「engineer」の検索結果

Knowledge base from NASA Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide (NASA/SP-2015-3709). Use for HSI process implementation, lifecycle phase activities, function allocation, ConOps development, HSI Plan writing, HSI metrics (MOE/MOP/TPM/KPP), HITL testing strategy, HSI team organisation, scaling/tailoring for program size, and V&V planning. Does not cover the specific human engineering design standards (NASA-STD-3001 content) or detailed HFE methods beyond what the guide itself provides.

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-HDBK-338B (Electronic Reliability Design Handbook). Use for electronic reliability engineering: R/M/A theory, reliability specification/allocation/prediction, parts management and derating, reliable circuit and fault-tolerant design, environmental and human performance reliability, FMEA/FMECA/FTA/sneak circuit analysis, design reviews and testability, FRACAS, reliability demonstration and growth testing, and systems-level R&M parameters. Covers selected Part 2 design-guidance topics only; skips large annex/part-stress tables. Guidance handbook — not a contractual requirement text. Does not replace MIL-HDBK-217 prediction libraries, service-specific reliability regs, or safety standards (see mil-std-882).

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 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 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 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 GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-20-195G). Use for program cost estimating: the four characteristics of a reliable estimate (comprehensive, well documented, accurate, credible) and the 18 best practices; the 12-step cost estimating process (purpose, plan, technical baseline, WBS, ground rules and assumptions, data, point estimate, sensitivity, risk/uncertainty, document, present, update); estimating methods (analogy, parametric, engineering build-up, learning curves); Monte Carlo risk/uncertainty analysis, confidence levels and contingency; auditing and validating an estimate against the characteristics; earned value management (EIA-748, BCWS/BCWP/ACWP, CPI/SPI/TCPI, EAC, PMB, IBR); and specialized techniques (software cost estimating, learning curves, Analysis of Alternatives, WBS templates, the Green Book internal-control framework). This is the cost-estimating companion to the GAO Schedule and Technology Readiness Assessment guides. Does not cover schedule estimating/risk in depth (see the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide), agency-specific cost models, or the full text of referenced standards (EIA-748, MIL-STD-881D, the Green Book) — these are named, not reproduced.

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。

Apply poteto's rigorous engineering workflow to non-trivial coding, investigation, review, migration, and verification tasks.

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。

How game development works as a process — roles, subtasks, workflows and role descriptions, especially (but not only) for Roblox. Use this skill when it's about the ORGANIZATION of game dev rather than concrete code: Which roles exist (Creative Director, Engineer, Artist, Polish/Audio, Business, QA-Tester, Game Critic)? Who does which subtask? What does a development chain (concept → backend → frontend → polish → test) look like? How do you write a Game Design Document / KONZEPT.md? How do several (AI) agents divide up a game? Also trigger on "plan a new game", "create Game Design Document", "which roles do I need for my game", "development workflow for a game", "who tests the game", "structure a game idea", "Roblox genre/monetization".

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。

Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-check. 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 an engineer's notes, a ticket history or a chat thread into a draft step-by-step runbook with preconditions, stop conditions, numbered steps with checks, verification, rollback and escalation, for the team to validate before use. Commands verbatim, placeholders marked, every gap UNKNOWN; never executes a step or fills a gap from general knowledge. Use when the user asks to "write a runbook from these notes", "turn this resolved ticket into a runbook", "document the steps we ran" or "check this runbook for gaps". Do not use for a business process without commands, use sop-drafter instead; for a knowledge article or known-error record, use knowledge-article-drafter; for the post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-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。

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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 one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-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。

Dual-layer PR review tool (Raven's Verdict). Runs adversarial cynical review and edge case hunter in parallel, merges and deduplicates findings into professional engineering output. Use when user asks to 'review a PR' and provides a PR url or id.

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。

Implement, debug and review code with focused checks. Use to fix a bug or failing test, refactor, remove code, perform a code review, or plan engineering work in repository records. Combine with UI for interface concerns and Plan for its native records. Excludes conceptual questions unrelated to a codebase.

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。

Senior engineer CLI expertise for AI agents — workflows, safety guardrails, gotchas, and anti-patterns across cloud, IaC, containers, databases, dev tools, and platforms

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。

Engineers who want an agent to autonomously plan, edit across files and run tests on complex real-wo

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。

Operational guide for the ArtCraft MCP integration — the community Python rebuild (C:\Users\rasta\artcraft-mcp-py\artcraft_mcp_server.py) that replaces the broken upstream artcraft-mcp.exe, the live api.storyteller.ai/v1 API map (required headers, cookie auth, endpoint schemas), the upstream bug/PR trail (issues #1/#3, PR #2), the reverse-engineering playbook (browser capture, cookie injection, schema fishing via validation errors, handshake replay, Windows MITM kit), and the generic MCP-protocol debugging playbook (snake_case servers, the shim pattern, 'missing field protocolVersion' diagnosis). Use when working on ArtCraft MCP tools, debugging an artcraft server connection, extending the Python rebuild, or diagnosing any third-party MCP handshake failure.

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。

Generate images using AI models — Gemini, DALL·E, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, Flux, Leonardo, Ideogram, and more. MCP bridge tools are primary; the Design Stack media worker is the fallback for advanced providers. Covers prompt engineering, model selection, size/aspect ratios, style parameters, batch generation, multi-site awareness, and WordPress integration. Use when you need to create hero images, social graphics, product mockups, brand illustrations, or any visual asset for marketing, social media, or e-commerce.

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。

Apply Karpathy-inspired coding behavior guidelines — think before coding, prefer simplicity, make surgical changes, and execute toward verifiable goals. Reduces wrong assumptions, overengineering, and unintended side-effects.

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。

Remove signs of AI-generated code from a codebase while preserving behavior. Use when editing or reviewing code to make it read like a human engineer on this team wrote it. Works through a test-guarded detect-modify-verify loop: pin down the functional contract and edge cases first, write or run tests as a safety net, then rewrite AI tells (redundant comments, emoji, verbose names, reflexive try/except, defensive null-guards, over-decomposition, speculative abstraction, dead code, non-idiomatic constructs, hallucinated dependencies) and re-verify after every change. The tests decide whether a defensive block is slop or a real safeguard.

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。

Senior embedded software engineer specializing in firmware and driver development for ARM Cortex-M microcontrollers (Teensy, STM32, nRF52, SAMD).

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。

Android APK reverse engineering: unpacking, Java decompilation, smali modification, repacking and signing, Frida dynamic hooking, and native .so analysis with jadx, apktool, adb, and related tools.

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。