「scope」の検索結果

Knowledge base from the Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.

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 FAA Human Factors Design Standard (HF-STD-001B, 2016) — the FAA's consolidated human-factors / human-systems-integration design criteria for systems it manages, operates, or maintains. Use for requirement-level design rules on: general human-factors design principles; automation and function allocation; designing equipment for maintenance; displays, controls, and visual indicators; alarms, audio, and voice communications; the computer-human interface (information presentation, coding, interaction styles, windows, dialogue); keyboards, input devices, and workstation/workplace ergonomics; system security, personnel safety, environment, anthropometry, and user documentation; plus intended-use and tailoring guidance. It is a quantified, source-attributed synthesis (heavily citing MIL-STD-1472G, MIL-HDBK-759C, DOD-HFDG-ATCCS, NUREG-0700, NASA-STD-3000, ANSI, OSHA, ISO 9241). Complements nasa-hsi as a parallel HSI tradition from the civil-aviation domain. Scope limits: it is design criteria, NOT an HSI lifecycle/process model (use nasa-hsi, nasa-npr-7123, or dau-se-guidebook for process); it does NOT reproduce the third-party standards it cites; it is FAA-acquisition-oriented (ATC, towers, TRACONs, airway facilities), not a general consumer-UX guide; and it is thin on modern touchscreen/mobile, web, and AI-driven interface patterns and on quantitative human-reliability 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。

Knowledge base from the OUSD(R&E) guidebook Implementing a MOSA in DoD Programs (Feb 2025). Use for the Modular Open Systems Approach as a DoD acquisition + design discipline: the statutory/regulatory basis (10 U.S.C. 4401–4403, FY2017/FY2021 NDAA, DFARS), the five OUSD(R&E) pillars, the plan→modularize→identify→define→standardize interface lifecycle, technical levers (WBS/MIL-STD-881F taxonomy, standards profiling, API-first software, COTS/cybersecurity), MOSA assessment metrics and tools (PART/OAAT/KOSS/SEAM/MAUT), technology-change and DMSMS management, roadmaps, MOSA across the six AAF pathways, and contracting/IP/data-rights mechanics. SCOPE LIMITS: this is U.S. DoD weapon-system acquisition policy, not a general open-architecture or interface-standards reference — it names standards (FACE, OMS, DISR) without reproducing them, is light on detailed engineering of any specific standard, and does not cover the underlying SE processes (use dau-se-guidebook / nasa-npr-7123) or general systems-engineering theory (use sebok).

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。

Knowledge base from the FAA AMS Lifecycle V&V Guidelines (verification and validation), Version 3.0, dated April 2017. Use for applying verification and validation across the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) lifecycle: the verify-vs-validate distinction (built right vs. right thing), the work-product/component/product tiers, the nine V&V planning elements, the four method catalogs (Appendix C), decision-point-gated V&V (SASP, CRD, Investment Analysis, Solution Implementation, In-Service Management), the Appendix B document checklists (PRD/APB/ISPD/PMP), and the DT/OT/IOA test triad. Scope limits: this is an FAA acquisition-V&V doctrine, NOT a general SE process model, requirements-engineering manual, or test-design textbook. It borrows its core V&V definitions from CMMI v1.2 (SEI, paraphrased) and presumes the surrounding AMS lifecycle (see the FAA SEM pack); its phase tables are policy snapshots as of April 2017 and it is thin on detailed test methods, tool specifics, and anything outside FAA acquisition governance.

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 base from NASA-STD-8729.1A — NASA's R&M (Reliability and Maintainability) standard covering spaceflight and support systems (Revision A, 2017-06-13). Use for NASA's objectives-driven R&M framework — the R&M objectives hierarchy (one Top Objective decomposed into four sub-objectives, paired with tailorable strategies), how R&M requirements are established inside the SMA Plan required by NPR 7120.5, the SMA Technical Authority concurrence/independent-evaluation governance, milestone vs. readiness review gates, the reliability/maintainability/availability vocabulary (Ai vs. Ao, the failure causal chain, risk as a triplet), and the R&M Evidentiary Methods catalogue (FMEA/FMECA, FTA, RBDA, RCM, LORA, plus the space-environment and parts-pedigree analyses). Scoped to NASA spaceflight and support systems and to assurance planning: it is an objectives-and-strategies standard, so it deliberately does NOT prescribe step-by-step analysis procedures (those live in the referenced NASA Preferred Reliability Practices) and is thin on facility R&M, detailed math/derivations, and non-NASA or commercial life cycles.

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。

Autonomer Langlauf-Modus ohne laufende Rückfragen — Startbedingungen (Ziel, Scope, Budgets, Checkpoints), Entscheidungsstufen und Abbruchregeln für unbeaufsichtigte Läufe; erhöht die Ausdauer, nicht die Berechtigung. Nutzen, wenn ausdrücklich ein längerer autonomer Lauf gewünscht ist.

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。

Provider-neutral entry point for discovering, planning and synchronizing MCP configuration between user-selected providers and app classes. The user selects truth, targets and scope; no provider is an implicit hub.

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 control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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。

Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, 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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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-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。

Drafts one service catalogue entry (description, scope in and out, owners and support groups, service levels exactly as provided, request path, dependencies, charging, lifecycle) from the service team's notes, questionnaire answers or existing documents, with UNKNOWN and a question list for every field the inputs do not cover. Never invents a service level, owner or price. Use when the user asks to "write the catalogue entry for this service", "turn these questionnaire answers into a service description", "tidy this request catalogue item" or "check this draft entry for empty fields". Do not use for a how-to or known-error article, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for operating procedures, use runbook-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。

Drafts the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single 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。

Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. 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。

Prepares a change request pack (description and justification, scope, schedule, implementation plan, risk as stated, rollback, test evidence as provided, communications, approvals route) from an engineer's notes, ticket or pull request description, with UNKNOWN for anything not provided and a question list for the engineer. Never rates risk or marks a change tested or approved. Use when the user asks to "write the change request for this", "fill in the change ticket from my notes", "prepare the CAB submission" or "turn this pull request into an RFC". Do not use for the step-by-step procedure with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for release notes describing what shipped, use release-notes-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。

Turns process notes, a walkthrough or interview transcript, a transcript of a meeting recording or a stale existing procedure into a draft standard operating procedure: purpose and trigger, scope, definitions, roles with a RACI table, numbered steps with the check that closes each one, records produced, controls as stated, and open questions for the process owner. Every step traces to the source or reads UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write an SOP from these notes", "turn this walkthrough into a procedure", "document how we do this", "draft the standard operating procedure for", "build a RACI for this process" or "tidy up this old procedure". Do not use for technical runbooks with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for meeting minutes and action lists, use transcript-to-actions. 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。

Organize user-scoped CLEC episodes into traceable Traditional Chinese Obsidian pages. Use when Codex must group X, pCloud, Google Drive, Bilibili, Odysee, and RSS or Podcast sources by five-digit episode number; obtain and review transcripts through media-transcript; clean readable transcripts with the confirmed CLEC lexicon; anonymize students; or build the standard three-layer episode page.

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。

AI-first web search via Exa — semantic/neural ranking, category-scoped results, fresh content retrieval, and one-shot answer synthesis with citations. Use when the user needs current web information better ranked than general web search, or a grounded answer with sources.

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。

Quality gate immediately after building: prove that what was just built actually works, while the context is still hot. Six steps: scope what changed, run live on real data, break it on purpose, show a counter or log proving it ran, root-cause any failure and re-run, then a verdict with evidence. Only a green verdict earns the word done. Supports an external multi-vendor review panel as a mid-step. Triggers: "/tt", "/test", "prove it works", "test what we built".

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。