@elizaos/skills 2.0.0-alpha.3

package/skills/security-culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index/workflows/coach-manager.md

@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+<required_reading>
+
+**Read these reference files before coaching:**
+1. `references/primary-traits.md` - A, B, C, D trait details and management approaches
+2. `references/secondary-traits.md` - EU, L, I traits
+3. `references/patterns-archetypes.md` - Pattern identification
+
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+
+Help managers work more effectively with their direct reports by comparing Culture Index profiles and providing specific coaching recommendations. This workflow translates trait differences into actionable management adjustments.
+
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+**Step 1: Load Both Profiles**
+
+Gather the manager and direct report's profiles:
+
+```
+Manager: [Name]
+- Pattern: [Archetype]
+- A: [position relative to arrow]
+- B: [position relative to arrow]
+- C: [position relative to arrow]
+- D: [position relative to arrow]
+- EU Survey/Job: [values]
+
+Direct Report: [Name]
+- Pattern: [Archetype]
+- A: [position relative to arrow]
+- B: [position relative to arrow]
+- C: [position relative to arrow]
+- D: [position relative to arrow]
+- EU Survey/Job: [values]
+```
+
+**Step 2: Calculate Trait Gaps**
+
+For each trait, calculate the gap between manager and direct report:
+
+| Trait | Manager | Direct Report | Gap | Friction Risk |
+|-------|---------|---------------|-----|---------------|
+| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
+| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
+| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
+| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
+
+**Friction risk guide:**
+- Same side of arrow, similar distance: Low friction
+- Same side of arrow, different distance: Medium friction
+- Opposite sides of arrow: High friction potential
+
+**Step 3: Identify Primary Friction Points**
+
+Flag the largest gaps (opposite sides of arrow or >3 centile difference):
+
+| Gap | Manager Tendency | Direct Report Need | Friction Source |
+|-----|------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
+| [Trait] | [behavior] | [behavior] | [conflict] |
+
+**Common friction patterns:**
+
+| Manager | Direct Report | Friction |
+|---------|---------------|----------|
+| High A | Low A | Manager expects initiative; report waits for direction |
+| Low A | High A | Manager collaborates; report acts independently |
+| High B | Low B | Manager wants connection; report wants to work |
+| Low B | High B | Manager skips rapport; report needs relationship first |
+| High C | Low C | Manager methodical; report impatient |
+| Low C | High C | Manager creates urgency; report resists rush |
+| High D | Low D | Manager detail-focused; report big-picture |
+| Low D | High D | Manager flexible; report needs structure |
+
+**Step 4: Generate Communication Adjustments**
+
+Based on direct report's traits, recommend specific adjustments:
+
+**If direct report is High A:**
+- Use bullet points focused on ROI, not paragraphs
+- Give outcomes ("bake me a cake"), not step-by-step instructions
+- Ask questions to get buy-in, don't dictate
+- Allow autonomy - avoid micromanagement
+- Be direct and confident - they don't respect hesitation
+
+**If direct report is Low A:**
+- Provide specific direction before expecting action
+- Give frameworks for novel decisions
+- Offer specific praise, not general ("Great job on X")
+- Probe for concerns - silence doesn't mean agreement
+- Don't misread helpfulness as ambition
+
+**If direct report is High B:**
+- Allow time for rapport before tasks
+- Verbal praise and public recognition matter
+- Include in social activities
+- Don't isolate with extended solo work
+- Remember: first statement isn't final position (verbal processor)
+
+**If direct report is Low B:**
+- Minimize unnecessary check-ins
+- Use async communication (email) over meetings
+- Private recognition, not public praise
+- Thoughtful gestures over verbal affirmation
+- Don't mistake quiet for disengagement
+
+**If direct report is High C:**
+- Send agendas in advance
+- One topic per meeting
+- Protect their focus time (28-min recovery from interruptions)
+- Provide advance notice of changes
+- Give structured, sequential instructions
+
+**If direct report is Low C:**
+- Put deadlines in subject lines
+- Keep them busy with variety
+- Expect them to interrupt - plan for it
+- Use their urgency productively
+- Don't be surprised by over-commitment
+
+**If direct report is High D:**
+- Frame feedback as process improvement, not personal criticism
+- Provide training/learning opportunities
+- Don't break trust - they have long memories
+- Build SOPs for new responsibilities
+- Recognize their attention to quality
+
+**If direct report is Low D:**
+- Give creative problems to solve
+- Provide options, not mandates
+- Build systems to catch their gaps
+- Focus on the 3 things that matter most
+- Accept 80% completion; assign finishers
+
+**Step 5: Design 1:1 Structure**
+
+Based on trait comparison, recommend 1:1 format:
+
+**Frequency:**
+- Low A direct report: More frequent (weekly)
+- High A direct report: Less frequent (bi-weekly or as needed)
+- High C direct report: Consistent schedule, same time/day
+- Low C direct report: Flexible timing, short check-ins ok
+
+**Duration:**
+- High B direct report: Allow buffer for rapport
+- Low B direct report: Keep focused and efficient
+- High C direct report: Single-topic, predictable length
+- Low C direct report: Can be shorter, faster-paced
+
+**Format:**
+- High D direct report: Structured agenda, action items
+- Low D direct report: Flexible, allow tangents
+- High B direct report: Start with personal connection
+- Low B direct report: Start with business
+
+**Sample 1:1 template for [Direct Report's Pattern]:**
+```
+1. [Opening based on B trait]
+2. [Agenda item structure based on C/D traits]
+3. [Feedback approach based on A trait]
+4. [Closing/action items based on D trait]
+```
+
+**Step 6: Identify Motivators**
+
+Based on direct report's profile, their primary motivators are:
+
+| Trait Position | Motivator | Implementation |
+|----------------|-----------|----------------|
+| High A | Autonomy, ROI, winning | Give ownership, variable comp |
+| Low A | Clear direction, team success | Specific praise, stable comp |
+| High B | Acceptance, inclusion | Verbal praise, team activities |
+| Low B | Privacy, focus time | Leave alone, private recognition |
+| High C | Stability, predictability | Consistent routines, advance notice |
+| Low C | Variety, deadlines | Keep busy, clear deadlines |
+| High D | Knowledge, trust | Training, recognition for quality |
+| Low D | Freedom, options | Creative problems, flexibility |
+
+**Step 7: Flag Energy Concerns**
+
+Check EU utilization:
+- Survey EU: [value]
+- Job EU: [value]
+- Utilization: [Job/Survey × 100]%
+
+| Utilization | Status | Action |
+|-------------|--------|--------|
+| 70-130% | Healthy | Maintain current approach |
+| <70% | Frustration | Address mismatch - discuss role engagement |
+| >130% | Stress | Direct report is overextending |
+
+**Step 8: Compile Coaching Summary**
+
+```markdown
+## Manager Coaching Guide: [Manager] → [Direct Report]
+
+**Date:** [Date]
+**Manager Pattern:** [Archetype]
+**Direct Report Pattern:** [Archetype]
+
+### Key Trait Gaps
+| Trait | Gap | Adjustment Needed |
+|-------|-----|-------------------|
+| [Trait] | [difference] | [specific adjustment] |
+
+### Communication Style Adjustments
+1. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
+2. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
+3. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
+
+### 1:1 Recommendations
+- **Frequency:** [recommendation]
+- **Duration:** [recommendation]
+- **Format:** [recommendation]
+- **Opening:** [how to start based on B trait]
+- **Feedback:** [how to deliver based on A/D traits]
+
+### Primary Motivators
+1. [Motivator 1] - [how to implement]
+2. [Motivator 2] - [how to implement]
+
+### Watch Areas
+- [Potential friction point 1]
+- [Potential friction point 2]
+
+### Energy Status
+- EU Utilization: [percentage]
+- Status: [Healthy/Watch/Concern/Stress]
+- Action: [if any]
+
+### Things to Avoid
+- [Anti-pattern for this direct report]
+- [Anti-pattern for this direct report]
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+Avoid these coaching mistakes:
+
+- **Expecting them to change**: Survey traits are hardwired - change the environment, not the person
+- **Projecting your motivators**: What motivates you may demotivate them
+- **One-size-fits-all 1:1s**: Adapt format to their profile
+- **Ignoring EU signals**: Low utilization predicts disengagement and flight risk
+- **Treating gaps as problems**: Different profiles bring complementary strengths
+- **Forgetting your own biases**: Your profile affects how you perceive theirs
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Manager coaching is complete when:
+- [ ] Both profiles loaded and compared
+- [ ] All trait gaps calculated with friction risk
+- [ ] Primary friction points identified
+- [ ] Communication adjustments specified for each major trait
+- [ ] 1:1 structure designed for their profile
+- [ ] Motivators identified with implementation suggestions
+- [ ] EU utilization checked and flagged if concerning
+- [ ] Watch areas documented
+- [ ] Anti-patterns for this pairing noted
+
+</success_criteria>

package/skills/security-culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index/workflows/compare-profiles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+<required_reading>
+
+**Read these reference files before comparing:**
+1. `references/primary-traits.md` - Trait details
+2. `references/secondary-traits.md` - L and I interpretation
+
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+**Step 1: Load Both Profiles**
+
+For each person, record:
+- Name
+- Pattern/Archetype
+- Arrow position
+- All trait distances from arrow (A, B, C, D)
+- L and I absolute values
+- EU values
+
+**Step 2: Create Comparison Table**
+
+| Trait | Person A Distance | Person B Distance | Difference | Notes |
+|-------|-------------------|-------------------|------------|-------|
+| A | +/- X from arrow | +/- X from arrow | | |
+| B | +/- X from arrow | +/- X from arrow | | |
+| C | +/- X from arrow | +/- X from arrow | | |
+| D | +/- X from arrow | +/- X from arrow | | |
+| L | [absolute] | [absolute] | | |
+| I | [absolute] | [absolute] | | |
+
+**Remember**: Compare DISTANCES from arrow, not absolute values (except L and I).
+
+**Step 3: Identify Similar Traits**
+
+Traits where both people fall on the same side of their arrow (both high or both low):
+
+- [Trait]: Both high/low - [implication]
+
+Similarity creates:
+- Shared understanding
+- Similar communication style
+- Potential blind spots (both miss same things)
+
+**Step 4: Identify Opposite Traits**
+
+Traits where people fall on opposite sides of their arrows:
+
+- [Trait]: Person A high, Person B low - [implication]
+
+Opposites create:
+- Potential friction
+- Complementary strengths (if managed well)
+- Need for intentional bridging
+
+**Step 5: Assess Major Friction Points**
+
+| Combination | Friction | Mitigation |
+|-------------|----------|------------|
+| High A vs Low A | Independence expectations clash | High A gives direction, respects Low A's collaborative needs |
+| High B vs Low B | Social needs mismatch | High B allows Low B alone time; Low B tolerates some small talk |
+| High C vs Low C | Pace mismatch | Low C respects High C's focus time; High C accepts some urgency |
+| High D vs Low D | Detail orientation clash | High D accepts "good enough"; Low D follows through on commitments |
+
+Document specific friction points for this pair.
+
+**Step 6: Assess Communication Compatibility**
+
+| Person A | Person B | Communication Challenge |
+|----------|----------|-------------------------|
+| High A | Low A | High A may steamroll; Low A may not push back |
+| High B | Low B | High B needs verbal processing; Low B prefers written |
+| High C | Low C | High C needs advance notice; Low C creates urgency |
+| High D | Low D | High D wants specifics; Low D gives big picture |
+
+**Step 7: Compare L (Logic) and I (Ingenuity)**
+
+These use absolute values - direct comparison is valid.
+
+**Logic comparison:**
+| Person A Logic | Person B Logic | Dynamic |
+|----------------|----------------|---------|
+| Both High (8-10) | Both High (8-10) | Rational discussions, may seem cold to others |
+| Both Low (0-2) | Both Low (0-2) | Emotional connection, may escalate together |
+| One High, One Low | - | Potential misunderstanding; High L may dismiss Low L's concerns |
+
+**Ingenuity comparison:**
+| Person A Ingenuity | Person B Ingenuity | Dynamic |
+|--------------------|-------------------|---------|
+| Both High (7-10) | Both High (7-10) | Creative brainstorming, may lack grounding |
+| Both Low (0-2) | Both Low (0-2) | Practical focus, may miss innovative solutions |
+| One High, One Low | - | High I may frustrate Low I with abstract ideas |
+
+**Step 8: Identify Complementary Strengths**
+
+Where opposites create value:
+
+- Person A brings [trait/strength], Person B brings [trait/strength]
+- Together they cover [gap that neither would alone]
+
+Example:
+- High A (Person A) + High D (Person B) = "A starts, D finishes"
+- High B (Person A) + Low B (Person B) = "One builds relationships, one does deep work"
+
+**Step 9: Leadership/Collaboration Dynamics**
+
+If one person leads the other:
+
+| Leader Trait | Follower Trait | Dynamic |
+|--------------|----------------|---------|
+| High A leading Low A | Works well if High A provides direction |
+| Low A leading High A | High A may not respect, may take over |
+| High D leading Low D | Low D may feel micromanaged |
+| Low D leading High D | High D may feel unsupported |
+
+**Step 10: Compile Comparison Summary**
+
+```
+## Profile Comparison: [Person A] vs [Person B]
+
+### Quick View
+| | Person A | Person B |
+|---|----------|----------|
+| Pattern | [Archetype] | [Archetype] |
+| Primary Driver | [Leading trait] | [Leading trait] |
+| Logic | [X] | [X] |
+| Ingenuity | [X] | [X] |
+
+### Trait Comparison (Relative to Arrow)
+| Trait | Person A | Person B | Alignment |
+|-------|----------|----------|-----------|
+| A | +/- X | +/- X | Same/Opposite |
+| B | +/- X | +/- X | Same/Opposite |
+| C | +/- X | +/- X | Same/Opposite |
+| D | +/- X | +/- X | Same/Opposite |
+
+### Similarities
+- [Shared trait 1]: [Implication]
+- [Shared trait 2]: [Implication]
+
+### Differences
+- [Opposite trait 1]: [Friction risk and opportunity]
+- [Opposite trait 2]: [Friction risk and opportunity]
+
+### Friction Points
+1. [Specific friction]: [Mitigation strategy]
+2. [Specific friction]: [Mitigation strategy]
+
+### Complementary Strengths
+1. [How they complement each other]
+2. [What they cover together]
+
+### Communication Recommendations
+- Person A should: [Specific advice]
+- Person B should: [Specific advice]
+
+### Collaboration Forecast
+[Overall assessment: Natural fit / Workable with effort / High friction / Complementary opposites]
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+Avoid these comparison mistakes:
+
+- **Comparing absolute values**: "Person A has a 7, Person B has a 4" is meaningless
+- **Assuming same = better**: Opposite traits often create complementary value
+- **Ignoring context**: Collaboration needs depend on the work being done
+- **Overlooking L and I**: These ARE comparable directly and affect dynamics
+- **Binary thinking**: It's not "compatible" or "incompatible" - it's about managing dynamics
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Profile comparison is complete when:
+- [ ] Both profiles loaded with arrow positions
+- [ ] All traits compared using relative distances
+- [ ] Similarities identified with implications
+- [ ] Differences identified with friction risks
+- [ ] L and I compared directly
+- [ ] Complementary strengths noted
+- [ ] Communication recommendations provided
+- [ ] Collaboration forecast given
+- [ ] No absolute value comparisons used (except L and I)
+
+</success_criteria>

package/skills/security-culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index/workflows/define-hiring-profile.md

@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
+<required_reading>
+
+**Read these reference files before defining a hiring profile:**
+1. `references/patterns-archetypes.md` - Pattern identification and role-fit questions
+2. `references/primary-traits.md` - A, B, C, D trait details
+
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+
+Define the ideal Culture Index profile for a role you're hiring. This workflow helps translate job requirements into specific trait positions, identify acceptable patterns, and flag red flags.
+
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+**Step 1: Gather Role Context**
+
+Collect information about the position:
+
+```
+Role: [Title]
+Reports To: [Manager's pattern if known]
+Team Context: [Existing team profiles if available]
+Business Stage: [Growth / Consolidation / Turnaround / Stability]
+```
+
+**Step 2: Answer Role-Fit Questions**
+
+These three questions determine primary trait positions:
+
+| Question | Answer | Implication |
+|----------|--------|-------------|
+| Is this role more **macro** or **micro**? | Macro → High A | Micro → Low A |
+| Is this position more about **people** or **problems**? | People → High B | Problems → Low B |
+| How much **repetition** is in this role? | High repetition → High C | Low repetition → Low C |
+
+**Record your answers:**
+- Macro/Micro: [answer] → A should be [High/Low/Normative]
+- People/Problems: [answer] → B should be [High/Low/Normative]
+- Repetition level: [answer] → C should be [High/Low/Normative]
+
+**Step 3: Determine D Trait (Conformity)**
+
+Ask additional questions:
+
+| Question | If Yes | If No |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Does this role require strict adherence to process? | High D | Low D |
+| Are details and precision critical to success? | High D | Low D |
+| Will quality failures have significant consequences? | High D | Low D |
+| Does the role require creative rule-breaking? | Low D | - |
+| Must they challenge status quo to succeed? | Low D | - |
+
+**Record:** D should be [High/Low/Normative]
+
+**Step 4: Map to Ideal Pattern**
+
+Using your answers from Steps 2-3, identify the ideal pattern:
+
+| Role Profile | Trait Combination | Example Roles |
+|--------------|-------------------|---------------|
+| **Visionary/Architect** | High A, Low C, Low D | CEO, Founder, Strategy Lead |
+| **Rainmaker/Persuader** | High A, High B, Low C | Sales, BD, Account Executive |
+| **Scholar/Specialist** | Low B, High C, High D | Engineer, Analyst, Researcher |
+| **Technical Expert** | Low A, Low B, Low C, High D | Security, QC, Operations |
+| **Craftsman** | Low A, Low B, High C, High D | Finance, Compliance, Audit |
+| **Accommodator** | Low A, High B, High C | HR, Customer Success, Support |
+| **Philosopher** | High A, Low B, High C | Strategy, Research |
+
+**Your ideal pattern:** [Pattern name]
+
+**Step 5: Define Acceptable Range**
+
+Not every hire will be a perfect match. Define acceptable variance:
+
+| Trait | Ideal | Acceptable Range | Hard No |
+|-------|-------|------------------|---------|
+| A | [High/Low/Norm] | [range] | [extremes to avoid] |
+| B | [High/Low/Norm] | [range] | [extremes to avoid] |
+| C | [High/Low/Norm] | [range] | [extremes to avoid] |
+| D | [High/Low/Norm] | [range] | [extremes to avoid] |
+
+**Guidance for ranges:**
+- "Must have": ±1 centile from ideal
+- "Strongly prefer": ±2 centiles from ideal
+- "Acceptable": ±3 centiles from ideal
+- "Hard no": Beyond ±4 centiles
+
+**Step 6: Consider L and I**
+
+Logic (L) and Ingenuity (I) use absolute values:
+
+| Question | If Yes | If No |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Does this role require detached, analytical decision-making? | High L (7-10) | - |
+| Does this role require empathy and emotional intelligence? | Low L (0-3) | - |
+| Does this role require novel problem-solving and innovation? | High I (7-10) | - |
+| Does this role benefit from proven methods over invention? | Low I (0-3) | - |
+
+**Record:**
+- L: [range or "any"]
+- I: [range or "any"]
+
+**Step 7: Identify Role-Specific Red Flags**
+
+Based on role requirements, flag patterns that would struggle:
+
+| If the role requires... | Red flag pattern | Why |
+|-------------------------|------------------|-----|
+| Independent decision-making | Very Low A | Needs direction, avoids decisions |
+| Customer interaction | Very Low B | May seem cold or disengaged |
+| Steady, predictable work | Very Low C | Creates unnecessary urgency |
+| Precision and accuracy | Very Low D | Misses details, inconsistent |
+| Quick pivots | Very High C | Resists change, slow to adapt |
+| Creative solutions | Very High D | Rigid adherence to process |
+| Collaboration | Very High A | "Me first," dismissive of others |
+
+**Your red flags:**
+1. [Pattern/trait that would fail in this role]
+2. [Pattern/trait that would fail in this role]
+
+**Step 8: Consider Team Dynamics**
+
+If team profiles are available:
+
+| Current Team Gap | Hire For |
+|------------------|----------|
+| No High A (lacking "Gas") | Consider High A |
+| No High B (lacking "Glue") | Consider High B |
+| No High D (lacking "Brake") | Consider High D |
+| All same pattern | Add diversity |
+| Existing friction | Avoid intensifying |
+
+**Team consideration notes:** [observations]
+
+**Step 9: Generate Hiring Profile**
+
+Compile the complete hiring profile:
+
+```markdown
+## Hiring Profile: [Role Title]
+
+**Date Created:** [Date]
+**Created By:** [Name]
+
+### Role Context
+- Reports to: [Manager pattern if known]
+- Team: [Team composition summary]
+- Business stage: [Growth/Consolidation/etc.]
+
+### Ideal Profile
+
+| Trait | Position | Confidence | Notes |
+|-------|----------|------------|-------|
+| A (Autonomy) | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+| B (Social) | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+| C (Pace) | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+| D (Conformity) | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+| L (Logic) | [range or any] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+| I (Ingenuity) | [range or any] | [H/M/L] | [reason] |
+
+**Target Pattern:** [Pattern name]
+
+### Acceptable Alternatives
+- [Alternative pattern 1] - [why acceptable]
+- [Alternative pattern 2] - [why acceptable]
+
+### Red Flags (Do Not Hire)
+1. [Pattern/trait] - [why problematic for this role]
+2. [Pattern/trait] - [why problematic for this role]
+
+### Interview Focus Areas
+Based on the ideal profile, explore these areas in interviews:
+- [Area 1 based on required traits]
+- [Area 2 based on required traits]
+
+### Using This Profile
+
+**With predicted traits (from interview transcript):**
+- Compare predicted profile to this template
+- Note areas of alignment and concern
+- Flag any red flag traits in predicted profile
+
+**With actual CI survey (after offer signed):**
+- Compare actual survey to predictions
+- Assess fit against this profile
+- Identify onboarding considerations based on gaps
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+Avoid these hiring profile mistakes:
+
+- **Over-specifying**: Requiring exact positions reduces candidate pool unnecessarily
+- **Cloning existing team**: Different patterns bring valuable perspectives
+- **Ignoring business stage**: Growth needs Gas, consolidation needs Brake
+- **Using CI as sole filter**: Profile is one input, not the complete picture
+- **Treating traits as skills**: CI measures drives, not capabilities
+- **Dismissing normative traits**: Flexibility can be a strength
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Hiring profile is complete when:
+- [ ] Role context documented (reporting, team, stage)
+- [ ] All three role-fit questions answered
+- [ ] D trait determined with rationale
+- [ ] Ideal pattern identified
+- [ ] Acceptable ranges defined for all traits
+- [ ] L and I requirements specified (or marked as "any")
+- [ ] Red flags identified with explanations
+- [ ] Team dynamics considered (if team data available)
+- [ ] Interview focus areas identified
+- [ ] Profile formatted for use in hiring process
+
+</success_criteria>