「sse」の検索結果

Professional project management skill aligned with PMBOK® 6th/7th Edition standards. Use this skill when you need to define requirements (ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148), review project plans, generate progress reports with Earned Value Management (EVM), conduct risk analysis, estimate costs, or provide project health assessments. Ideal for creating comprehensive project documentation, analyzing project performance metrics (SPI, CPI, EAC), managing risks across 14 categories, and ensuring stakeholder alignment. Triggers: "create project plan", "analyze project health", "calculate EVM", "risk assessment", "requirements definition", "progress report", "cost estimation", or requests involving PMBOK knowledge areas.

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。

システムログを分析してエラーの根本原因を特定し、段階的に深堀りしていくデバッグ専門家スキル。 アプリケーションログ、システムログ、クラウドサービスログなど様々な形式に対応。 5 Whys、タイムライン分析、Fishbone分析などのRCA（根本原因分析）手法を用いて 問題の本質を突き止め、再発防止策まで提案する。 Use when analyzing system logs to find error root causes, debugging application issues, or performing technical post-mortem analysis with log data. For organizational incident management processes (post-incident review, corrective action plans, incident reports without log data), use incident-rca-specialist instead. Triggers: "analyze this log", "find the root cause", "debug this error", "why is this failing", "log analysis", "what caused this crash", "troubleshoot this issue"

Track design iteration history and apply consistent styling decisions across revision cycles. Use when handling follow-up change requests that reference previous design decisions (e.g., '前回も色で良いんだけど', 'same style as before', 'like we discussed').

4人の異なる専門家ペルソナ（20年ベテランエンジニア、TDDエキスパート、Clean Codeエキスパート、バグハンター）で ソースコードを批判的にレビューするスキル。設計判断、テスト容易性、可読性、バグ検出の観点から コードの問題を検出し、改善提案を行う。Python/JavaScriptに対しては追加のチェックポイントを適用。 バグハンターは状態遷移、例外パス、依存関係、非同期競合に特化し、本番環境での問題を事前に検出する。 Use when reviewing source code from multiple expert perspectives to find design flaws, testability issues, code quality problems, and runtime bugs. Triggers: "critical code review", "multi-persona code review", "expert code review", "code quality assessment", "find bugs".

Compare standardized metrics across multiple ego-benchmark-harness runs by recalculating them from tasks.jsonl and session JSONL, never from HTML reports. Covers overall aggregates (success rate/average score), Odysseys per-rubric pass rates, duration distributions (avg/p50/p90/max), turns/tools/cost, error and exception counts, per-task success matrices, helper distributions, and the share of DOM operations. Use whenever users ask to compare data or metrics across runs, calculate aggregate/Odysseys/duration/turn/error/helper metrics, inspect differences among runs, or compare multiple rwb/real-world-bench runs. Use pi-session-analyzer instead for deep forensic analysis of why an individual task was slow or failed.

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。

METAINFORMANT rules for directory src/metainformant/longread/assembly. Use when editing, adding tests, or reviewing code under this path. Read the linked AGENTS.md first; use uv only, write outputs to output/, real implementations.

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。

Comprehensive results analysis for empirical research: generate publication-quality descriptive statistics and balance tables, interpret regression coefficients with economic magnitude and effect sizes, assess identification assumption diagnostics, and produce structured results memos. Use when asked to create summary statistics, Table 1, balance tests, interpret results, assess economic significance, or write results narratives.

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。

Turn an approved topic into a narrated, non-presenter video using a script, voice asset, visual coverage, assembly, and captions.

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 800-37 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 DOE Systems Engineering Methodology (SEM) Version 3 — the DOE SDLC for IT investments. Use for staged systems lifecycle planning through maintenance, Stage Exits, Structured Walkthroughs, In-Stage Assessments, requirements traceability, and CMM-aligned process discipline. Covers SEM3 (2002) guidance only; does not replace modern DevSecOps tooling standards, DOE O 413.3B capital-asset directives, or current CIO policy supersessions.

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 DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook (Version 2022, OSD ManTech / Joint Service–Industry MRL Working Group). Use for assessing and managing manufacturing maturity and producibility risk in defense acquisition: the 10-level MRL scale and its non-linear, target-not-grade nature; the five demonstration environments (laboratory → production-relevant → production-representative → pilot line → production line); the nine manufacturing-risk threads and sub-threads; how MRL targets map onto Adaptive Acquisition Framework milestones (MRL 4/6/7/8/9); conducting an MRL Assessment; building a Manufacturing Maturation Plan; putting MRL maturity into contract language (Section L/M, SOW, AS6500A, DIDs); tailoring criteria for S&T, single-system, ship, sustainment, and industry contexts; and screening operational-technology cybersecurity. Manufacturing-readiness focused — it measures producibility risk and frames mitigation; it is NOT a technology-readiness (TRL) guide, a full systems-engineering process model, a cost-estimating or schedule guide, or a deep cybersecurity audit method (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 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 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 NASA NPR 7123.1D — Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. Use for the 17 common SE processes (SE Engine), life-cycle reviews and entrance/success criteria, SEMP structure and content, ETA roles and tailoring/customizing rules, Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9), SE work product maturity terminology, contracted project oversight, and MOE/MOP/TPM measurement frameworks. Does not cover NASA programme financial management, human spaceflight medical standards, or software engineering requirements in depth (see NPR 7150.2 for the latter).

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-7009B (Standard for Models and Simulations) with implementation depth from NASA-HDBK-7009B. Use for M&S criticality and programmatics, development evidence and capability assessment, verification/validation domains, uncertainty and sensitivity, use-phase results assessment, risk-informed decision reporting, and handbook life-cycle products. Covers STD-7009B (2024-03-05) + HDBK-7009B (2026-02-03) synthesized notes only; does not replace program-specific TA direction, NPR 7150.2 software requirements detail, or full PRA 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 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。

Psychoedukation zu Depression, Angststörungen, PTBS, bipolarer Störung, Schizophrenie, ADHS und Borderline. Wissensvermittlung ohne Diagnose.

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。

Erzeugt aus einem Bestand offener und gefallener Entscheidungen einen strukturierten ASCII-Abhängigkeitsgraphen (maximal 100 Spalten) für das Terminal. Bewertet Knoten nach fünf festen Kriterien: sinnvoll, empfohlen, usertypisch (Richtung und decision-avatar-Konfidenz getrennt), zusammenpassend und widersprechend; Kanten tragen Beziehungstyp und Belegstatus. Deckt Blocker, Freischaltungen, Reihenfolgen und widersprüchliche Empfehlungen gnadenlos auf. Nutze diesen Skill bei "welche Entscheidungen hängen voneinander ab", "Abhängigkeitsgraph der Entscheidungen", "Entscheidungspfad visualisieren", "Widersprüche zwischen Entscheidungen prüfen", "Reihenfolge der Beschlüsse", /decision-path. NICHT nutzen, um Entscheidungen erst zu inventarisieren -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um das empfohlene Gesamtkonzept zur Abnahme zu bündeln -- das macht decision-draw; NICHT für kompakte Fünfteiler- Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT für die Einzelfall-Erwägung mit Frameworks -- das macht decide.

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。

Parallel geführte Sprachfassungen eines Dokuments (Paper DE/EN, README + README_de, SKILL.md + SKILL.en.md, Website-Texte) synchron halten: fehlende Fassung nachziehen, Abschnitts-Parallelität prüfen, Divergenzen beheben — mit klarer Leitsprache-Regel und kontrolliertem Rücktransfer, wenn die Nebenfassung etwas besser löst. Nutze diesen Skill bei „sind DE und EN synchron?", „zieh die englische/deutsche Version nach", „Übersetzung ist veraltet", bei zweisprachigen Papers/READMEs/Skills, oder als periodischen Check über einen Dokumentbestand. Enthält auch das Expansions-Audit: bewerten, ob ein Projekt/Dokument WEITERE Sprachen verdient (i18n-Eignung nach Zielgruppe, technische Vorbereitung, kein blindes Massenübersetzen).

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。

Dieser Skill sollte genutzt werden, wenn der User private oder halbformale E-Mails schreiben, beantworten, absagen, nachfassen, kürzen, umformulieren oder im eigenen Stil entwerfen lassen will, besonders bei Terminen, offiziellen Absagen, freundlichen Kurzantworten und kontaktabhängigem Ton. Profilanalyse erst bei einem konkreten Mail-Schreibauftrag starten.

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。

Neutrale moralisch-rechtliche Prüfinstanz für Politik und Entscheidungen — der lauffähige Prototyp des Forschungsprojekts "Die Position der Ungeborenen" (Schattenmodus Stufe 1). Nutze diesen Skill, wann immer eine politische Entscheidung, ein Gesetz(entwurf), eine Reform, ein Haushaltsbeschluss oder eine gesellschaftliche Streitfrage analysiert, geprüft oder begutachtet werden soll — auch bei Formulierungen wie "prüfe aus Sicht künftiger Generationen", "Gesetzespass", "was sagt das Grundgesetz dazu", "Superposition-Prüfung", "Gesetzesgeschichte/Containeranalyse", "Folgenabschätzung", "analysiere diese Reform", "lebende Verfassung" oder wenn der User eine Politik-Fragestellung mit Bitte um neutrale, mehrstufige Bewertung einbringt. Orchestriert die 5-CORE-Architektur (config.json): moralische Superposition-Instanz, Gesetzbuch-Verkörperungen, zweistufige Folgenabschätzung (retrospektiv/prospektiv mit Evidenzhierarchie), Wissens-Handler mit lokalem Speicher, einstellbarer Workflow.

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。