「phase arc」の検索結果

Draft or revise English prose for any brief — documentation body, intake problem statements, spec context, RCA summaries, marketing copy, README sections, PR descriptions. Mandatorily invokes `Skill(humanizer)` as the final pass on every draft. Conditionally invokes `copywriting` for persuasive register, `documentation` for reference docs, `technical-tutorials` for tutorials. Used when any phase needs human-readable prose written or rewritten. Composition only — research and register-picking happen in the caller's context.

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。

Phase 10.6 — sync the project's execution roadmap (project.json → roadmap.path, default docs/roadmap-execution-plan.md) to the just-landed work. Flips the tasks named in workflow.json → roadmap_tasks[] from ⬜ to ✅ and promotes their epic headings ⬜→🟡→✅, preserving the standup parser format contract. On the epic track it appends instead — the epic's heading plus one row per slice — and stamps roadmap_epic back into the epic state. Also hosts the ad-hoc backfill that puts every epic already on disk onto the roadmap. Fail-open: never throws, no-ops when roadmap.path is unset/absent or no task matches, and never blocks a commit. Runs after /archive and before /memory-sync on every committing track.

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。

Draft a Workflow Phase 1 intake document capturing a new request — the problem, the desired outcome, constraints, and testable acceptance criteria. Use when a user brings a new feature, change, or investigation that doesn't yet have a spec. The output lives at `docs/intake/<slug>.md` and feeds `/scout`, `/research`, and `/spec` downstream.

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。

Workflow track for tasks that need no TDD — documentation edits, governance count bumps, vendored-skill content updates, configuration tweaks, formatting, typo fixes, dependency bumps where no project code changes. Skips `/scenario` and `/implement` (no failing test to drive) and runs the work directly. `archive`, `memory-sync`, `/grant-commit`, and `/commit` remain mandatory. `verify`, `simplify`, `integrate`, and `document` are conditional — required when the diff hits one of the listed triggers, optional otherwise. `verify` is skipped only when the diff is pure-docs/prose AND `project.json → test.kind` is `behavior` (absent/invalid `test.kind` → `structural` → verify runs). Chore is a stripped-down pipeline, not a bypass; never silently skip a conditional phase whose triggers apply.

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。

TDD Test List Phase - Create a comprehensive test list covering every example and rule from the specification

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。

TDD Refactor Phase - Improve code while keeping tests green using Simple Design Rules and APP mass

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。

TDD Green Phase - Implement minimal code to make the failing test pass

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。

TDD Red Phase - Activate ONE test from the test list and make it fail with explicit predictions

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。

When shaping a non-trivial migration — rollout phases, dual-write windows, cutover sequencing, deprecation cycles — hands off to the framework-specific migration skill for DDL once locked.

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。

AID Phase 0 - Research & discovery. Use for validating problem spaces, identifying stakeholders, defining success metrics, deciding whether to proceed.

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。

Drives the Phase 4-5 dev pipeline state machine with sub-agent reviews and bounded autoresearch gates. Use when running /pipeline or executing an approved plan.

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 technical implementation plans from feature specifications. Use after creating a spec to define architecture, tech stack, and implementation phases. Creates plan.md with detailed technical design.

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 Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).

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 Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.

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。

Ciclo de desarrollo de 8 fases: solicitudes de funciones, estado actual, planificación funcional, frontend, planificación de backend, código de backend, pruebas, casos de uso. Marco iterativo para el desarrollo sistemático de software.

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 the user asks to "codify how our founder sounds", "build a founder voice dossier", or "set our content pillars"; runs an 80%-extraction interview over the user's OWN posts, emails, and decks (never competitor scraping, never an invented persona) and produces the versioned voice record — a per-platform register map (incl. 小红书/微信公众号), banned phrases, per-context disclosure lines (the ECHO C2 upstream), a few-shot bank built exclusively from own posts, and 3-5 content pillars with Estimated %-allocations — submitted via memory/events/channels.ndjson for channel-registry to store as voice-dossier.md, the record every Craft-phase skill reads first. Not for the brand-level voice canon — use brand-language-codifier; not for audience/persona research — use audience-mapper. 声音档案/品牌语气/创始人语气/内容支柱/披露声明

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 the user asks to "build the norm card for this platform", "what are the char limits and visible-fold cutoffs here", "is the LinkedIn link-in-first-comment thing documented or folklore", or "which of our platform cards are stale"; maintains the dated, versioned per-platform norm cards in the references/platforms/ pack — char limits, visible-fold cutoffs, hashtag norms, format/aspect specs, link and first-comment placement, disclosure-label mechanics, algorithm emphases (e.g. 小红书 search+saves weighting) — every row labeled platform-documented (official doc, Measured) or Estimated-folklore (named source) with last-verified and review-by dates, and any card past its review date flagged stale rather than trusted. Extends the single pack in place; never forks a second one. Not for picking which channels to run — use channel-portfolio-planner. 平台规范卡/字符限制/折叠线/话题标签/算法侧重/过期标记

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 the user asks to "test our messaging before we scale it", "design a message-market-fit panel", or "run a 5-second comprehension test on our new tagline"; produces a message-test design spec — hypothesis, panel and recruit criteria, comprehension / 5-second / message-market-fit (Wynter-style) protocols, stimulus set drawn from the canon, success thresholds, and a stop/revise decision rule — for the TALE Evaluate phase so the message is validated before any paid scale. It designs the test; it never runs the experiment or adjudicates a claim. Not for running the panel or A/B experiment — use send-experiment-designer or ad-test-designer; not for analyzing the results — use performance-analyzer; not for authoring the message itself — use message-system-architect. 消息测试/理解度测试/面板设计/五秒测试/消息市场契合

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 the user asks to "map what our surfaces say today", "inventory our current messaging", or "find the gap between what we say and what we mean"; produces the narrative baseline — a surface-by-surface inventory of what every owned touchpoint (homepage, pricing, docs, decks, social bios, email footers) claims RIGHT NOW, each line labeled Measured / User-provided / Estimated, plus a per-surface gap read vs the intended message and the drift-baseline snapshot the Evaluate phase measures future drift against. Not for authoring the canon — use message-system-architect; not for scoring the surfaces or running the vetoes — use narrative-quality-auditor. 现状叙事盘点/各触点口径/意图差距/漂移基线

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 the user asks to "analyze my target audience", "build an audience profile for influencer targeting", "research a niche community", or "deep-dive a subculture before partnering with creators"; in audience mode produces demographic/psychographic profiles, a platform-priority matrix, named personas, and an influencer-selection criteria set, and in niche mode produces a community map, culture decode (language/norms/taboos), key-voice tiers, a Brand Fit Score, and a phased entry strategy. Not for finding specific creators to contract — use influencer-discovery; not for scoring a shortlist on Suitability — use fit-scorer. 目标受众画像/人群分析 · 细分社群/亚文化调研

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 during planned rewrites and migrations with explicit phase boundaries. Converge on the target architecture; don't preserve smooth intermediate states with throwaway compatibility 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。

Multi-phase dialectical stress-test for HIGH-STAKES decisions only (architecture choices, irreversible product calls, strategic bets). Heavy-cost skill — do NOT use for routine questions, brainstorming, or simple tradeoffs. User must explicitly invoke or describe a decision they call "high-stakes", "irreversible", or "needs stress-testing". Triggers: "stress test this decision", "dialectic on", "challenge this thesis", "should I really".

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。

Guide for optimizing MSBuild incremental builds. Only activate in MSBuild/.NET build context. USE FOR: builds slower than expected on subsequent runs, 'nothing changed but it rebuilds anyway', diagnosing why targets re-execute unnecessarily, fixing broken no-op builds. Covers 8 common causes: missing Inputs/Outputs on custom targets, volatile properties in output paths (timestamps/GUIDs), file writes outside tracked Outputs, missing FileWrites registration, glob changes, Visual Studio Fast Up-to-Date Check (FUTDC) issues. Key diagnostic: look for 'Building target completely' vs 'Skipping target' in binlog. DO NOT USE FOR: first-time build slowness (use build-perf-baseline), parallelism issues (use build-parallelism), evaluation-phase slowness (use eval-performance), non-MSBuild build systems. INVOKES: binlog MCP server tools (overview, search, target details); falls back to dotnet build /bl, binlog replay with diagnostic verbosity.

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。