4,740 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Jevを使い、日本語中心・英語対応で文書、メール、メッセージ、提案書、技術資料、スライドの抽出テキストを多角的にレビューする。AIっぽさ、定型的な文体、冗長さ、直訳調、過剰敬語などを評価し、根拠引用と具体的な改善案を作成担当者へ返して改善ループを回すときに使う。Japanese-first bilingual editorial style review with Jev scores, source-grounded feedback and bounded revision loops; not an AI-authorship detector.
本番と同じ失敗を本番前に検出するためのテスト階層設計スキル。 DB方言差、実依存関係、永続化確認、timezone差、packaging整合性、 adversarial regressionをunit/integration/e2e/smoke/packagingに 適切に割り振り、PR CIで最低限の本番同等性を保証する。 Use when designing production-parity tests, closing test blind spots, building smoke suites for real dependencies, verifying persistence beyond UI success, or creating adversarial regression backlogs.
Load when EF Core reads are slow, emit N+1 or excessive SQL, over-fetch, track too many entities, cause high DB load, or need projection/split-query/compiled-query analysis; not for general migrations, DbContext setup, or repository conventions.
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。
Triage TestFlight crashes, beta feedback, and performance diagnostics using asc. Use when the user asks about TF crashes, TestFlight crash reports, beta tester feedback, app hangs, disk writes, launch diagnostics, or wants a crash summary for a build or app.
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 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 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 the NASA Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH) v4.0. Use for NASA's 12-step, three-part cost estimating process (Project Definition, Cost Methodology, Cost Estimate); the WBS, CADRe, and ONCE data backbone; estimating methodologies (analogy, parametric/CER, engineering build-up, EVM, Delphi); ground rules and assumptions, data normalization and inflation (BY/CY/RY); the point-estimate-to-S-curve cost-risk chain and Unallocated Future Expense (UFE) reserves; Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analysis via probabilistic cost-loaded schedules; decision-support analyses (sensitivity, trade studies, make/lease-vs-buy, affordability, CAIV); and economic analysis (discounting, NPV, OMB Circular A-94). The cost-estimating complement to NASA's SE and risk packs. Does NOT reproduce the handbook's tool-specific procedures, worked examples, or appendix-depth methods (it names the appendices), nor cover full DoD/GAO cost guides, schedule construction, or formal risk management beyond the cost interface.
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 Schedule Management Handbook (2024 edition, Revision 2). Use for program/project schedule management of aerospace and large engineering efforts: the five sub-functions (Planning, Development, Assessment & Analysis, Maintenance & Control, Documentation & Communication); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the WBS/OBS/CBS breakdown structures; the Schedule Management Plan (SMP) and Basis of Estimate (BoE); Critical Path Method, logic, durations, float and margin; tiered schedule assessment (Requirements/Health/Basis checks, the Shock Test) and the Dimensions of Schedule Reliability; Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA), Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis (ICSRA), Monte Carlo, correlation, merge bias, and the Joint Confidence Level (JCL); baselining, replan vs. rebaseline, EVM schedule metrics (SPI, BEI, CEI, HMI, Earned Schedule, CPLI), and status/progress/forecast reporting. This is NASA's scheduling doctrine grounded in NPR 7120.5 and the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. Thin on the underlying mechanics of CPM, statistics, and EVM (it points to companion handbooks); aerospace/space-flight-centric; anchored to the 2024 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 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 Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev 2). Use for NASA's systems-engineering process model — the SE Engine and 17 common technical processes, the program/project life cycle (Pre-Phase A through F), Key Decision Points and technical reviews (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/…), stakeholder expectations, technical requirements, design solution, product verification and validation, and crosscutting technical management (planning, risk, configuration, interfaces, data, assessment, decision analysis). Strong for aerospace/spaceflight project SE and lifecycle gating; NASA-specific terminology (KDPs, NPR 7123.1).
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 System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).
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。
Bei vorhandenem und ausdrücklich autorisiertem lokalem Entscheidungsprofil: wiederkehrende Entscheidungen aus belegtem Feedback vorhersagen, Konfidenz kalibrieren und Vorhersage, Entscheidung und Ausführung strikt trennen.
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。
Extrahiert aus einem Chatverlauf (aktuelle Session oder Transkript-Dateien) einen wiederverwendbaren Skill — oder verbessert einen sehr ähnlichen existierenden Skill, statt ein Duplikat zu erzeugen. Nutze diesen Skill bei „mach daraus einen Skill", „das sollten wir als Skill festhalten", „extrahiere Skills aus diesem/alten Chatverläufen", „diese Arbeitsweise wiederverwendbar machen", oder bei `/skill-extract`. Deckt auch Bulk-Läufe über viele alte Transkripte ab (mit Datenreduktion über Subagenten). Für wiederkehrende AUTOMATISIERUNGEN (Cron/Schedule/Loop) stattdessen den Schwester-Skill workflow-extract nutzen.
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 DRAFT user personas from the research notes, interview summaries, survey free text and support themes the user provides: for each persona the goals, pains, jobs to be done, context of use, quotes exactly as supplied with their participant codes, and the evidence count behind every attribute, with names, demographics and any detail no participant stated left UNKNOWN rather than invented. Use when the user asks to "build personas from these interviews", "who are our users based on this research", "draft user personas", "turn these research notes into personas" or "update our personas with the new interviews". Do not use for theming a batch of customer feedback into counts, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis; for the requirements those personas imply, use product-requirements-draft. 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。
Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. 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。
Compares a changed HR policy with the version it replaces and drafts a clause-by-clause change log, a plain-language DRAFT employee briefing, a manager FAQ answered only from the policy text with clause references, and a list of open questions the people team must settle before release. Use when the user asks to explain, announce, summarise or brief a policy change, a new policy version or an updated handbook section, or says "what changed in the leave policy", "brief managers on the new handbook section" or "compare the old and new versions of this policy". Do not use for a single announcement with no version comparison, use announcement-drafter instead; for an FAQ from documents that are not a policy change, use faq-builder; for contract clauses, use clause-comparison-table. 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 a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Drive the user's host machine directly through Cua, with no sandbox. Maps to Cua's Localhost API. Higher risk - the agent can click, type, and run shell commands on the real desktop. Use only when the user explicitly opts in and read the safety section first. Triggers - "control my computer", "click here", "use my real Chrome", "no sandbox", "내 컴퓨터 자동화".
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。
GraphDB探索エージェント - RyuGraphデータベースを自然言語またはCypherで探索し、関連するコードや仕様書を返却。/query-graph [クエリ] で呼び出し。
GraphDB構築エージェント - ユビキタス言語とコード解析結果からRyuGraphデータベースを構築。/build-graph [対象パス] で呼び出し。
コスト見積もりエージェント - クラウドインフラ、ScalarDB、その他ライセンスの見積もりを作成。/estimate-cost [対象パス] で呼び出し。
GraphDB可視化エージェント - RyuGraphデータベースの内容をMermaid/DOT/HTML形式で可視化。/visualize-graph [出力パス] で呼び出し。
Reqordのデータモデル（Requirement, Specification, ProjectContext, Feedback）とCLI操作ルールの共通知識ベース。