MSRV/SemVer policy, unsafe/FFI/no_std/library testing, modularity, views, NFR tactics, IAM/auth, security patterns, cost estimation, architecture-as-code fitness functions, ADR/RFC work, and engineering execution plans.
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。
Product-discovery coach for Fishbowl engineers — inspired by Marty Cagan's work (never impersonates him). Stage-routes between opportunity brief, research, PRD, ticket drafting, and outcome review. Triggers on "product coach", "help me with product", "I need to write a PRD", "I want to do discovery", "opportunity assessment", "who is this for", "why are we building this", or when an engineer is starting, resuming, or post-mortem-ing product-adjacent work. Invoke with a short description of what you want to do, or invoke bare to be surveyed and routed.
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。
Audit code quality focusing on deep modules, naming, model hygiene, and architectural clarity. Use after a burst of development, when codebase structure needs assessment, or to make code more agent-navigable.
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 NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for information systems and organizations. Use for the seven RMF steps (Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, Monitor) and their tasks; the three-tier organization-wide risk model; authorization boundaries; the requirements-to-controls relationship; security categorization (FIPS 199/200 high-water mark) and control selection/tailoring (SP 800-53/53B baselines); assessment, the authorization decision and risk acceptance, continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; the security/privacy distinction; and supply chain risk management. This is the security-and-privacy-risk-governance edge of systems engineering — it governs how much protection and whether to accept residual risk, complementing the disciplines that decide how protection is built. Does NOT reproduce the SP 800-53 control catalog or its baselines, the FIPS impact tables, or the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text; it names and routes to them rather than restating them.
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 SD-22 DMSMS Guidebook (DSPO, FY24 working draft). Use for managing Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) and obsolescence across a long-lived system's life cycle: the five-step process (Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, Implement) plus the Strategize overlay; standing up a DMSMS Management Team (DMT) and Management Plan (DMP); risk-based monitoring and surveillance (the risk cube, predictive tools, vendor surveys, GIDEP/DLA PDNs, critical-materials analysis); health assessments and resolution timing; costing and selecting resolutions (life-of-need buys, substitutes, redesign, technology refreshment) by AoA/BCA; and budgeting/executing resolutions through modification funding and the ECP process. Defense-sustainment / DoD-acquisition framing throughout. Does NOT teach general systems engineering, parts-management standards, or contracting law in depth, and does not reproduce DoD policy text or the source's tables and figures.
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 NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 (Protecting CUI in Nonfederal Systems). Use for CUI confidentiality requirements on contractors and other nonfederal organizations, the 17 requirement families, ODPs, SSPs, POA&Ms, and tailoring from SP 800-53. Covers 800-171r3 only; does not replace SP 800-171A assessment procedures, full SP 800-53 baselines, CMMC scoring mechanics, or classified-information controls.
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-STD-8719.14C (Process for Limiting Orbital Debris). Use for orbital-debris assessment planning, mission-related debris limits, explosion/passivation and collision risk, postmission disposal options, reentry casualty risk, and ODAR/EOMP governance. Covers STD-8719.14C (Approved 2021-11-05) synthesized notes only; does not replace NPR 8715.6 delivery timing, NASA-HDBK-8719.14 environment/modeling depth, or program-specific OSMA waivers.
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 Agile Assessment Guide (GAO-24-105506, 2023). Use for assessing and managing Agile software development in federal programs: the Agile Manifesto and framework family (Scrum, Kanban, XP, SAFe, DA, DSDM, Lean, DevOps); the three adoption perspectives (team dynamics, program operations, organization environment); requirements decomposition (epics, features, user stories, INVEST, MoSCoW, definition of done); Agile-aware federal contracting (FAR, modular contracting, SOO/PWS/SOW, product owner vs. COR); program monitoring and control (WBS, cost, schedule, EVM at the feature level); Agile metrics (velocity, lead/cycle time, CFD, burn charts); and the auditor's key-question bank. Oversight- and acquisition-oriented: it tells you how to *assess and govern* Agile programs, not how to code. Thin on hands-on engineering practice, deep cost/schedule checklists (see gao-cost, gao-schedule), and any non-US-federal context.
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 EU Artificial Intelligence Act — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Use for AI system classification (high-risk vs prohibited vs general), conformity assessment procedures, GPAI model obligations, transparency and disclosure requirements, governance structure (AI Office / AI Board), penalty tiers, value-chain operator obligations, post-market monitoring, and Annex III use-case analysis. Does not cover EU liability rules for AI (separate proposed directive) or implementation guidance documents issued after July 2024.
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 M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).
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 the NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 second edition.
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-STD-882E (DoD System Safety). Use for the system safety process, hazard analysis tasks (PHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA), the risk assessment matrix (severity x probability), software safety criticality, and risk acceptance. US-gov public domain.
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。