「decisions」の検索結果

Conduct a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology: prepare scope and a risk model, identify threat sources and threat events, identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions, determine likelihood and impact, compute risk, and communicate results as a prioritized risk register. Use when an organization needs an actual risk *assessment* (not a maturity score), when a control framework (CSF, ISO 27001, RMF, SOC 2, PCI) requires a documented risk analysis as input, when leadership asks "what are our top risks and how bad are they", when assessing risk for a new system or major change, or when building a risk register from scratch. This is the methodology that feeds framework selection, ATO packages, and treatment decisions. Keywords: risk assessment, NIST 800-30, threat modeling, likelihood and impact, risk register, risk analysis, threat sources, vulnerabilities, risk determination, qualitative risk, risk matrix, residual risk, risk treatment.

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。

Analyzes indicators of compromise (IOCs) including IP addresses, domains, file hashes, URLs, and email artifacts to determine maliciousness confidence, campaign attribution, and blocking priority. Use when triaging IOCs from phishing emails, security alerts, or external threat feeds; enriching raw IOCs with multi-source intelligence; or making block/monitor/whitelist decisions. Activates for requests involving VirusTotal, AbuseIPDB, MalwareBazaar, MISP, or IOC enrichment pipelines.

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。

Standard Operating Procedures for architecture decisions, security audits, deep code analysis, risk assessment, and critical problem solving.

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。

Fresh-eyes review of the project's PRD for gaps, contradictions, vague phrasing, and unresolved decisions

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。

Review a product requirement, PRD, brief, or meeting note before design or development; expose missing decisions, contradictions, edge cases, dependencies, and validation gaps without inventing business rules.

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。

Synthesize user interviews, observations, surveys, support tickets, reviews, or feedback into traceable themes, insights, tensions, opportunities, and research gaps; use when evidence must inform product or design decisions.

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。

Review WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) Excel files against requirements docs, hearing sheets, and prior decisions to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and deviations. Add review comments to Excel cells and generate summary reports.

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。

Cross-reference project artifacts (WBS, meeting minutes, requirements docs) by date, participant, and action items. Extract commitments from meeting minutes and link to WBS tasks. Generate traceability reports showing which decisions were captured in which documents.

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 financial analysis skill for investment decisions, budgeting, financial statement analysis, and business plan evaluation. Use this skill when you need to analyze financial ratios (profitability, safety, efficiency), calculate DCF/NPV/IRR valuations, perform budget variance analysis, or conduct sensitivity/scenario analysis. Triggers include "analyze financial statements", "calculate DCF", "investment evaluation", "budget variance", "財務分析", "投資評価", "予算差異分析".

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。

Bootstrap a new or existing project with a small, file-based documentation system so Claude Code keeps context, lessons, and decisions across session restarts instead of starting cold every time. Sets up a handful of markdown files under .claude/ (standing rules, a free-form note to your next session, a phased roadmap, a prioritized backlog, and searchable history/changelog archives) sized and split so the files read every session stay small while the archives grow without ever costing context. Use this whenever someone is starting a new project and asks how to structure it for long-running AI-assisted work, wants Claude to "remember" things between sessions without relying on chat history, asks for a CLAUDE.md + backlog + changelog setup, mentions "session continuity", "persistent context", "project memory system", or is retrofitting an existing codebase that has no such system yet. Also use to explain or extend an already-bootstrapped bottle system (add a rule, start the archival script, add a new backlog section).

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。

Judge performance or resource claims on real hardware: benchmark design or review, latency, throughput, memory or headroom numbers, and accept-or-reject decisions on optimizations. Not for refactors with no resource claim.

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, verify, transfer, and resume compact project handoff packets for long-running Codex work. Use after a second observed automatic context compaction, immediately after a third compaction, when attention or constraints degrade, a major phase ends, the user asks to move work into a fresh task, work must pause, or an existing handoff needs to be imported. Do not interrupt after the first normal compaction. Always ask before creating a new task, transfer the global roadmap only after explicit consent, preserve the old task title when available, then require the fresh task to ask what work matters most. Preserve objectives, constraints, decisions, evidence, approval boundaries, workspace state, validation, and risks without treating an old summary as current truth.

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。

Show what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open before a release.

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 the user starts a non-trivial coding/building task in Claude Code (e.g. "帮我做个 X", "help me build Y", "add feature Z", "搭一个 Z"). Layers an AI-native pedagogical coat over normal coding work — surfaces implicit assumptions in user intent, annotates non-trivial design decisions inline with brief concept-scaffolding for terms the user may not know, and replaces "should I run it?" handoffs with rigorous AI self-verification plus a clean list of what only the user can verify. Skip for pure Q&A, single-line edits, read-only investigation, or refactoring along an existing pattern.

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。

Clarify ambiguous or conflicting requests by researching first, then asking only judgment calls. Use when prompts say "grill me", ask hard questions, request relentless interrogation, pressure-test assumptions, clarify scope/requirements, define success criteria, or request system-design/optimization decisions before implementation; stop 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。

Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a plan.

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。

Iterative deep planning with critiques and alternatives. Use when facing complex design decisions, cross-platform changes, native module modifications, or API changes requiring thorough analysis.

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。

Keep decision maps as concise routers from decisions to canonical documents and validation guardrails.

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。

Crystallize shared understanding into a reviewable spec, or update an existing one. Use when the problem needs a written specification, when assumptions or decisions have changed, or when the user says 'write a spec'.

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 Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (GAO-20-48G, 2020). Use for evaluating technology maturity in acquisition programs and projects: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9) and related scales (MRL, IRL), identifying Critical Technology Elements (CTEs), the five-step process for a high-quality TRA, the four characteristics of a reliable TRA (comprehensive, well-documented, credible, defensible), Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs), and using TRA results in knowledge-based, milestone decisions. Assessment/maturity oriented: it measures readiness and frames risk — it is not a full SE process model, cost-estimating, or schedule guide (see sibling packs 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 DOE Order on Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE O 413.3 series). Use for Critical Decisions CD-0–CD-4, performance baselines, acquisition strategy and IPTs, cost/schedule/EVMS/PARS controls, risk-informed governance, reviews, and contractor requirements. Built from O 413.3C (2026-08-05), which cancels O 413.3B Chg 7 (2023-06-21); does not replace site-specific procedures, nuclear safety rules detail, or full estimating 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。

Use whenever several decisions are pending or have accumulated -- whether within a topic, project, document, or over the course of a session: inventory them, present a numbered briefing with options A/B/C/D and a marked recommendation, accept letter answers (including batches), record the results, and write them back into the source documents.

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。

Abbruchbedingung für autonome Loops: So weit wie möglich selbständig weiterarbeiten UND einen Loop erst beenden, wenn belegt ist, dass keine autonom ausführbare Aufgabe mehr vorliegt. Der bloße Eindruck "nichts mehr zu tun" reicht NICHT — er löst eine vierstufige Prüfkette aus (think/decide, _CONTROL/_DECISIONS, Gardener/USMC, decision-avatar/BYUM), die zuerst neue Aufgaben GEWINNEN muss, bevor der Loop enden darf. Jeder Kettenschritt meldet found/empty/unavailable statt eines binären Ergebnisses — "exhausted" gilt nur, wenn ALLE Quellen tatsächlich befragbar waren; ist mindestens eine Quelle unavailable, meldet der Skill "blind" statt "exhausted" und behauptet nichts Ungeprüftes. Nutze diesen Skill bei /work-autonomous, /waafap, "arbeite autonom weiter bis nichts mehr zu tun ist", als Goal-Bedingung innerhalb eines /loop, oder wenn geprüft werden soll, ob wirklich keine autonome Arbeit mehr übrig ist, bevor ein Loop/eine Session beendet wird.

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 stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-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。