「process safety」の検索結果

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。

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。

Expert-level process control covering feedback and feedforward control, PID tuning, advanced process control, control loop design, and process safety instrumentation.

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。

Expert-level chemical process safety covering HAZOP, LOPA, relief system design, consequence modeling, inherently safer design, and process safety management.

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 YUP audio plugin code for YUP-specific correctness issues: AudioProcessor lifecycle, AudioParameterBuilder and AudioParameterHandle usage, editor gestures, AudioBusLayout handling, CLAP/VST3 wrapper contracts, state recall, and MIDI safety. Use when the user asks to review a YUP plugin, check a processBlock, audit parameter smoothing, or asks "is this YUP code safe?". Trigger when you see yup::AudioProcessor, yup_audio_plugin, AudioParameterBuilder, AudioParameterHandle, AudioProcessorEditor, or createPluginProcessor in the code.

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 JUCE audio plugin code for JUCE-specific correctness issues: thread safety, APVTS parameter patterns, MessageManager usage, ValueTree, and MIDI handling. Use when the user asks to review a JUCE plugin, check a processBlock, audit parameter handling, or asks "is this JUCE code safe?". Trigger on phrases like "review my JUCE plugin", "check my AudioProcessor", "is this APVTS usage correct?", or when you see AudioProcessor, AudioProcessorEditor, or AudioProcessorValueTreeState in the code.

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。

Select appropriate Ollama models for processing sensitive but legal content. Use when: (1) llama3.2 or deepseek-r1 refuses to process content with "I cannot assist" responses, (2) Local LLM returns generic safety disclaimers instead of following instructions, (3) Need to process adult content, sex work data, or other legal-but-sensitive material through a local LLM. Also covers using /api/chat vs /api/generate for system prompt support, and structuring prompts for consistent format compliance.

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 audio DSP and audio processing code for realtime safety violations. Use whenever the user asks to review, audit, or check audio processing code — including plugin process callbacks, audio engine render functions, DSP implementations, or any code that runs on the audio thread. Trigger on phrases like "review my processBlock", "check this DSP code", "is this safe for the audio thread?", "review my JUCE plugin", or when you see an audio callback and spot potential realtime violations. Flag issues proactively even when the user hasn't explicitly asked for a review.

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。

Synthesized reference notes from three US Government vehicle-safety sources: NHTSA Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of Modern Vehicles (updated 2022, final), NHTSA Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2017), and a 16-section selection of 49 CFR Part 571 (FMVSS) pinned at eCFR versioner date 2025-01-01. Use for voluntary vehicle cybersecurity practices, the ADS 2.0 twelve priority safety design elements, and FMVSS occupant protection, brakes/stability/lighting, and fuel/EV integrity requirements. Not ISO 26262, not ASPICE, not ISO/SAE 21434, not UNECE R155/R156, not SAE J3016, and not the full Part 571; the FMVSS material is a selection of vehicle-level minimum performance standards, not a process standard.

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 the instrumentation and control content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: instruments drawn carried over as facts, measurement points and control loops the control philosophy requires, tag structure per the project instrument numbering procedure, system interfaces, and alarms, interlocks, trips and fail actions as quoted. Never assigns safety functions, ranges or setpoints. Use when the user asks to "run the instrumentation and control enrichment", "add the instrument section to the P&ID draft", "list the control loops the philosophy requires" or "carry the PFD instruments into the P&ID" after the piping section. Do not use for safety flags, SIL or trip classification, use process-safety-flags instead; do not use to assign tag numbers, 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 CLAP plugin implementations for spec compliance, thread safety, and correctness. Use when the user asks to review a CLAP plugin, audit a CLAP extension, or check whether their process() callback follows the CLAP threading model. Trigger on phrases like "review my CLAP plugin", "check CLAP extension", "is my CLAP process() safe", "audit my clap_plugin_t", or when you see clap_plugin_t, clap_process_t, or CLAP extension structs in the code.

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。

Test Large Language Models for direct prompt injection vulnerabilities where user input overrides system instructions, extracts system prompts, bypasses safety filters, or causes unauthorized actions. Use this skill when assessing chatbots, AI assistants, LLM-powered tools, or any application that processes natural language input through an LLM. Covers role-playing attacks, instruction hierarchy exploitation, multi-turn manipulation, and context window abuse for comprehensive AI security testing.

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 Web Audio API JavaScript/TypeScript code for correctness, thread safety, and deprecated patterns. Use when the user asks to review AudioWorklet code, check an AudioWorkletProcessor, audit Web Audio graph construction, or diagnose crackling/dropouts in a web audio app. Trigger on phrases like "review my Web Audio code", "check my AudioWorklet", "is my AudioWorkletProcessor safe", or "why does my web audio crackle".

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。

Use when a task needs the judgment of a Chemical Engineer — closing a mass/energy balance around a reactor or separation unit, evaluating scale-up risk from bench to pilot to plant, reviewing a HAZOP finding or LOPA scenario for a covered process, sizing relief for a runaway-reaction or fire case, or checking a process safety information (PSI) package against OSHA 1910.119 before startup.

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 DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (OUSD R&E, Sep 2023 incl. Change 2.2). Use for the defense-acquisition mechanics of program risk management: the RIO definitions (risk/issue/opportunity), the five-step risk process (plan-identify-analyze-mitigate-monitor), 1-5 likelihood/consequence scoring and the 5x5 risk matrix, the four mitigation options (accept/avoid/transfer/control), burn-down plans, issue management (probability=1), opportunity management toward should-cost, cross-program/interface risk, tailoring RIO to the six AAF acquisition pathways (UCA/MTA/MCA/Software/DBS/Services), specialized methods (RMF, MBCRA/Cyber Table Top, Agile metrics, FMECA, ITRA/DTRAM), and institutionalizing RIO via the PRMP, boards (RMB/JRMB/ROMB/RWG), tools, tiered roles, and WBS/IMP/IMS/EVM/TPM integration. This is the DoD-acquisition complement to nasa-risk (general CRM/RIDM theory) and dau-se-guidebook (the SE process frame). Does NOT teach general risk theory from scratch, and defers specialized risk regimes (system safety/ESOH, HSI, detailed cyber/RMF, spectrum) to their own DoD instructions and the relevant packs.

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 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).

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 Systems Engineering Guidebook (OUSD R&E, February 2022). Use for the DoD SE process model — the 16 SE processes (8 technical management + 8 technical) mapped to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, the event-driven technical reviews and audits across the Major Capability Acquisition life cycle (ASR, SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR, SVR/FCA, PRR, PCA), the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), risk/issue/opportunity management, TPMs and leading indicators, system-of-systems and digital engineering, and the 24 design considerations (RAM, system safety, HSI, system security engineering, MOSA, supportability, etc.). Acquisition-program oriented: thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting law, and non-DoD 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。

5-dimension harness readiness scorecard from `metaharness score {path}`. Returns harnessFit / compileConfidence / taskCoverage / toolSafety / memoryUsefulness + estCostPerRunUsd + scaffoldReady. Pure-read; subprocess invocation; degrades gracefully when MetaHarness is absent (ADR-150 architectural constraint).

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。

Scan inputs for prompt injection, unsafe content, and adversarial attacks using AIDefence. Use when processing untrusted input (user submissions, API payloads, webhook data, tool outputs) before passing it to a model or executing it.

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。

Use when auditing tsconfig.json for missing safety flags, reviewing code that uses array index access in data processing pipelines, or investigating runtime undefined errors that TypeScript did not catch.

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。

Source-control safety for Git. Two rules apply whether or not you read the body. First, never commit, amend, push, tag, rebase, cherry-pick, revert, or reset --hard unless the user asked for that exact write in this session. An explicit request to create a new commit counts anywhere in the user's own task text, but it is not a request to amend, push, or tag. Finishing a task without that request is not authorization, so leave your work uncommitted for review. Second, when a Git lock file or corrupt index blocks you, never kill the holding process or bulldoze through with deletions - wait, retry, use the holder's own stop mechanism, or stop and report. Load the body only before writing Git history or recovering Git state.

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。

Guides agents to interactively discover customer requirements for live, bidirectional multi-agent AI systems that process continuous streams of multimodal data for real-time technical guidance and safety monitoring. Generates a custom Google Cloud solution that uses opinionated best practices and architecture guidance. Use when users need agentic assistance to design and create a multi-product solution in the cloud for live bidirectional multimodal streaming workloads. Don't use for simple text-based chat applications or workloads without real-time streaming requirements.

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。