「case」の検索結果

Knowledge base from NASA System Safety Handbook Volume 2 (NASA/SP-2014-612). Use for risk-informed safety cases (RISC), integrated safety analysis (ISA), adequate safety concepts, safety objectives and requirements, acquirer/provider roles, graded safety analysis, claims-evidence-argument structure, SSMP development, and RISC evaluation. Does not cover nuclear or chemical safety domains, occupational health regulations, or NASA-specific programmatic requirements beyond system safety.

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 NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods (NIST HB 151) — the practical statistics reference for engineering, metrology, and quality. Use for: exploratory data analysis and the four univariate assumptions (4-plot); measurement process characterization including bias/precision, calibration designs, gauge R&R, and ISO/GUM uncertainty budgets; production process characterization (stability vs. capability); process modeling and regression (LS/WLS/NLS/LOESS); design of experiments (screening, fractional/factorial, response-surface, Taguchi); statistical process control (Shewhart/CUSUM/EWMA charts, capability indices, acceptance sampling); product/process comparisons (hypothesis tests and confidence intervals for 1/2/3+ groups, ANOVA, multiple comparisons); and reliability (lifetime & repair-rate models, accelerated testing, reliability growth). Scope limits: this is applied frequentist statistics for measurement and quality — it does NOT reproduce the per-distribution formula galleries, worked case studies, datasets, plot images, or Dataplot/R code of the original web Handbook (those are described, not copied); it is thin on modern machine learning, Bayesian methods beyond conjugate reliability priors, time-series/forecasting, and Bayesian experimental design.

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 NIST Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems (SP 1500-201/202/203, v1.0, 2017). Use for engineering and analyzing cyber-physical systems (CPS) and IoT: the CPS Framework's aspect × facet grid (nine aspects of concern examined through conceptualization, realization, and assurance facets), cross-property trustworthiness risk management (safety/security/privacy/reliability/resilience together), data interoperability (syntactical/semantic/contextual, canonical models, identifiers, provenance), the timing aspect (time-interval classes, time domains, time-aware networking) and secure/resilient time (GNSS jamming/spoofing, PTP/NTP attacks, holdover, the clock-error model and Allan/MTIE metrics), plus the use-case requirements method. Bridges IT and OT under a clock. Scope limits: a 2017 living/draft document, thin on post-2017 standards and on detailed control catalogs; it names but does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 and 15288 process text or permission-licensed third-party 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 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 FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.

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 base from the NASA Digital Engineering Acquisition Framework Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1004). Use for acquiring digital/model-based data under contract: the Data Requirements Description (DRD) instrument and the Appendix A DRD suite (TDP, MBx, CDMP, CSA, CR, FCA/PCA, SDT, EMDAL, REF, MRI); the Data Type 1-5 control scale; SOW/RFP/Cost-Volume contract language and data rights (FAR/DFARS, Table 3 license categories); the Requirements Exchange Format (REF/ReqIF, UUID schema) and Master Records Index; model-based data definition (MBSE, CAD/PMI, M&S credibility, BOM, release-state mapping, PLM); digital data collaboration, the four owned architectures, and interoperability standards (MIL-STD-31000, STEP/ISO 10303, ASME Y14); the four MBE interoperability use cases; and MBE Plan development. Scope is the acquisition and contracting side of digital engineering. Does not reproduce ISO/STEP/ASME/MIL-STD/SAE standard text, and the companion NASA-HDBK-1009A carries the deeper digital-engineering practitioner detail this handbook defers to.

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。

8-phase development cycle: Feature requests, current state, functional planning, frontend, backend planning, backend code, tests, use cases. Iterative framework for systematic software development.

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 answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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 a business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them 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。

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。

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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-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。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. 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 cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack 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。