@event4u/agent-config 2.7.0 → 2.9.0

package/.agent-src/skills/fundraising-narrative/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+---
+name: fundraising-narrative
+description: "Use when shaping a capital-raise pitch — why-now / why-us / why-this framing, market-size reasoning, traction-story construction. Triggers on 'tighten the pitch', 'why-now is weak'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# fundraising-narrative
+
+## When to use
+
+- A founder is preparing a capital-raise pitch and the why-now is borrowed from a deck template instead of earned from the segment-shift the team actually rides.
+- A deck is landing as "interesting but not now" with investors and the team needs to diagnose whether the gap is *why-now*, *why-us*, or *why-this*.
+- A traction story is being built from screenshots instead of from a coherent leading-indicator arc that explains why the next stage is reachable.
+
+Do NOT use to manage the investor-CRM pipeline (out of scope), run
+the data-room (out of scope), or draft the internal vision anchor
+the org rallies behind (route to Wing-4 `vision-articulation` — the
+external pitch under capital constraint and the internal anchor
+are siblings, not the same artefact).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 1 — First-principles thinking.** *Why-now* is
+  the load-bearing claim and the one most often borrowed. Build
+  it from the segment-shift up — what changed in the world, the
+  customer, the technology — not from a deck template. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 1.
+- **Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven development.** A pitch is
+  a falsifiable hypothesis: *if X is true, our round closes.*
+  Name the X. Investors who disagree with the hypothesis are not
+  rejecting taste — they are rejecting the falsifiable claim. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 9.
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Revenue
+  is lagging; activation, retention curve, and qualified-pipeline
+  velocity are leading. The traction story leads with the leading
+  signals; revenue is the receipt, not the argument. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 16.
+- **Mental model 30 — Inversion.** Run the round-failure
+  premortem before the deck locks: *which investor heard what we
+  did not say.* Inversion surfaces the claim the deck assumes the
+  room already shares and probably does not. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 30.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read **product**
+  for the proofs the traction story can actually back; read
+  **customer-segment** for the TAM/SAM argument that survives a
+  bottom-up scrutiny. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inherit the positioning frame and vision anchor
+
+Identify the locked positioning anchors from
+[`positioning-strategy`](../positioning-strategy/SKILL.md) and the internal vision
+anchor from `vision-articulation` if it exists. The fundraising
+narrative is the *external pitch under capital constraint*; it
+inherits the internal frame, it does not re-invent it. A pitch
+that contradicts the internal anchor will fracture on the first
+hire after the round closes.
+
+### Step 1: Analyze the inherited why-now
+
+Read the current why-now claim. Three checks: *is this a market
+shift, a customer shift, or a technology shift?*  *Did the shift
+happen in the last 24 months?*  *Would the segment recognise the
+shift without prompting?* A why-now that fails two of three is
+template-borrowed. Name what the inherited deck is leaning on.
+
+### Step 2: Build why-now from first principles
+
+Strip the inherited claim. Rebuild from the segment-shift up:
+
+- **Market shift.** What changed in the buyer's environment that
+  was not true 24 months ago? (Regulation, budget cycle, channel
+  collapse, competitive exit.)
+- **Customer shift.** What changed in how the ICP measures the
+  problem? (New KPI, new buying committee, new procurement gate.)
+- **Technology shift.** What is feasible now that was not? (Cost
+  curve, model capability, infrastructure unlock.)
+
+Pick the *one* shift the segment would name without prompting.
+That is the why-now spine. The others are supporting context.
+
+### Step 3: Construct why-us under capital constraint
+
+Why-us is *unfair advantage under the next 18 months of capital*,
+not credentials. Three anchors:
+
+- **Earned access.** The audience the team can already reach that
+  the next funded peer cannot.
+- **Earned proof.** The reference customer or load-bearing
+  retention curve the team owns now.
+- **Capital fit.** What the round buys that competitors cannot buy
+  in the same window. *"More engineers"* is not capital fit;
+  *"distribution lead-time the round protects"* is.
+
+### Step 4: Build the traction story from leading indicators
+
+Order the traction story leading-first:
+
+1. **Activation curve.** Time-to-first-value trend across cohorts.
+2. **Retention curve.** Cohort retention at the load-bearing
+   milestone, ideally non-trivial — not week 1.
+3. **Pipeline velocity.** Qualified-pipeline movement, not raw
+   pipeline volume.
+4. **Revenue.** The receipt, last in the sequence — not first.
+
+A traction story that opens on revenue assumes the room already
+believes the leading signals; the deck must earn that belief.
+
+### Step 5: Validate against the round-failure premortem
+
+Validate the narrative on three checks:
+
+1. **Premortem coverage.** Run *"the round did not close because…"*
+   with five failure modes. Verify the deck explicitly neutralises
+   the top three or accepts-with-mitigation; unnamed failure modes
+   are silent rejection routes.
+2. **Falsifiable hypothesis.** Confirm the pitch is the form
+   *"if X, then our round closes."* A pitch that cannot be
+   disagreed with is also a pitch that cannot be agreed with.
+3. **Internal-external consistency.** Diff the external pitch
+   against the internal vision anchor. Contradictions kill the
+   first post-round hire round; name them now.
+
+### Step 6: Hand back
+
+Hand the artefacts to the founder for delivery, to
+`messaging-architecture` for the post-round message-stack refresh
+(why-now often shifts the primary message), and to
+`vision-articulation` (Wing-4) for the internal-anchor diff if
+contradictions surfaced.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- The unit of work is the why-now / why-us / why-this triad under capital constraint, not a single deck slide.
+- A diagnosed pitch gap needs a structured rebuild, not slide-polish.
+- The traction story is being built screenshot-first; reorder it leading-first.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Internal vision-anchor authoring for org alignment — route to Wing-4 `vision-articulation`.
+- Message-stack work post-round — route to [`messaging-architecture`](../messaging-architecture/SKILL.md).
+- Positioning the category and segment — route to [`positioning-strategy`](../positioning-strategy/SKILL.md) first.
+- Investor-CRM pipeline or data-room operations — out of scope.
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Tighten the why-now for the seed round."
+- "Bau mir die Traction-Story für den Pitch."
+- "Investors keep saying 'interesting but not now' — diagnose."
+- "Run the round-failure premortem on the deck."
+- "Why-us reads as a credentials list — rebuild under capital constraint."
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`why-now-spine.md`** — the one market / customer / technology shift the segment names without prompting, with the 24-month evidence trail.
+2. **`why-us-anchors.md`** — earned-access · earned-proof · capital-fit, each with a load-bearing artefact citation.
+3. **`traction-arc.md`** — activation → retention → pipeline-velocity → revenue, leading-first ordering with the leading-indicator threshold per step.
+4. **`round-failure-premortem.md`** — five failure modes with neutraliser-or-accept verdict, internal-external consistency diff appended.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- Why-now is the most-borrowed claim in pitches because it is the hardest to earn from first principles — the room can tell.
+- Capital-fit collapses to *"hire more"* when the team has not thought through what the round protects from competitors; protect-language is the discipline.
+- Internal-external contradictions read as charm in the room and as betrayal at the post-round all-hands.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT carry the internal vision anchor verbatim into the pitch — internal anchor is rally; external pitch is hypothesis under capital constraint.
+- Do NOT lead the traction story with revenue when the leading signals are the actual argument.
+- Do NOT make the why-now a template-shaped *"AI changes everything"* — the segment will know.
+- Do NOT manage CRM or data-room operations from this skill; out of scope.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market HR analytics tool raising Series A, positioning locked (retention beats acquisition):
+
+- Why-now spine — *customer shift*: HR directors now own a board-quarter retention KPI (was true on 30 % of ICP boards 24 months ago, now 70 %; verified via 14 ICP board-decks reviewed).
+- Why-us anchors — *earned access*: 200-strong HR-director community already engaged. *Earned proof*: cohort-retention curve at week-12 holding at 78 % across 9 design-partner cohorts. *Capital-fit*: round protects 18 months of distribution lead-time before two funded peers reach the same segment.
+- Traction arc — activation (time-to-first-cohort-roll-up: 14 → 6 days across last 4 cohorts) → retention (78 % week-12 cohort) → pipeline-velocity (qualified-pipeline movement at 2.4× quarter-on-quarter) → revenue (the receipt).
+- Round-failure premortem — top three failure modes neutralised in deck; one accepted-with-mitigation (we are pre-revenue at enterprise tier — mitigated by 3 named pilot LOIs).
+- Hand-off → founder for delivery; `messaging-architecture` queued for post-round refresh.

package/.agent-src/skills/funnel-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ status: active
 tier: senior
 source: package
 domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment, funnel-stage]
 ---
 
 # funnel-analysis
@@ -17,6 +18,29 @@ domain: product
 
 Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Skills). Funnel analysis is a **diagnostic**, not a roadmap.
 
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Paid is
+  lagging; activation is leading; signup is upstream of both. A
+  funnel decision built on the lagging stage can only confirm the
+  miss; the leading stage names the binding fix. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 16.
+- **Mental model 13 — Occam's razor.** When a stage drops, the
+  simpler explanation usually wins: *"acquisition mix shifted"*
+  beats *"users no longer understand the product."* Pick the simpler
+  cause; it changes the move. See `mental-models.md` § 13.
+- **Mental model 3 — Pareto (80/20).** Drops are almost never
+  uniform across segments; ~20 % of the segment × stage cells carry
+  ~80 % of the loss. Segment before treating the average as
+  actionable. See `mental-models.md` § 3.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment + funnel-stage.**
+  Read the **product** slot for what activation can actually mean
+  in-product (the activation event must be shippable), the
+  **customer-segment** slot for which segments' switch-events the
+  funnel is built for, and the **funnel-stage** slot for the
+  position of each stage relative to the buying journey. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
 ## Procedure
 
 ### Step 0: Inspect
@@ -40,7 +64,7 @@ Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Sk
 
 1. The right benchmark is **your own funnel one quarter ago**, not industry averages. Industry averages mix verticals so coarsely they're useless for action.
 2. For each stage: is current rate within ±2 percentage points of trailing-quarter median? If not, that stage is the primary suspect.
-3. If multiple stages drift simultaneously, the cause is upstream (acquisition mix change, broken instrumentation), not the stage itself.
+3. If multiple stages move off-band simultaneously, the cause is upstream (acquisition mix change, broken instrumentation), not the stage itself.
 
 ### Step 4: Segment the broken stage
 
@@ -98,4 +122,4 @@ Do NOT use for ranking features, valuation, or OKR decomposition (see Related Sk
 
 1. **`funnel-table.md`** — 5-stage funnel with cohort rates, 95% CI, and 12-week trend (sparkline or compact ASCII). One row per cohort week or month.
 2. **`segment-breakdown.md`** — table of the broken stage segmented by channel · device · plan · geo. Rates with CIs. Suspect segments highlighted.
-3. **`hypothesis-list.md`** — top 3 → for the broken segment-stage with cheapest-falsification experiment per cause and an explicit prediction for the next measurement.
+3. **`hypothesis-list.md`** — top 3 causes for the broken segment-stage with cheapest-falsification experiment per cause and an explicit prediction for the next measurement.

package/.agent-src/skills/gtm-launch/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+---
+name: gtm-launch
+description: "Use when sequencing a launch — alpha / beta / GA waves, audience-by-wave logic, narrative beats per wave, engineering-readiness gates. Triggers on 'plan the launch', 'sequence GA'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment, channel-stage]
+---
+
+# gtm-launch
+
+## When to use
+
+- A product, feature, or major capability is approaching ship-readiness and the team needs a wave plan (alpha → beta → GA) keyed to audience and proof, not a date on a calendar.
+- A launch is being planned date-first; the team needs to invert and plan readiness-first so an unmet gate stops a wave instead of leaking past it.
+- A previous launch landed soft and the retro names "no audience-by-wave logic" or "narrative beats unclear per wave" as the cause.
+
+Do NOT use to write announcement copy (route to `release-comms`),
+lock the message stack (route to `messaging-architecture`), or plan
+post-launch retention loops (route to `retention-loops`).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 10 — Reversible vs. irreversible decisions.** A GA
+  wave is largely irreversible: rolling back narrative and audience
+  expectations after public launch costs more than re-shipping the
+  product. Alpha and beta are reversible; treat them as the
+  decision-quality buffer. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 10.
+- **Mental model 29 — Premortem.** Before the wave plan locks, write
+  the post-mortem of the launch as if it failed. The premortem
+  surfaces the gates that need to hold; the wave plan is the inverse
+  of that list. See `mental-models.md` § 29.
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Engineering-
+  readiness signals (error rate, latency, support-load) are leading;
+  pipeline lift is lagging. A wave plan that gates on lagging signals
+  ships into a soft floor. See `mental-models.md` § 16.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment + channel-stage.**
+  Read the **product** slot for shippable scope, the
+  **customer-segment** slot for who hears the launch on which wave,
+  and the **channel-stage** slot for where each wave's audience lives
+  in the awareness → decision arc. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inherit the message stack
+
+Identify the locked `primary-message.md`, `supporting-proofs.md`, and
+`audience-matrix.md` from [`messaging-architecture`](../messaging-architecture/SKILL.md).
+If the stack is missing or unstable, stop and route back. A launch
+plan without a locked message stack ships three different stories at
+three different surfaces.
+
+### Step 1: Run the premortem
+
+Write the launch post-mortem **as if it has already failed**. Three
+prompts: *"what did the segment hear that we did not say,"* *"what
+broke in the first 48 hours,"* *"what did the alternative say first
+and louder."* The premortem produces the failure-mode list the wave
+plan must neutralise.
+
+### Step 2: Define the gates per wave
+
+For each wave (alpha · beta · GA), define **entry gates** and **exit
+gates**:
+
+- *Alpha entry:* engineering-readiness signal threshold (error rate,
+  latency, instrumentation coverage). *Exit:* < N support tickets
+  per 100 sessions on the load-bearing flow.
+- *Beta entry:* alpha exit + audience-matrix proof exists for the
+  beta audience. *Exit:* leading indicator (activation, time-to-
+  first-value) clears threshold per `mental-models.md § 16`.
+- *GA entry:* beta exit + narrative beats locked for the public
+  segment. *Exit:* not applicable — GA is irreversible; the next
+  wave is *post-launch retention*, handed to `retention-loops`.
+
+### Step 3: Sequence the audience waves
+
+Audience waves are not seniority waves. They are **proof waves**.
+Each wave's audience is whichever segment generates the proof the
+*next* wave needs. Order:
+
+1. *Alpha audience* — the segment where the team can sit next to
+   the user. Proof: load-bearing flow does not break under real use.
+2. *Beta audience* — the segment whose adoption is the credibility
+   anchor for GA. Proof: a quotable reference and an activation
+   curve.
+3. *GA audience* — the full ICP segment from the `customer-segment`
+   slot. Proof: pipeline lift, narrative pickup, retention curve.
+
+### Step 4: Assign narrative beats per wave
+
+Each wave gets a narrative beat — the **one** thing the audience
+remembers. Alpha beat = trust signal (we are not winging it). Beta
+beat = proof signal (it works for someone like you). GA beat = the
+primary message from `messaging-architecture` Step 1. Beats stack;
+they do not contradict.
+
+### Step 5: Validate the plan against the premortem
+
+Validate each premortem failure mode against the wave plan: verify a
+specific gate or beat neutralises it. Any failure mode without an
+explicit neutraliser is a known leak — name it, do not bury it.
+Validation passes only when every premortem item is either
+neutralised or accepted-with-mitigation.
+
+### Step 6: Hand back
+
+Hand the artefacts to [`release-comms`](../release-comms/SKILL.md)
+for announcement-surface drafting, to
+[`editorial-calendar`](../editorial-calendar/SKILL.md) for cadence
+mapping, and to [`launch-readiness`](../launch-readiness/SKILL.md)
+for the merge-day checklist.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- The unit of work is the wave plan (alpha · beta · GA) with gates and beats, not a single announcement.
+- A launch needs readiness-gated sequencing instead of calendar-driven sequencing.
+- The team can name the message stack but not which audience hears which beat in which wave.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Writing the announcement copy or press surface — route to [`release-comms`](../release-comms/SKILL.md).
+- Locking the primary message and proofs — route to [`messaging-architecture`](../messaging-architecture/SKILL.md).
+- Pre-merge ops checklist (rollout, rollback, monitoring) — route to [`launch-readiness`](../launch-readiness/SKILL.md).
+- Post-launch retention design — route to [`retention-loops`](../retention-loops/SKILL.md).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Plan the launch waves for the new pricing tier."
+- "Wir starten den GA — gib mir die Alpha-Beta-GA Sequenz."
+- "What are the entry gates for the beta wave?"
+- "Premortem the launch and rebuild the wave plan from the failure list."
+- "Sequence the audience waves around the proof we still need."
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`launch-premortem.md`** — three failure modes per prompt, ranked by carrying cost, each tagged with the wave that owns the neutraliser.
+2. **`wave-plan.md`** — three waves (alpha · beta · GA) with entry / exit gates, audience, leading-indicator threshold per wave.
+3. **`narrative-beats.md`** — one beat per wave (trust → proof → primary-message), with the line the team will not contradict on any surface during that wave.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- Calendar-driven launches confuse a date with a gate. A date does not signal readiness; a gate does. The wave plan must hold even if the date slips two weeks.
+- "Friends-and-family alpha" is alpha-shaped theatre — it produces the wrong proof for the next wave. Recruit an alpha audience that exposes the load-bearing flow.
+- A premortem that produces only three failure modes was rushed; push for ten and keep the load-bearing three.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT write the announcement copy here — copy lives in `release-comms` downstream of locked beats.
+- Do NOT collapse alpha and beta to save calendar time — alpha and beta produce different proofs.
+- Do NOT lock GA without an explicit retention-loops handoff; an unowned post-launch fortnight is where most launches soften.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market HR analytics tool launching workforce-analytics layer:
+
+- Premortem: (a) CFOs hear "another tool" not "retention saving"; (b) HRIS plug-in misconfigured under load; (c) reference customer quote not contractually approved by GA.
+- Wave plan — *Alpha:* 3 design-partner HR directors, gate = HRIS plug-in error-rate < 1 % under load. *Beta:* 10 HR leaders matching ICP, gate = activation curve hits 5 cohort-roll-ups per week. *GA:* full ICP segment, gate = quoted reference contractually approved.
+- Narrative beats — *Alpha:* "we sat next to you while it worked." *Beta:* "an HR director like you saved 7 hours last board-quarter." *GA:* primary message from `messaging-architecture` Step 1.
+- Hand-off → `release-comms` drafts the GA-wave surface; `retention-loops` owns the 30-day post-GA cohort.

package/.agent-src/skills/hiring-loop-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+---
+name: hiring-loop-design
+description: "Use when shaping an engineering hiring loop — stages, take-home vs live, calibration, bar-raiser, signal-vs-noise audit. Triggers on 'design our interview loop', 'audit our hiring bar'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: process
+context_spine: [org-stage, product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# hiring-loop-design
+
+## When to use
+
+- A first engineering hiring loop is being designed (early-stage co, first dedicated EM, first PM hire) and the question is *what stages, in what order, with what signal each*.
+- An existing loop is producing inconsistent outcomes (high false-positive rate, high false-negative rate, long time-to-hire) and the question is *which stage to fix*.
+- A new role family inside engineering is opening (first staff IC, first SRE, first ML eng) and the question is *what does the loop look like for this archetype*.
+
+Do NOT use this for non-engineering hiring as the primary surface (sales / GTM hiring is a different loop shape entirely), as a sourcing / recruiting-pipeline skill (separate surface area), or for applicant-tracking-system configuration.
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 1 — First principles.** Strip hiring to: *what signal does each stage produce that no other stage can produce?* Stages that duplicate signal waste candidate-time and interviewer-time. The strongest loops have one stage per signal, not five stages probing the same thing. See [`mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 1.
+- **Mental model 28 — Inversion.** *"What would make a great hire withdraw from this loop?"* — usually: 7+ stages, take-home > 6 hours, no role-context conversation, long calendar gaps, no senior-IC time, no offer-narrative. Inversion surfaces the canonical withdrawal causes; great candidates have options and use them.
+- **Mental model 21 — Second-order thinking.** A loose bar at L4 produces a chain: weaker L4 → harder L5 calibration → erodes ladder credibility → ICs leave. A single accept-the-no-vote ripples for 2+ years. The cost of a wrong hire dwarfs the cost of a missed hire; bar discipline is a multi-year compounding decision.
+- **Mental model — Base rates.** Most signals in interviews are noise; the most-confident signal-claim is usually the most-overfit to one observation. Calibrate against the base rate: *"out of 10 candidates who passed this stage with this signal, how many succeeded at 12 months?"* If unknown, the stage is unfalsifiable.
+- **Context-spine — org-stage + product + customer-segment.** Read **org-stage** for what's affordable (pre-seed: 3-stage loop, fast; growth: 5-stage with calibration; late: 5–6 with bar-raiser). Read **product** for what behaviors matter (deep-systems = system-design heavier; consumer = velocity + judgment heavier; regulated = ethics + judgment heavier). Read **customer-segment** for stakeholder-management exposure needed.
+
+## Cross-wing handoff
+
+- Composed downstream of Q1 `org-design` — the role-family shape determines the loop shape; hiring without a clear role definition is broken from stage 1.
+- Composed downstream of Q4 `perf-feedback-craft` — the calibration session is structurally a feedback exchange about a candidate; Q4's SBI + ladder-of-inference apply.
+- Hands off to Q3 `onboarding-program` — the loop's signal evidence becomes the day-1 ramp-evidence base.
+- Hands off to Q2 `comp-banding` for the offer construction step.
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Define the role-shape before designing the loop
+
+For the role being hired, name:
+
+1. **Level** — L3 / L4 / L5 / L6 / staff / principal. Levels matter because signal evidence changes per level (L4 needs strong execution signal; L6 needs leverage / system-design signal).
+2. **Archetype** — IC-builder / IC-strategist / IC-system-designer / manager / staff-multiplier. Same level, different archetype = different loop shape.
+3. **First-90-day deliverable** — what should this person ship by day 90. Concrete enough to design loop signals against.
+
+A loop designed without a role definition produces noise. Force the role definition step.
+
+### Step 1: Map signal needs to stages
+
+For the role from Step 0, enumerate the signals that need direct evidence:
+
+1. **Coding / craft** — for IC roles. Live coding, take-home, or pair-programming.
+2. **System design** — for L5+. Two-hour bounded-scope problem.
+3. **Domain judgment** — for senior roles. Behavioral case with context-specific tradeoffs.
+4. **Communication / stakeholder** — for any role. Cross-functional collaboration exercise.
+5. **Leadership / multiplier** *(L6+)* — narrative of past leverage, mentoring decisions, ladder reasoning.
+6. **Values fit** — explicitly NOT culture fit. Concrete questions about handling pressure / disagreement / failure.
+
+One signal per stage. If two stages probe the same signal, kill one.
+
+### Step 2: Pick the stage shape per signal
+
+For each signal, pick the lightest-touch stage that produces the signal cleanly:
+
+1. **Recruiter / role-context call** *(30 min)* — role + company + light values. NOT a screen.
+2. **Hiring-manager screen** *(45 min)* — judgment + role-fit + reverse-context. Required.
+3. **Coding signal** — choose: (a) take-home ≤ 3 hours with explicit time-cap (most candidate-respectful for senior); (b) live coding 60 min (for L3–L4, faster signal); (c) pair-programming 90 min (best signal but heavy on interviewer time).
+4. **System design** *(2 hours, L5+)* — bounded scope; rubric set in advance.
+5. **Behavioral / domain judgment** *(45–60 min)* — structured by signal area; SBI-anchored prompts.
+6. **Leadership / values** *(45–60 min)* — narratives + specific past-decision probes.
+7. **Bar-raiser / cross-team** *(45 min, L5+)* — perspective from outside the hiring team to check ladder consistency.
+
+Take-home > 6 hours = candidate-hostile and produces survivorship-biased pools (only those with no other options finish). Keep ≤ 3 hours or skip.
+
+### Step 3: Design the rubric per stage
+
+Each stage gets a written rubric before the first interview runs:
+
+1. **Signal target** — what behavior demonstrates the signal at this level.
+2. **Anti-signal** — what behavior fails the signal (named, not inferred).
+3. **Strong-no-hire / no-hire / hire / strong-hire** — four-band scoring, not 5-band (5-band collapses to "3" for everything).
+4. **Evidence anchor** — what the interviewer writes down to support the rating; rating without evidence = inadmissible.
+
+Loops without rubrics produce gut-feel hires and hidden bias. Force rubrics before the loop opens.
+
+### Step 4: Calibration session shape
+
+For every offer-eligible candidate, run a calibration session before sending offer:
+
+1. **All interviewers attend** — synchronous or async-with-deadline.
+2. **Evidence-first reading** — each interviewer reads their rubric + evidence aloud (or shares the doc) before opinions are stated.
+3. **Bar-raiser veto** *(L5+)* — bar-raiser can no-hire even when the team votes yes; reverse is not true (team can no-hire over bar-raiser yes).
+4. **Decision** — strong-hire if all four bands are hire-or-above, no single strong-no; gray-zone = no-hire by default (the cost of a wrong hire dwarfs the cost of a missed hire).
+
+A loop without calibration loosens; the bar erodes by 5% per quarter without explicit recalibration cycles.
+
+### Step 5: Validate the loop design before opening it
+
+Before running the first candidate through, inspect three things:
+
+1. **Signal-stage mapping check** — confirm Step 1's signals each map to exactly one stage from Step 2; duplicate-signal stages fail and must be merged or dropped.
+2. **Rubric completeness** — assert every stage in Step 3 has a written rubric with signal + anti-signal + four-band scoring + evidence anchor; missing rubrics fail.
+3. **Candidate-time check** — verify total candidate hours ≤ 8 (5 interview hours + 3 take-home); loops exceeding 8 hours produce survivorship bias and erode top-of-funnel.
+
+All three must pass. If any fails, return to the failing step.
+
+### Step 6: Emit the hiring-loop design
+
+Produce the loop-design artifact for the hiring team. The artifact contains the role-shape, the stage-signal map, the per-stage rubrics, the calibration shape, and the candidate-time budget. The first three candidates after the loop opens trigger a retrospective check (signal-vs-actual review).
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- New engineering role family being opened.
+- First-pass hiring loop design.
+- Audit of an existing loop with inconsistent outcomes.
+- Calibration / bar-raiser design.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Non-engineering hiring loops (GTM / sales / ops) — different loop shape; out of scope here.
+- Role / level decisions independent of hiring — route to [`comp-banding`](../comp-banding/SKILL.md) (Q2) for ladder design.
+- Feedback shape — route to [`perf-feedback-craft`](../perf-feedback-craft/SKILL.md) (Q4); S2 composes Q4 at the calibration session.
+- Onboarding after hire — route to [`onboarding-program`](../onboarding-program/SKILL.md) (Q3).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Design our interview loop."
+- "Audit our hiring bar."
+- "Should we use a take-home?"
+- "Why are we mis-hiring at L5?"
+- "Wie sieht unser Hiring-Loop für Staff Engineer aus?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`role-shape.md`** — level + archetype + first-90-day deliverable definition.
+2. **`stage-signal-map.md`** — signal-needed × stage × time-budget × interviewer pool.
+3. **`per-stage-rubrics.md`** — signal + anti-signal + four-band scoring + evidence anchor per stage.
+4. **`calibration-shape.md`** — session format + bar-raiser rules + gray-zone default.
+5. **`candidate-time-budget.md`** — total candidate hours + take-home cap + scheduling shape.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- "Culture fit" is a known bias-amplifier; use "values fit" with concrete questions about pressure / disagreement / failure.
+- Take-home longer than 3 hours = survivorship bias in your funnel; you get only those with no other options.
+- Loops that go above 5 onsite hours produce candidate withdrawal; great candidates have options.
+- A no-rubric loop produces "felt good in the room" hires that don't replicate.
+- Gray-zone calibration default must be no-hire; cost of false-positive dwarfs cost of false-negative.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT design a loop without a written role-shape; un-defined roles produce un-falsifiable signals.
+- Do NOT score on 5-band scales; everything collapses to "3" and the rubric becomes decorative.
+- Do NOT skip calibration on a "we all agree" basis; the disagreements are where the signal lives.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Series-B SaaS opens its first staff-IC role; current loop is L4-shaped (45-min coding + 60-min behavioral + offer) and last two staff-level offers churned at 9 months.
+
+- Step 0 — Role-shape: L6 staff IC, archetype = system-designer with multiplier impact. First-90-day deliverable: scope and own one cross-team platform initiative.
+- Step 1 — Signal needs: system design (L6 anchor), domain judgment, leadership / multiplier, coding sanity-check, values fit. Five signals.
+- Step 2 — Loop: recruiter call (30) + HM screen (45) + system design (120) + domain judgment behavioral (60) + leadership narrative (60) + bar-raiser (45) + light coding sanity-check (60). Total candidate time: 7 hours + 0 take-home = 7 hours. Within 8-hour budget.
+- Step 3 — Rubrics drafted per stage; system-design rubric anchored to "drove three nontrivial architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs" not "designed a great system".
+- Step 4 — Calibration: all 7 interviewers + bar-raiser; evidence-first; gray-zone defaults to no-hire; bar-raiser can veto.
+- Step 5 — Validate: signal-stage 1:1 mapping (no duplication); rubrics complete; 7 hours fits the 8-hour budget. Pass.
+- Step 6 — Emit loop; first three candidates trigger retrospective; review whether system-design rubric is calibrated to actual L6 staff behavior or diverging toward L5.