「assess」の検索結果

Audit code quality focusing on deep modules, naming, model hygiene, and architectural clarity. Use after a burst of development, when codebase structure needs assessment, or to make code more agent-navigable.

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-8719.14C (Process for Limiting Orbital Debris). Use for orbital-debris assessment planning, mission-related debris limits, explosion/passivation and collision risk, postmission disposal options, reentry casualty risk, and ODAR/EOMP governance. Covers STD-8719.14C (Approved 2021-11-05) synthesized notes only; does not replace NPR 8715.6 delivery timing, NASA-HDBK-8719.14 environment/modeling depth, or program-specific OSMA waivers.

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 800-171 Rev. 3 (Protecting CUI in Nonfederal Systems). Use for CUI confidentiality requirements on contractors and other nonfederal organizations, the 17 requirement families, ODPs, SSPs, POA&Ms, and tailoring from SP 800-53. Covers 800-171r3 only; does not replace SP 800-171A assessment procedures, full SP 800-53 baselines, CMMC scoring mechanics, or classified-information controls.

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 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 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 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 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 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 DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).

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 MIL-STD-882E (DoD System Safety). Use for the system safety process, hazard analysis tasks (PHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA), the risk assessment matrix (severity x probability), software safety criticality, and risk acceptance. US-gov public domain.

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。

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。

Points to the standalone module law-checker ("Legal Department"): source-grounded AI first-look legal assessments for German law with a statute registry and a statute-embodiment agent. Use this skill when a situation, contract, official notice, or legal question under German law should be checked with exact citations (article/section, paragraph, sentence) -- with a clear boundary: AI-assisted first orientation, not a substitute for a lawyer.

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。

Builds a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-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。

Builds a DRAFT course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter's first weeks, 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。

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。

Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。

Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. 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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. 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。

- Corporate due-diligence workflow — resolve a brand or website to its registered legal entity, map group structure and beneficial ownership, profile officers and directors, enumerate the digital estate, and screen litigation, insolvency,… Use when asked to check out, vet or research a company, verify a supplier or counterparty before signing or paying, or assess whether a business is real

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。

- Check and interpret data-breach exposure for an email, username, phone or name using Have I Been Pwned, the Pwned Passwords k-anonymity range API, DeHashed, IntelX and Snusbase. Use when checking breach or leak exposure, finding which services an account was registered with, interpreting a combolist or credential dump, assessing credential compromise, or auditing your own leaked personal data

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 findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment,… Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge

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。

Authorized security assessment of REST, GraphQL, WebSocket, and SOAP APIs: discovery, authentication and authorization flaws (BOLA/IDOR, JWT/OAuth), rate-limit testing, and a structured multi-phase me

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。