「bus」の検索結果

ビジネスコンテキストフローを作る時の観点を説明する

ビジネスコンテキストフロー（業務像モデル）を作成

検証結果に基づいて業務要求を洗練・修正する

業務要求を作る時の観点を説明する

Use when developing, reviewing, debugging, porting, or engineering Linux kernel device drivers, kernel modules, device tree bindings, bus clients, subsystem drivers, DMA/IRQ/memory paths, userspace interfaces, or hardware bring-up plans.

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。

Conduct a Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.

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。

Run or change the macOS UX trace harness for action-to-visual-completion latency, scroll stability, fixture pressure, and baseline evidence.

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。

Load for .NET observability changes involving structured logs/Loki, Prometheus metrics, OpenTelemetry traces, exception handling, correlation IDs, dashboards, alerts, or production error diagnosis; not for ordinary business validation errors.

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。

Econometrics skill for OLS regression and linear models. Activates when the user asks about: "run OLS", "linear regression", "ordinary least squares", "interpret regression results", "heteroskedasticity", "multicollinearity", "regression assumptions", "robust standard errors", "GLS", "WLS", "fit a regression model", "check regression diagnostics", "OLS假设", "最小二乘法", "线性回归", "回归系数", "残差检验", "异方差", "多重共线性", "普通最小二乘", "稳健标准误", "回归诊断"

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。

Econometrics skill for Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD). Activates when the user asks about: "regression discontinuity", "RDD", "RD design", "sharp RDD", "fuzzy RDD", "running variable", "forcing variable", "cutoff", "bandwidth selection", "local linear regression", "McCrary test", "density test", "RDROBUST", "continuity assumption", "donut hole RDD", "geographic RDD", "断点回归", "回归不连续", "运行变量", "截断值", "带宽选择", "精确断点", "模糊断点", "密度检验", "局部线性回归"

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 synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.

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 Test & Evaluation Enterprise Guidebook (OUSD R&E, August 2022). Use for DoD test and evaluation (T&E) across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework — the four test communities (contractor testing, developmental DT&E, operational OT&E, live-fire LFT&E); the five operational events (Operational Demonstration, EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E) and the OTRR gate; the T&E Strategy / TEMP and its IDSK, with the upstream documents that feed it and the test plans that decompose it; the T&E organizations and oversight roles (USD(R&E), DOT&E, TRMC, the Service Executives and OTAs, the T&E WIPT, CDT); and pathway-specific T&E for all six acquisition pathways (Urgent Capability, Middle Tier, Major Capability, Software, Defense Business Systems). Statutory anchors include 10 U.S.C. §4171 (IOT&E) and §4172 (LFT&E/FUSL). This is guidance, not policy: it points outward to DoDI 5000.89 and the DoDI 5000-series for binding detail, and is thin on detailed test statistics/design-of-experiments methodology, cost estimating, the Acquisition of Services pathway, and any CUI/CAC-gated companion guides.

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。

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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-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。

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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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。

Drafts an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-request-pack. 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, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。