@elizaos/skills 2.0.0-alpha.3

package/skills/security-culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index/workflows/interview-debrief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+<required_reading>
+
+**Read these reference files before debrief:**
+1. `references/patterns-archetypes.md` - Pattern identification and role fit
+2. `references/team-composition.md` - Gas/Brake/Glue framework
+3. `workflows/predict-from-interview.md` - How predictions were generated
+4. `workflows/define-hiring-profile.md` - If hiring profile exists
+
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+
+Evaluate a candidate's predicted Culture Index profile against role requirements and team composition. This workflow helps make informed hiring decisions using transcript-predicted traits, with appropriate caveats about prediction confidence.
+
+**Important:** This uses PREDICTED traits from interview analysis, not actual CI survey results. The actual survey will be administered after offer acceptance. Use this for preliminary assessment only.
+
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+**Step 1: Load Predicted Profile**
+
+Gather the prediction from transcript analysis:
+
+```
+Candidate: [Name]
+Analysis Date: [Date]
+Interview Source: [Interview type, duration]
+
+Predicted Traits:
+| Trait | Predicted | Confidence | Key Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|------------|--------------|
+| A | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+| B | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+| C | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+| D | [High/Low/Norm] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+| L | [0-10] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+| I | [0-10] | [H/M/L] | "[Quote]" |
+
+Predicted Pattern: [Pattern name]
+Overall Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
+```
+
+**Step 2: Load Role Requirements**
+
+If a hiring profile exists, load it. Otherwise, answer the role-fit questions:
+
+| Question | Answer | Required Trait |
+|----------|--------|----------------|
+| Macro or micro? | [answer] | A: [High/Low/Norm] |
+| People or problems? | [answer] | B: [High/Low/Norm] |
+| Repetition level? | [answer] | C: [High/Low/Norm] |
+| Process adherence? | [answer] | D: [High/Low/Norm] |
+
+**Target Pattern:** [Pattern name]
+**Red Flags for Role:** [traits that would struggle]
+
+**Step 3: Compare Predicted vs Required**
+
+| Trait | Predicted | Required | Match | Notes |
+|-------|-----------|----------|-------|-------|
+| A | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+| B | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+| C | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+| D | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+| L | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+| I | [pred] | [req] | [Y/N/~] | [concern if any] |
+
+**Match key:**
+- Y = Strong match (same direction, similar magnitude)
+- ~ = Acceptable (within tolerance)
+- N = Mismatch (opposite direction or extreme gap)
+
+**Step 4: Check Against Red Flags**
+
+Compare predicted traits to role red flags:
+
+| Red Flag | Predicted | Hit? | Severity |
+|----------|-----------|------|----------|
+| [trait/pattern] | [prediction] | [Y/N] | [High/Med/Low] |
+
+**Red flag hits:** [count]
+
+**Step 5: Assess Team Fit**
+
+If team profiles are available:
+
+**Current Team Composition:**
+- Gas (High A): [count] people
+- Brake (High D): [count] people
+- Glue (High B): [count] people
+
+**Would this candidate add:**
+- [ ] Needed Gas (High A)?
+- [ ] Needed Brake (High D)?
+- [ ] Needed Glue (High B)?
+- [ ] Diversity of perspective?
+
+**Potential team friction:**
+- [Candidate trait] vs [Team member trait]: [friction risk]
+
+**Step 6: Assess Manager Fit**
+
+If hiring manager's profile is known:
+
+| Trait | Manager | Candidate (Predicted) | Gap |
+|-------|---------|----------------------|-----|
+| A | [pos] | [pred] | [diff] |
+| B | [pos] | [pred] | [diff] |
+| C | [pos] | [pred] | [diff] |
+| D | [pos] | [pred] | [diff] |
+
+**Predicted working relationship:**
+- [Alignment or friction point 1]
+- [Alignment or friction point 2]
+
+**Step 7: Weight Confidence Levels**
+
+Calculate weighted assessment based on prediction confidence:
+
+| Factor | Assessment | Confidence Weight | Weighted |
+|--------|------------|-------------------|----------|
+| Role fit | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [H/M/L → 3/2/1] | [score] |
+| Team fit | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [H/M/L → 3/2/1] | [score] |
+| Red flag hits | [None/Some/Multiple] | [H/M/L → 3/2/1] | [score] |
+| Manager fit | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [H/M/L → 3/2/1] | [score] |
+
+**Important confidence caveats:**
+- Low confidence traits: May change significantly when actual CI is administered
+- Medium confidence: Directionally correct but magnitude uncertain
+- High confidence: Likely accurate, but interview stress may have affected
+
+**Step 8: Generate Recommendation**
+
+Based on weighted assessment:
+
+| Overall Fit | Recommendation | Action |
+|-------------|----------------|--------|
+| Strong fit, high confidence | **Proceed** | Extend offer, plan for CI survey |
+| Strong fit, low confidence | **Proceed with note** | Extend offer, flag traits to verify |
+| Moderate fit | **Proceed with awareness** | Extend offer, prepare for onboarding adjustments |
+| Weak fit, concerns | **Discuss** | Review concerns with hiring team |
+| Red flag hits | **Pause** | Additional interviews or reconsider |
+
+**Step 9: Compile Debrief Summary**
+
+```markdown
+## Interview Debrief: [Candidate Name]
+
+**Date:** [Date]
+**Role:** [Position]
+**Prediction Source:** [Interview type, duration]
+**Overall Prediction Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low]
+
+### Predicted Profile Summary
+| Trait | Predicted | Confidence |
+|-------|-----------|------------|
+| A | [pos] | [H/M/L] |
+| B | [pos] | [H/M/L] |
+| C | [pos] | [H/M/L] |
+| D | [pos] | [H/M/L] |
+
+**Predicted Pattern:** [Pattern]
+
+### Fit Assessment
+
+**Role Fit:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
+- [Key alignment or concern]
+
+**Team Fit:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
+- [Key alignment or concern]
+
+**Manager Fit:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
+- [Key alignment or concern]
+
+### Red Flags
+- [Red flag 1, if any]
+- [Red flag 2, if any]
+
+### Recommendation
+**[Proceed / Proceed with Note / Discuss / Pause]**
+
+[1-2 sentence rationale]
+
+### Areas to Verify with Actual CI
+When the actual Culture Index survey is administered (after offer acceptance), verify:
+1. [Trait with lower confidence]
+2. [Trait that's critical for role]
+3. [Any predicted trait that was borderline]
+
+### If Hired: Onboarding Considerations
+Based on predicted profile:
+- [Onboarding consideration 1]
+- [Onboarding consideration 2]
+
+### Caveats
+- This assessment uses predicted traits from interview analysis
+- Interview behavior may differ from natural behavior
+- Actual CI survey will be sent after offer acceptance
+- Predictions should inform, not determine, hiring decisions
+- Technical skills, experience, and cultural interview still matter
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+Avoid these debrief mistakes:
+
+- **Treating predictions as facts**: Low confidence predictions may be wrong
+- **Over-weighting CI fit**: Skills, experience, and culture interview matter too
+- **Automatic rejection on red flags**: Consider severity and role criticality
+- **Ignoring interview performance**: CI predicts drives, not capabilities
+- **Comparing to non-existent ideal**: No candidate is a perfect match
+- **Forgetting the actual survey is coming**: Use predictions for preliminary assessment only
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Interview debrief is complete when:
+- [ ] Predicted profile loaded with confidence levels
+- [ ] Role requirements documented (from hiring profile or role-fit questions)
+- [ ] Predicted vs required comparison completed
+- [ ] Red flags checked
+- [ ] Team fit assessed (if team data available)
+- [ ] Manager fit assessed (if manager profile available)
+- [ ] Confidence weighting applied
+- [ ] Clear recommendation generated
+- [ ] Areas to verify with actual CI identified
+- [ ] Onboarding considerations noted
+- [ ] Caveats about prediction limitations included
+
+</success_criteria>

package/skills/security-culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index/workflows/mediate-conflict.md

@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+<required_reading>
+
+**Read these reference files before mediation:**
+1. `references/primary-traits.md` - A, B, C, D trait details
+2. `references/team-composition.md` - Conflict pairs and friction patterns
+3. `references/patterns-archetypes.md` - Pattern identification
+
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+
+Understand why two team members aren't working well together using their Culture Index profiles. This workflow identifies trait-based friction sources and provides specific recommendations for improving the working relationship.
+
+**Important:** CI explains behavioral friction, not personal conflict. If the conflict involves values, ethics, or performance issues, those require separate intervention.
+
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+**Step 1: Load Both Profiles**
+
+```
+Person A: [Name]
+- Role: [Title]
+- 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]
+
+Person B: [Name]
+- Role: [Title]
+- 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: Map Trait Differences**
+
+Calculate the gap for each trait:
+
+| Trait | Person A | Person B | Gap | On Same Side? |
+|-------|----------|----------|-----|---------------|
+| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
+| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
+| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
+| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
+
+**Highest friction risk:** Traits on opposite sides of arrow with large gaps.
+
+**Step 3: Identify Primary Friction Source**
+
+Match trait gaps to known friction patterns:
+
+| Pattern | Source | How It Manifests |
+|---------|--------|------------------|
+| **High A vs Low A** | Independence vs collaboration | High A acts autonomously; Low A feels excluded. Low A seeks consensus; High A sees it as slow. |
+| **High A vs High A** | Power struggle | Both want to lead, neither wants to defer. Competing visions. |
+| **High B vs Low B** | Social energy mismatch | High B wants connection; Low B wants focus. High B feels rejected; Low B feels overwhelmed. |
+| **High C vs Low C** | Pace mismatch | Low C creates urgency; High C resists rush. High C seems slow; Low C seems chaotic. |
+| **High D vs Low D** | Detail orientation | High D focuses on precision; Low D on big picture. High D sees carelessness; Low D sees rigidity. |
+| **High D vs High D** | Perfectionism clash | Both critical, both notice flaws. Can become mutual criticism spiral. |
+
+**Your primary friction source:** [Identified pattern]
+
+**Step 4: Understand Each Perspective**
+
+Map how each person likely perceives the other:
+
+**Person A ([Pattern]) likely sees Person B as:**
+
+| Person A's Trait | Person B's Trait | Person A Perceives B As... |
+|------------------|------------------|---------------------------|
+| High A | Low A | Indecisive, slow, passive |
+| Low A | High A | Aggressive, selfish, dismissive |
+| High B | Low B | Cold, unfriendly, disconnected |
+| Low B | High B | Chatty, distracting, inefficient |
+| High C | Low C | Chaotic, impatient, disruptive |
+| Low C | High C | Slow, resistant, inflexible |
+| High D | Low D | Sloppy, unreliable, careless |
+| Low D | High D | Rigid, nitpicky, controlling |
+
+**Person B ([Pattern]) likely sees Person A as:**
+[Same analysis from B's perspective]
+
+**Step 5: Assess Relationship Structure**
+
+What is their working relationship?
+
+| Relationship | Additional Dynamics |
+|--------------|---------------------|
+| Peers | No hierarchy - must find middle ground |
+| Manager → Report | Manager should adapt first (they have more power) |
+| Report → Manager | Report may need environment change if mismatch is severe |
+| Cross-functional | Different priorities compound trait friction |
+| Close collaborators | Daily friction accumulates faster |
+| Occasional interaction | May be able to limit contact |
+
+**Their relationship:** [Type]
+
+**Step 6: Generate Mediation Approach**
+
+Based on friction source, recommend approach:
+
+**For High A vs Low A friction:**
+- Clarify decision rights (who owns what)
+- High A: Give Low A explicit input time before decisions
+- Low A: Understand High A's autonomy need isn't personal
+- Process: Defined consultation points before independent action
+
+**For High B vs Low B friction:**
+- Acknowledge different social needs
+- High B: Reduce expectations for social interaction from Low B
+- Low B: Commit to minimal connection (brief check-ins)
+- Process: Scheduled, bounded social interaction
+
+**For High C vs Low C friction:**
+- Acknowledge pace difference as legitimate
+- Low C: Give advance notice of urgent requests
+- High C: Accept some urgency is real, build buffer time
+- Process: Deadlines set with High C's processing time in mind
+
+**For High D vs Low D friction:**
+- Acknowledge different detail orientations
+- High D: Accept "good enough" for some work
+- Low D: Use systems to catch critical details
+- Process: Clear quality standards for each deliverable type
+
+**For High A vs High A friction:**
+- Clear domain ownership (separate turfs)
+- Explicit agreement on shared decisions
+- Regular alignment to prevent divergent directions
+- Process: Leadership defines who owns what
+
+**Your mediation approach:**
+1. [Specific recommendation]
+2. [Specific recommendation]
+3. [Specific recommendation]
+
+**Step 7: Design Process Changes**
+
+Beyond individual adjustments, what process changes would help?
+
+| Friction Source | Process Solution |
+|-----------------|------------------|
+| Pace mismatch | Define response time expectations, meeting cadence |
+| Decision friction | RACI or decision rights matrix |
+| Communication style | Agree on preferred channels, formats |
+| Detail orientation | Define quality gates and checklists |
+| Social needs | Protected focus time vs collaboration time |
+
+**Recommended process changes:**
+1. [Specific process change]
+2. [Specific process change]
+
+**Step 8: Identify What Won't Change**
+
+CI traits are hardwired. Set realistic expectations:
+
+| Person | Trait | Will Not Change |
+|--------|-------|-----------------|
+| [Name] | [trait] | [behavior that won't change] |
+| [Name] | [trait] | [behavior that won't change] |
+
+**Accept that:**
+- [Person A] will continue to [trait-driven behavior]
+- [Person B] will continue to [trait-driven behavior]
+
+The goal is accommodation, not transformation.
+
+**Step 9: Check Energy Levels**
+
+Review EU utilization for both parties:
+
+| Person | EU Survey | EU Job | Utilization | Status |
+|--------|-----------|--------|-------------|--------|
+| [A] | [val] | [val] | [%] | [Healthy/Stress/Frustration] |
+| [B] | [val] | [val] | [%] | [Healthy/Stress/Frustration] |
+
+**If either is in stress/frustration:**
+- The conflict may be intensifying natural friction
+- Address the energy drain as part of mediation
+- Consider workload or role adjustment
+
+**Step 10: Compile Mediation Summary**
+
+```markdown
+## Conflict Analysis: [Person A] & [Person B]
+
+**Date:** [Date]
+**Relationship:** [Peers / Manager-Report / etc.]
+
+### Profile Comparison
+
+| Trait | Person A | Person B | Gap |
+|-------|----------|----------|-----|
+| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
+| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
+| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
+| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
+
+**Person A Pattern:** [Archetype]
+**Person B Pattern:** [Archetype]
+
+### Primary Friction Source
+**[Identified pattern]**
+
+[1-2 sentence explanation of the core conflict driver]
+
+### How They See Each Other
+
+**Person A likely perceives Person B as:**
+- [perception based on trait gap]
+
+**Person B likely perceives Person A as:**
+- [perception based on trait gap]
+
+### Recommendations
+
+**For Person A:**
+1. [Specific adjustment]
+2. [Specific adjustment]
+
+**For Person B:**
+1. [Specific adjustment]
+2. [Specific adjustment]
+
+**Process Changes:**
+1. [Process change to reduce friction]
+2. [Process change to reduce friction]
+
+### What Won't Change
+- [Person A] will continue to [trait behavior] - this is hardwired
+- [Person B] will continue to [trait behavior] - this is hardwired
+
+The goal is accommodation, not transformation.
+
+### Energy Status
+- Person A: [EU utilization status]
+- Person B: [EU utilization status]
+
+[Note any energy concerns]
+
+### Conversation Guide
+
+**Frame the discussion as:**
+- Different working styles, not personal conflict
+- Both approaches are valid
+- Goal is finding workable middle ground
+
+**Avoid:**
+- Labeling either person's style as "wrong"
+- Expecting either to fundamentally change
+- Assuming one must adapt more than the other (unless manager-report)
+
+### Success Indicators
+After mediation, look for:
+- [ ] Reduced friction in [specific interaction type]
+- [ ] Both parties feeling heard
+- [ ] Workable process in place for [friction point]
+- [ ] Energy levels stabilizing (if previously stressed)
+
+### Escalation Criteria
+Escalate beyond CI-based mediation if:
+- Conflict involves values, ethics, or harassment
+- Performance issues underlie the conflict
+- Either party is unwilling to accommodate
+- Energy utilization continues declining
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+Avoid these mediation mistakes:
+
+- **Blaming one party**: Both profiles contribute to friction
+- **Expecting transformation**: CI traits don't change - environment does
+- **Ignoring power dynamics**: Manager-report relationships require manager to adapt first
+- **Over-attributing to CI**: Not all conflict is trait-based
+- **Generic advice**: Recommendations must be specific to their trait gaps
+- **Forgetting EU signals**: Energy drain indicates escalating friction
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+Conflict mediation is complete when:
+- [ ] Both profiles loaded and compared
+- [ ] All trait gaps calculated
+- [ ] Primary friction source identified
+- [ ] Each person's perspective mapped
+- [ ] Relationship structure considered
+- [ ] Specific recommendations for each person
+- [ ] Process changes identified
+- [ ] Hardwired behaviors acknowledged (won't change)
+- [ ] EU levels checked
+- [ ] Conversation guide provided
+- [ ] Success indicators defined
+- [ ] Escalation criteria noted
+
+</success_criteria>