「structural engineering」の検索結果

Use whenever the user wants to find, shortlist, vet, or enrich US engineering firms — civil, structural, MEP, mechanical, electrical, geotechnical, transportation, environmental, and manufacturing. **For real-world engineering (buildings, infrastructure, manufacturing) — NOT software engineering.** Triggers on "find civil engineering firms in Florida for transportation", "shortlist three structural engineering firms with high-rise experience", "MEP consultancy for a hospital project", or "pull contact info for these 12 engineering firm domains", even when described indirectly (PE-stamped drawings, building-permit review). Drives the ServiceGraph API (api.servicegraph.co) — a 100k+ US firm catalog filterable by industry, services, location, size, ratings. Defer software-dev / "engineering team" / SaaS-architecture asks to find-software-developer. Skip in-house engineering-manager hires, DIY questions, software-product comparisons (Revit, AutoCAD), non-US firms, individual freelancers.

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 structural engineering covering structural analysis, steel and concrete design, load combinations, deflection, connections, and building codes.

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 an Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technologist/Technician — verifying an installed fastener's preload against a drawing's torque callout via the T=K·D·F relationship, reducing strain-gauge data from a structural proof-load test into stress and checking it against an FEA-predicted margin, selecting and executing an NDI method against a defect type and material, reducing a wind-tunnel test point's dynamic-pressure and Reynolds-number data, or ballooning and dispositioning an AS9102 first article inspection. Distinct from an aerospace-engineer (owns the design, structural analysis, and certification basis) — this role builds, instruments, tests, and inspects the hardware the engineer specified, closing the loop with measurement rather than deriving a new 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。

Runtime router for context decisions during a task — decide read-more / stop / ask / assume / delegate, pick a minimal read-set, and time compaction. Front-page mental model is Write / Select / Compress / Isolate; a lazy pattern index routes to 25 context-engineering patterns, one reference per decision. Use when context is near budget, a long session is degrading, you must choose what to read for a task, or you are deciding /compact vs /clear vs a sub-agent. NOT for structural .claude/ overhead audits (see mk:context-audit); NOT for owning persistence (see mk:memory); NOT for USD cost (see mk:budget).

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 quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow execution, poor readability. Triggers when: user asks about test quality, shares test files for review, or expresses frustration: "tests keep breaking whenever I change anything", "our tests take forever", "tests pass but bugs still reach production", or "we have too many mocks". Do NOT trigger for: writing new tests from scratch (use the regular test-writing workflow) or testing framework/syntax questions — this skill reviews an existing suite for structural quality problems, not individual test authoring.

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。

Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to audit architecture, review folder/module structure, check for circular imports, understand how the codebase is organized, or asks "does this follow clean architecture?" or "why does everything depend on everything?". Also triggers for onboarding requests: "explain this codebase to a new developer" or "give me a codebase tour" (use onboarding mode). Do NOT trigger for: PR-level code review (use brooks-review) or line-level refactoring questions — this skill analyzes structural/module-level concerns, not individual functions.

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。

Read-only audit of `.claude/` structural overhead. Reports prioritized "remove X save Y tokens" recommendations against the model context window. NOT for monetary cost tracking — that's /mk:budget. NOT for transcript size monitoring — long-session continuity defers to Claude Code native compaction. NOT for runtime context decisions (what to read, when to compact) — see mk:context-engineering. Use when planning to add context capacity, diagnosing perceived slowdowns, or auditing health.

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。

Evaluate an Agent Skill bundle for structural integrity, trigger quality, artifact improvement, script correctness, safety, installed-tree integrity, and target-host portability before release.

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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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 after writing tests to assess coverage quality across structural, mutation, requirements, and API/integration dimensions; organized knowledge for choosing and interpreting coverage analyses.

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。

Help users design high-performing product and engineering organizations by choosing the right reporting models, team sizes, and cross-functional partnerships. It focuses on reducing friction and maximizing ownership through structural clarity.

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。

ALWAYS invoke this skill before asking the user any technical question or offering options, and whenever they ask to be asked in plain words - "ask simple", "ask me simply", "ask me in plain words" - in any language. ALWAYS invoke it too when the user asks for your view on a technical choice: whether it is worth doing, more than the problem needs, or replaceable by something simpler, and which option you would take. Invoke it even when the code makes the answer look obvious: the checks are what make the answer more than a guess. Rewrites the question in plain words and always ends with one marked recommendation. A structural choice first passes six checks, shown as a table: effort now, simpler substitute, extra work later, lock-in, over-engineering, easy to undo. Doing nothing is always weighed.

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。

Metallurgy of the major nonferrous structural and engineering alloys — aluminum, copper, titanium, nickel, magnesium, and their strengthening mechanisms. Covers precipitation (age) hardening in Al-Cu and Al-Zn-Mg systems, solid-solution strengthening in brass and bronze, alpha-beta titanium, nickel superalloys with gamma-prime, and the trade-offs in density, strength, corrosion resistance, and cost that decide when to leave steel for a lighter or more specialized metal.

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。

Software design principles, patterns, and architecture from SOLID through distributed systems. Covers the five SOLID principles with violations and fixes, DRY/KISS/YAGNI heuristics, separation of concerns, 12 GoF design patterns organized by intent (creational, structural, behavioral), architectural patterns (MVC, MVP, MVVM, layered, hexagonal, microservices, event-driven), coupling and cohesion metrics, dependency injection, and the design decision framework for choosing between competing approaches. Use when making design decisions, reviewing architecture, refactoring code, or teaching software engineering principles.

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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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 Codex must make a high-quality judgment on any complex problem, not only technical problems. Trigger when a question has high complexity, uncertainty, cost of being wrong, long-term impact, value tradeoffs, possible structural causes, or when the user asks for 全面思考, 深度理解, 系统性分析, 帮我想清楚, 从根上看, 这件事到底怎么看, 方法论, 复杂问题拆解, 系统方案, 架构判断, 策略判断, or 根因分析. Also trigger for project and engineering high-risk scenarios such as multi-module, multi-environment, multi-data-source, multi-state, financial truth, live trading, ledger, revenue, customer assets, order governance, broker interfaces, online availability, major solution selection, and system closure.

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。

Read-only audit of the project's agent-tree structural overhead vs the context window. NOT for cost tracking (budget skill); NOT for read/compact decisions (mk:context-engineering).

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。

Read-only audit of .codex/ structural overhead: 'remove X save Y tokens' vs the context window. NOT for cost tracking (budget skill); NOT for runtime read/compact decisions (mk:context-engineering).

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。

Establish or audit a structural quality contract for any agent-operated engineering repository: app, library, CLI/tool, plugin, harness, or meta repo. Use when a repo needs charter clarity, docs/decision ownership, type-native validation gates, evidence paths, safe action policy, cold-start legibility, maturity proof, repair-loop routing, consumer/producer owner-boundary routing, command surface evolution, evolutionary simplicity (see references/evolutionary-simplicity.md), or a repo ecology pass to decide what should be compressed, merged, removed, updated, created, retired, or moved to checks.

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。