@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/senior-pm-playbook/references/risk-management-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
+# Risk Management Framework for Senior Project Managers
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This framework provides senior project managers with quantitative risk analysis methodologies, decision frameworks, and portfolio-level risk management strategies. It goes beyond basic risk identification to provide sophisticated tools for risk quantification, Monte Carlo simulation, expected monetary value (EMV) analysis, and enterprise risk appetite frameworks.
+
+---
+
+## Risk Classification & Quantification
+
+### Risk Categories with Quantitative Weightings
+
+#### 1. Technical Risk (Weight: 1.2x)
+**Definition:** Technology implementation, integration, and performance risks
+
+**Quantification Approach:**
+- **Technology Maturity Score (TMS):** 1-5 scale based on technology adoption curve
+- **Integration Complexity Index (ICI):** Number of integration points × complexity factor
+- **Performance Risk Factor (PRF):** Historical performance variance in similar projects
+
+**Formula:** `Technical Risk Score = (TMS × 0.3 + ICI × 0.4 + PRF × 0.3) × 1.2`
+
+**Typical Sub-Risks:**
+- Architecture scalability limitations (Impact: Schedule +15-30%, Cost +10-25%)
+- Third-party integration failures (Impact: Schedule +20-40%, Cost +15-30%)
+- Performance bottlenecks (Impact: Quality -20-40%, Cost +5-15%)
+- Technology obsolescence (Impact: Long-term maintenance +50-100%)
+
+#### 2. Resource Risk (Weight: 1.1x)  
+**Definition:** Human capital availability, skills, and retention risks
+
+**Quantification Approach:**
+- **Skill Availability Index (SAI):** Market availability of required skills (1-5)
+- **Team Stability Factor (TSF):** Historical turnover rate in similar roles
+- **Capacity Utilization Ratio (CUR):** Team utilization vs. sustainable capacity
+
+**Formula:** `Resource Risk Score = (SAI × 0.4 + TSF × 0.3 + CUR × 0.3) × 1.1`
+
+**Financial Impact Models:**
+- Key person departure: 3-6 months replacement + 2-4 weeks knowledge transfer
+- Skill gap: 15-30% productivity reduction + training/hiring costs
+- Over-utilization: 20-40% quality degradation + burnout-related delays
+
+#### 3. Schedule Risk (Weight: 1.0x)
+**Definition:** Timeline compression, dependencies, and critical path risks
+
+**Quantification Method: Monte Carlo Simulation**
+```
+Three-Point Estimation:
+- Optimistic (O): Best case scenario (10% probability)
+- Most Likely (M): Realistic estimate (50% probability)  
+- Pessimistic (P): Worst case scenario (90% probability)
+
+Expected Duration = (O + 4M + P) / 6
+Standard Deviation = (P - O) / 6
+
+Monte Carlo Variables:
+- Task duration uncertainty
+- Resource availability variations
+- Dependency delay impacts
+- External factor disruptions
+```
+
+#### 4. Financial Risk (Weight: 1.4x)
+**Definition:** Budget overruns, funding availability, and cost variability risks
+
+**Expected Monetary Value (EMV) Analysis:**
+```
+EMV = Σ(Probability × Impact) for all financial risk scenarios
+
+Cost Escalation Model:
+- Labor cost inflation: Historical rate ± standard deviation
+- Technology cost changes: Market volatility analysis
+- Scope creep financial impact: Historical data from similar projects
+- Currency/economic factors: Economic indicators correlation
+
+Risk-Adjusted Budget = Base Budget × (1 + Risk Premium)
+Risk Premium = Portfolio Risk Score × Risk Tolerance Factor
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quantitative Risk Analysis Methodologies
+
+### 1. Expected Monetary Value (EMV) Analysis
+
+**Purpose:** Quantify financial impact of risks to inform investment decisions
+
+**Process:**
+1. **Risk Event Identification:** Catalog all potential financial impact events
+2. **Probability Assessment:** Use historical data, expert judgment, and statistical models
+3. **Impact Quantification:** Model financial consequences across multiple scenarios
+4. **EMV Calculation:** Probability × Financial Impact for each risk
+5. **Portfolio EMV:** Sum of all individual risk EMVs
+
+**Example EMV Calculation:**
+```
+Risk: Third-party API failure requiring alternative implementation
+
+Probability Scenarios:
+- Minor disruption (60% chance): $50K additional cost
+- Major redesign (30% chance): $200K additional cost  
+- Complete platform change (10% chance): $500K additional cost
+
+EMV = (0.6 × $50K) + (0.3 × $200K) + (0.1 × $500K)
+EMV = $30K + $60K + $50K = $140K
+
+Risk-adjusted budget should include $140K contingency for this risk.
+```
+
+### 2. Monte Carlo Simulation for Schedule Risk
+
+**Purpose:** Model schedule uncertainty using probabilistic analysis
+
+**Implementation Process:**
+1. **Task Duration Modeling:** Define probability distributions for each task
+2. **Dependency Mapping:** Model task dependencies and their uncertainty
+3. **Resource Constraint Integration:** Include resource availability variations
+4. **External Factor Variables:** Weather, regulatory approvals, vendor delays
+5. **Simulation Execution:** Run 10,000+ iterations to generate probability curves
+
+**Key Outputs:**
+- **P50 Schedule:** 50% confidence completion date
+- **P80 Schedule:** 80% confidence completion date (recommended for commitments)
+- **P95 Schedule:** 95% confidence completion date (worst-case planning)
+- **Critical Path Sensitivity:** Which tasks most impact overall schedule
+
+**Schedule Risk Interpretation:**
+```
+If P50 = 6 months, P80 = 7.5 months:
+- Schedule Buffer Required: 1.5 months (25% buffer)
+- Risk Level: Medium (broad distribution indicates uncertainty)
+- Mitigation Priority: Focus on tasks with highest variance contribution
+```
+
+### 3. Risk Appetite & Tolerance Frameworks
+
+#### Enterprise Risk Appetite Levels
+
+**Conservative (Risk Score Target: 0-8)**
+- **Philosophy:** Minimize risk exposure, accept lower returns for certainty
+- **Suitable Projects:** Core business operations, regulatory compliance, customer-facing systems
+- **Contingency Reserves:** 20-30% of project budget
+- **Decision Criteria:** Require 90%+ confidence levels for major decisions
+
+**Moderate (Risk Score Target: 8-15)**
+- **Philosophy:** Balanced risk-return approach, selective risk taking
+- **Suitable Projects:** Process improvements, technology upgrades, market expansion
+- **Contingency Reserves:** 15-20% of project budget  
+- **Decision Criteria:** 70-80% confidence levels acceptable
+
+**Aggressive (Risk Score Target: 15+)**
+- **Philosophy:** High risk tolerance for high strategic returns
+- **Suitable Projects:** Innovation initiatives, emerging technology adoption, new market entry
+- **Contingency Reserves:** 10-15% of project budget (accept higher failure rates)
+- **Decision Criteria:** 60-70% confidence levels acceptable
+
+#### Risk Tolerance Thresholds
+
+**Financial Tolerance Levels:**
+- **Level 1:** <$100K potential loss - Team/PM authority
+- **Level 2:** $100K-$500K potential loss - Business unit approval required
+- **Level 3:** $500K-$2M potential loss - Executive committee approval
+- **Level 4:** >$2M potential loss - Board approval required
+
+**Schedule Tolerance Levels:**
+- **Green:** <5% schedule impact - Monitor and mitigate
+- **Amber:** 5-15% schedule impact - Active mitigation required
+- **Red:** >15% schedule impact - Escalation and replanning required
+
+---
+
+## Advanced Risk Modeling Techniques
+
+### 1. Correlation Analysis for Portfolio Risk
+
+**Purpose:** Understand how risks interact across projects and compound at portfolio level
+
+**Correlation Types:**
+- **Positive Correlation:** Risks that tend to occur together (e.g., economic downturn affecting multiple projects)
+- **Negative Correlation:** Risks that are mutually exclusive (e.g., resource conflicts between projects)
+- **No Correlation:** Independent risks
+
+**Portfolio Risk Calculation:**
+```
+Portfolio Variance = Σ(Individual Project Variance) + 2Σ(Correlation × StdDev1 × StdDev2)
+
+Where correlation coefficients range from -1.0 to +1.0:
+- +1.0: Perfect positive correlation (risks always occur together)
+- 0.0: No correlation (risks are independent)
+- -1.0: Perfect negative correlation (risks never occur together)
+```
+
+### 2. Value at Risk (VaR) for Project Portfolios
+
+**Definition:** Maximum expected loss over a specific time period at a given confidence level
+
+**Calculation Example:**
+```
+For a portfolio with expected value of $10M and monthly VaR of $500K at 95% confidence:
+"There is a 95% chance that portfolio losses will not exceed $500K in any given month"
+
+VaR Calculation Methods:
+1. Historical Simulation: Use past project performance data
+2. Parametric Method: Assume normal distribution of returns
+3. Monte Carlo Simulation: Model complex risk interactions
+```
+
+### 3. Real Options Analysis for Project Flexibility
+
+**Purpose:** Value the flexibility to modify project approach based on new information
+
+**Common Real Options in Projects:**
+- **Expansion Option:** Scale up successful projects
+- **Abandonment Option:** Exit failing projects early
+- **Timing Option:** Delay project start for better conditions
+- **Switching Option:** Change technology/approach mid-project
+
+**Black-Scholes Adaptation for Projects:**
+```
+Project Option Value = S₀ × N(d₁) - K × e^(-r×T) × N(d₂)
+
+Where:
+S₀ = Current project value estimate
+K = Required investment (strike price)
+r = Risk-free rate
+T = Time to decision point
+N(d) = Cumulative standard normal distribution
+```
+
+---
+
+## Risk Response Strategies with Decision Trees
+
+### Strategy Selection Framework
+
+#### 1. Avoid (Eliminate Risk)
+**Decision Criteria:**
+- High impact + High probability risks
+- Cost of avoidance < Expected risk cost
+- Alternative approaches available
+
+**Examples:**
+- Choose proven technology over cutting-edge solutions
+- Eliminate high-risk features from scope
+- Change project approach entirely
+
+#### 2. Mitigate (Reduce Probability or Impact)
+**Decision Tree for Mitigation Investment:**
+```
+If (Risk EMV > Mitigation Cost × 1.5):
+    Implement mitigation
+Else if (Risk Impact > Risk Tolerance Threshold):
+    Consider partial mitigation
+Else:
+    Accept risk
+```
+
+**Mitigation Effectiveness Factors:**
+- Cost efficiency: Mitigation cost ÷ Risk EMV reduction
+- Implementation feasibility: Resource availability and timeline
+- Residual risk: Remaining risk after mitigation
+
+#### 3. Transfer (Share Risk with Others)
+**Transfer Mechanisms:**
+- Insurance: For predictable, quantifiable risks
+- Contracts: Fixed-price contracts transfer cost risk to vendors
+- Partnerships: Share both risks and rewards
+- Outsourcing: Transfer operational risks to specialists
+
+**Transfer Decision Matrix:**
+| Risk Type | Transfer Mechanism | Cost Efficiency | Risk Retention |
+|-----------|-------------------|-----------------|----------------|
+| Technical | Fixed-price contract | High | Low |
+| Schedule | Penalty clauses | Medium | Medium |
+| Market | Revenue sharing | Low | High |
+| Operational | Insurance/SLA | High | Low |
+
+#### 4. Accept (Acknowledge and Monitor)
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- Low impact × Low probability risks
+- Mitigation cost > Risk EMV
+- Risk within established tolerance thresholds
+
+**Active Acceptance:** Establish contingency reserves and response plans
+**Passive Acceptance:** Monitor but take no proactive action
+
+---
+
+## Risk Monitoring & Key Performance Indicators
+
+### Risk Health Metrics
+
+#### 1. Portfolio Risk Exposure Trends
+```
+Risk Velocity = (New Risks Added - Risks Resolved) / Time Period
+Risk Burn Rate = Total Risk EMV Reduction / Time Period
+Risk Coverage Ratio = Mitigation Budget / Total Risk EMV
+```
+
+#### 2. Risk Response Effectiveness
+```
+Mitigation Success Rate = Risks Successfully Mitigated / Total Mitigation Attempts
+Average Resolution Time = Σ(Risk Resolution Days) / Number of Resolved Risks
+Cost of Risk Management = Total Risk Management Spend / Project Budget
+```
+
+#### 3. Leading vs. Lagging Indicators
+
+**Leading Indicators (Predictive):**
+- Resource utilization trends
+- Stakeholder satisfaction scores  
+- Technical debt accumulation
+- Team velocity variance
+- Budget burn rate vs. planned
+
+**Lagging Indicators (Confirmatory):**
+- Actual schedule delays
+- Budget overruns
+- Quality defect rates
+- Stakeholder complaints
+- Team turnover events
+
+### Risk Dashboard Design
+
+**Executive Level (Strategic View):**
+- Portfolio risk heat map
+- Top 10 risks by EMV
+- Risk appetite vs. actual exposure
+- Risk-adjusted project ROI
+
+**Program Level (Tactical View):**
+- Risk trend analysis
+- Mitigation plan status
+- Resource allocation for risk management
+- Cross-project risk correlations
+
+**Project Level (Operational View):**
+- Individual risk register
+- Risk response action items
+- Risk probability/impact changes
+- Mitigation cost tracking
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Portfolio Management
+
+### Strategic Risk Alignment
+
+**Risk-Adjusted Portfolio Optimization:**
+1. **Risk-Return Analysis:** Plot projects on risk vs. return matrix
+2. **Portfolio Diversification:** Balance high-risk/high-reward with stable projects
+3. **Resource Allocation:** Allocate risk management resources based on EMV
+4. **Strategic Fit:** Ensure risk appetite aligns with strategic objectives
+
+**Capital Allocation Models:**
+```
+Risk-Adjusted NPV = Standard NPV × Risk Adjustment Factor
+
+Risk Adjustment Factor = 1 - (Project Risk Score × Risk Penalty Rate)
+
+Where Risk Penalty Rate reflects organization's risk aversion:
+- Conservative: 0.8% per risk score point
+- Moderate: 0.5% per risk score point  
+- Aggressive: 0.2% per risk score point
+```
+
+### Governance Integration
+
+**Risk Committee Structure:**
+- **Executive Risk Committee:** Monthly, strategic risks >$1M impact
+- **Portfolio Risk Board:** Bi-weekly, cross-project risks
+- **Project Risk Teams:** Weekly, operational risk management
+
+**Escalation Triggers:**
+- Risk EMV exceeds defined thresholds
+- Risk probability or impact significantly changes
+- Mitigation plans fail or become ineffective
+- New risk categories emerge
+
+**Decision Authority Matrix:**
+| Risk EMV Level | Authority Level | Response Time | Required Documentation |
+|----------------|-----------------|---------------|------------------------|
+| <$50K | Project Manager | 24 hours | Risk register update |
+| $50K-$250K | Program Manager | 48 hours | Risk assessment report |
+| $250K-$1M | Business Owner | 72 hours | Executive summary + options |
+| >$1M | Executive Committee | 1 week | Full risk analysis + recommendation |
+
+---
+
+## Advanced Topics
+
+### Behavioral Risk Factors
+
+**Cognitive Biases in Risk Assessment:**
+- **Optimism Bias:** Tendency to underestimate risk probability
+- **Anchoring Bias:** Over-reliance on first information received
+- **Availability Heuristic:** Overweighting easily recalled risks
+- **Confirmation Bias:** Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
+
+**Bias Mitigation Techniques:**
+- Independent risk assessments from multiple sources
+- Devil's advocate roles in risk sessions
+- Historical data analysis vs. expert judgment
+- Pre-mortem analysis: "How could this project fail?"
+
+### Emerging Risk Categories
+
+**Digital Transformation Risks:**
+- Data privacy and cybersecurity (GDPR, CCPA compliance)
+- Legacy system integration complexity
+- Change management and user adoption
+- Cloud migration and vendor lock-in
+
+**Regulatory and Compliance Risks:**
+- Changing regulatory landscape
+- Cross-border data transfer restrictions
+- Industry-specific compliance requirements
+- Audit and documentation requirements
+
+**Sustainability and ESG Risks:**
+- Environmental impact assessments
+- Social responsibility requirements
+- Governance and ethical considerations
+- Long-term sustainability of solutions
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Guidelines
+
+### Risk Framework Maturity Model
+
+**Level 1 - Basic (Ad Hoc):**
+- Qualitative risk identification
+- Simple probability/impact matrices
+- Reactive risk response
+- Project-level focus only
+
+**Level 2 - Managed (Repeatable):**
+- Standardized risk processes
+- Quantitative risk analysis
+- Proactive mitigation planning
+- Portfolio-level risk aggregation
+
+**Level 3 - Defined (Systematic):**
+- Enterprise risk integration
+- Monte Carlo simulation
+- Risk-adjusted decision making
+- Cross-functional risk management
+
+**Level 4 - Advanced (Quantitative):**
+- Real-time risk monitoring
+- Predictive risk analytics
+- Automated risk reporting
+- Strategic risk optimization
+
+**Level 5 - Optimizing (Continuous Improvement):**
+- AI-enhanced risk prediction
+- Dynamic risk response
+- Industry benchmark integration
+- Continuous framework evolution
+
+### Getting Started: 90-Day Implementation Plan
+
+**Days 1-30: Foundation**
+- Assess current risk management maturity
+- Define risk appetite and tolerance levels
+- Establish risk governance structure
+- Train core team on quantitative methods
+
+**Days 31-60: Tools & Processes**
+- Implement EMV and Monte Carlo tools
+- Create risk dashboard templates
+- Establish risk register standards
+- Begin historical data collection
+
+**Days 61-90: Integration & Optimization**
+- Integrate with portfolio management
+- Establish reporting rhythms
+- Conduct first portfolio risk review
+- Plan continuous improvement initiatives
+
+---
+
+*This framework should be adapted to organizational context, industry requirements, and project complexity. Regular updates should incorporate lessons learned and emerging best practices.*

package/org-skills/seo/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Affaan Mustafa
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/org-skills/seo/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+---
+name: seo
+description: "Audit, plan, and implement SEO improvements across technical SEO, on-page optimization, structured data, Core Web Vitals, and content strategy. Use when the user wants better search visibility, SEO remediation, schema markup, sitemap/robots work, or keyword mapping."
+tags: ["marketing","frontend"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC
+source_path: "skills/seo"
+source_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735
+---
+# SEO
+
+Improve search visibility through technical correctness, performance, and content relevance, not gimmicks.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when:
+- auditing crawlability, indexability, canonicals, or redirects
+- improving title tags, meta descriptions, and heading structure
+- adding or validating structured data
+- improving Core Web Vitals
+- doing keyword research and mapping keywords to URLs
+- planning internal linking or sitemap / robots changes
+
+## How It Works
+
+### Principles
+
+1. Fix technical blockers before content optimization.
+2. One page should have one clear primary search intent.
+3. Prefer long-term quality signals over manipulative patterns.
+4. Mobile-first assumptions matter because indexing is mobile-first.
+5. Recommendations should be page-specific and implementable.
+
+### Technical SEO checklist
+
+#### Crawlability
+
+- `robots.txt` should allow important pages and block low-value surfaces
+- no important page should be unintentionally `noindex`
+- important pages should be reachable within a shallow click depth
+- avoid redirect chains longer than two hops
+- canonical tags should be self-consistent and non-looping
+
+#### Indexability
+
+- preferred URL format should be consistent
+- multilingual pages need correct hreflang if used
+- sitemaps should reflect the intended public surface
+- no duplicate URLs should compete without canonical control
+
+#### Performance
+
+- LCP < 2.5s
+- INP < 200ms
+- CLS < 0.1
+- common fixes: preload hero assets, reduce render-blocking work, reserve layout space, trim heavy JS
+
+#### Structured data
+
+- homepage: organization or business schema where appropriate
+- editorial pages: `Article` / `BlogPosting`
+- product pages: `Product` and `Offer`
+- interior pages: `BreadcrumbList`
+- Q&A sections: `FAQPage` only when the content truly matches
+
+### On-page rules
+
+#### Title tags
+
+- aim for roughly 50-60 characters
+- put the primary keyword or concept near the front
+- make the title legible to humans, not stuffed for bots
+
+#### Meta descriptions
+
+- aim for roughly 120-160 characters
+- describe the page honestly
+- include the main topic naturally
+
+#### Heading structure
+
+- one clear `H1`
+- `H2` and `H3` should reflect actual content hierarchy
+- do not skip structure just for visual styling
+
+### Keyword mapping
+
+1. define the search intent
+2. gather realistic keyword variants
+3. prioritize by intent match, likely value, and competition
+4. map one primary keyword/theme to one URL
+5. detect and avoid cannibalization
+
+### Internal linking
+
+- link from strong pages to pages you want to rank
+- use descriptive anchor text
+- avoid generic anchors when a more specific one is possible
+- backfill links from new pages to relevant existing ones
+
+## Examples
+
+### Title formula
+
+```text
+Primary Topic - Specific Modifier | Brand
+```
+
+### Meta description formula
+
+```text
+Action + topic + value proposition + one supporting detail
+```
+
+### JSON-LD example
+
+```json
+{
+  "@context": "https://schema.org",
+  "@type": "Article",
+  "headline": "Page Title Here",
+  "author": {
+    "@type": "Person",
+    "name": "Author Name"
+  },
+  "publisher": {
+    "@type": "Organization",
+    "name": "Brand Name"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Audit output shape
+
+```text
+[HIGH] Duplicate title tags on product pages
+Location: src/routes/products/[slug].tsx
+Issue: Dynamic titles collapse to the same default string, which weakens relevance and creates duplicate signals.
+Fix: Generate a unique title per product using the product name and primary category.
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Fix |
+| --- | --- |
+| keyword stuffing | write for users first |
+| thin near-duplicate pages | consolidate or differentiate them |
+| schema for content that is not actually present | match schema to reality |
+| content advice without checking the actual page | read the real page first |
+| generic “improve SEO” outputs | tie every recommendation to a page or asset |
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `seo-specialist`
+- `frontend-patterns`
+- `brand-voice`
+- `market-research`

package/org-skills/seo-audit/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Corey Haines
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.