@forwardimpact/map 0.11.1 → 0.13.0

package/examples/questions/behaviours/precise_communication.yaml

@@ -1,248 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: comm_pro_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A product manager asks you to explain why a feature will take longer
-        than expected. They need to update the client by end of day.
-      context:
-        The delay is caused by an unexpected API limitation in a third-party
-        service. The PM has no technical background but is under pressure from
-        the client. You've been working on this for 2 days and just discovered
-        the blocker.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you explain the technical blocker to the PM?
-        - What information do they need vs what details can you leave out?
-        - How would you frame the timeline impact clearly?
-        - How would you write this up if they asked for a brief email summary?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Communicates basic technical concepts in accessible language
-        - Adapts level of detail for the audience
-        - Provides clear timeline impact without overwhelming with detail
-        - Shows willingness to communicate proactively
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: comm_pro_dev_1
-      text:
-        You need to write a specification for a feature that will be partially
-        implemented by an AI coding tool. The feature involves complex business
-        rules.
-      context:
-        The feature calculates tiered pricing based on customer segment, volume,
-        and contract terms. Previous attempts to use AI for similar features
-        resulted in subtle logic errors because the specs were ambiguous. Your
-        team relies on AI tools for ~40% of implementation.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you structure the specification to minimize ambiguity?
-        - What's the difference between a spec humans can follow and one AI can
-          follow?
-        - How would you verify the AI interpreted your spec correctly?
-        - Walk me through how you'd document one of the pricing rules
-      lookingFor:
-        - Writes clear specifications that reduce ambiguity
-        - Considers how AI tools parse requirements differently than humans
-        - Crafts effective prompts and specifications for AI consumption
-        - Adapts communication style for different audiences
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: comm_pro_pract_1
-      text:
-        You need to present a proposed architecture change to a room with the
-        CTO, product managers, and frontend engineers. Each group cares about
-        different aspects.
-      context:
-        The change migrates from a monolith to microservices for the payments
-        domain. The CTO cares about strategic alignment, PMs care about feature
-        velocity impact, and engineers care about implementation details. You
-        have 30 minutes and expect pushback from PMs about the 6-week
-        productivity dip.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you structure the presentation for this mixed audience?
-        - How do you translate between technical and business language?
-        - How do you handle questions from stakeholders with conflicting
-          priorities?
-        - How do you separate what needs deciding now vs what can be decided
-          later?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Separates concerns precisely for different audiences
-        - Translates between technical and business language fluently
-        - Facilitates productive discussion among stakeholders with competing
-          priorities
-        - Enables clear decisions by structuring information precisely
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: comm_pro_role_1
-      text:
-        Your function has recurring miscommunication between engineering and
-        product. Requirements are interpreted differently, leading to rework.
-      context:
-        In the last quarter, 3 major features needed significant rework due to
-        specification ambiguity. Engineers blame vague requirements. Product
-        managers blame engineers for not asking clarifying questions. You've
-        been asked to propose a better process. The function has 40 engineers
-        and 8 product managers.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - What's the root cause of the miscommunication pattern?
-        - What spec-driven practices would you introduce?
-        - How do you get buy-in from both engineering and product?
-        - How do you mentor others on precise communication without being
-          prescriptive?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates spec-driven development practices that reduce ambiguity
-        - Mentors others on precise communication across the function
-        - Bridges communication gaps between engineering and product
-        - Drives clarity as a core value, not just a process
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: comm_pro_exemp_1
-      text:
-        The organisation wants to adopt spec-driven AI development but has no
-        standards for how specifications should be written across teams.
-      context:
-        Teams use different formats, levels of detail, and terminology. AI tool
-        effectiveness varies wildly between teams. External clients are starting
-        to ask about the company's AI development methodology for compliance
-        purposes. You've been asked to lead the standardization effort.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you define organizational communication standards?
-        - How do you balance standardization with team autonomy?
-        - How would you represent this externally to clients and industry?
-        - How would you measure whether communication precision is improving?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shapes organizational standards for technical communication
-        - Defines spec-driven AI development practices at scale
-        - Represents the organization's approach externally with authority
-        - Creates standards that improve outcomes, not just compliance
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you handle teams that resist the standardization?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: comm_mgmt_emerg_1
-      text:
-        You notice that standup updates from your team are vague — "still
-        working on it" with no specifics. Sprint planning decisions are being
-        made on incomplete information.
-      context:
-        Your team of 6 engineers has been together for 3 months. Some members
-        are quiet and uncomfortable speaking in groups. Others give detailed
-        updates but talk for too long. The standups regularly run over 15
-        minutes.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you improve the quality of standup communication?
-        - How do you coach a quiet team member to share more effectively?
-        - How do you coach a verbose team member to be more concise?
-        - What structure or format would you introduce?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Identifies communication gaps affecting team effectiveness
-        - Coaches individuals on clear, concise communication
-        - Creates structures that support better communication
-        - Shows awareness of different communication styles
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: comm_mgmt_dev_1
-      text:
-        A team member's pull request descriptions are consistently unclear,
-        causing reviewers to misunderstand the intent and approve problematic
-        changes.
-      context:
-        Two bugs in the last month were traced back to PRs where the reviewer
-        didn't understand the full scope of the change. The team member is
-        technically strong but their written communication is ambiguous. Other
-        team members are reluctant to review their PRs.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you give feedback on their communication without undermining
-          their technical confidence?
-        - What would you suggest as a PR description standard?
-        - How do you make clear communication a team expectation, not just an
-          individual issue?
-        - How do you verify the coaching is working?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Provides constructive feedback on communication skills
-        - Sets clear communication expectations for the team
-        - Coaches without undermining technical confidence
-        - Makes communication quality a team norm
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: comm_mgmt_pract_1
-      text:
-        Your team needs to communicate a breaking API change to 5 consuming
-        teams. Past breaking changes caused friction because of poor
-        communication timing and unclear migration guides.
-      context:
-        The API change removes deprecated endpoints used by at least 3 teams.
-        Your team wants to ship in 4 weeks. Previous breaking changes led to
-        angry messages in Slack and escalations. You need to manage both the
-        technical communication and the stakeholder relationships.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you structure the communication plan?
-        - How do you help your team communicate effectively with each consuming
-          team?
-        - What communication standards would you establish for breaking changes?
-        - How do you handle a team that doesn't respond to the migration
-          timeline?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Establishes communication standards for high-impact changes
-        - Coaches team members on stakeholder communication
-        - Creates communication practices that become team norms
-        - Manages multi-stakeholder communication proactively
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: comm_mgmt_role_1
-      text:
-        Cross-functional meetings in your area are unproductive — engineers and
-        product managers talk past each other, decisions aren't captured, and
-        actions are unclear.
-      context:
-        You manage 3 teams and participate in weekly cross-functional meetings
-        with product, design, and engineering. The meetings often end without
-        clear decisions. Product managers feel engineers don't listen to
-        business context; engineers feel product doesn't understand technical
-        constraints.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you model precise communication in these meetings?
-        - What facilitation practices would you introduce?
-        - How do you establish shared language between engineering and product?
-        - How do you make your communication standards visible to peers?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Models precise communication in leadership settings
-        - Establishes facilitation practices that drive clarity
-        - Creates shared language across functions
-        - Drives communication as a core value, not just a skill
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: comm_mgmt_exemp_1
-      text:
-        You've been asked to develop strategic communication capabilities across
-        your organization to support AI-driven development practices.
-      context:
-        Your organization has 100+ engineers across 15 teams. AI tools are being
-        adopted but spec quality varies wildly. Customer-facing communication
-        about AI capabilities is inconsistent. The CEO wants the organization to
-        be known for communication excellence.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you develop strategic communication capabilities at scale?
-        - How do you handle communication breakdowns between teams as an
-          organizational pattern?
-        - How do you build communication excellence into hiring and development?
-        - How do you balance transparency with appropriate information
-          boundaries?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Develops organizational communication strategy
-        - Addresses communication patterns systemically, not individually
-        - Builds communication excellence into talent development
-        - Shows strategic judgment about communication at enterprise scale
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you measure communication effectiveness across the
-          organization?

package/examples/questions/behaviours/relentless_curiosity.yaml

@@ -1,248 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: cur_pro_emerg_1
-      text:
-        You've been assigned to fix a bug in a service you've never worked on.
-        The fix is straightforward but you don't understand why the code is
-        structured the way it is.
-      context:
-        The service handles payment reconciliation. The bug is a simple
-        off-by-one error in a date filter. The codebase uses patterns you
-        haven't seen before — event sourcing with a custom projection layer.
-        Your team lead said "just fix the bug and move on."
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - Would you just fix the bug or try to understand the broader system?
-        - What questions would you ask about the codebase?
-        - How would you decide how deep to go given you were told to move on?
-        - What would you do if you found something else that looked wrong while
-          investigating?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shows curiosity beyond the immediate task
-        - Asks meaningful questions about why, not just what
-        - Willing to explore unfamiliar territory
-        - Balances curiosity with practical delivery
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: cur_pro_dev_1
-      text:
-        Your team's CI pipeline takes 45 minutes. Everyone accepts it as normal.
-        You suspect it could be much faster but nobody has investigated.
-      context:
-        The pipeline runs unit tests, integration tests, and two rounds of
-        linting. It was set up 2 years ago and has been added to but never
-        optimized. When you mentioned it might be slow, a senior engineer said
-        "it's fine, we're used to it." You have no pipeline expertise.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you investigate this despite not being a CI expert?
-        - What would your first experiment be?
-        - How would you approach learning about pipeline optimization?
-        - How do you handle the pushback from the senior engineer who thinks
-          it's fine?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Investigates root causes independently
-        - Experiments with unfamiliar technology without fear of failure
-        - Seeks to understand how things work rather than accepting the status
-          quo
-        - Shows self-directed exploration patterns
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: cur_pro_pract_1
-      text:
-        A new AI coding tool claims to reduce development time by 50%. Your
-        company is considering adopting it but wants someone to evaluate it
-        thoroughly.
-      context:
-        The tool is a code generation agent that can handle entire user stories.
-        Marketing materials are impressive but vague on limitations. Your
-        company has 60 engineers. You've been given 2 weeks to evaluate it and
-        make a recommendation. No one on your team has used AI agents beyond
-        basic copilot tools.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you design your evaluation? What would you test?
-        - How do you separate marketing claims from reality?
-        - What failure modes would you specifically look for?
-        - How would you structure your findings to help the organization decide?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Systematic approach to investigating new technology
-        - Treats the evaluation as discovery, not confirmation
-        - Protects time for thorough exploration
-        - Discovers requirements through immersion in the problem space
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: cur_pro_role_1
-      text:
-        Your team consistently delivers features on time but rarely questions
-        whether they're building the right things. Product requirements are
-        accepted at face value.
-      context:
-        Over the last 6 months, 2 features were shipped and then unused because
-        the underlying assumptions were wrong. The team is highly skilled at
-        execution but doesn't push back on requirements or explore the problem
-        space. When you've asked "why are we building this?" in planning, you
-        get polite but empty answers.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you shift the team culture toward questioning and discovery?
-        - How do you model curiosity without slowing delivery?
-        - What specific practices would you introduce?
-        - How do you create safety for engineers to challenge assumptions?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Drives curiosity through challenging questions
-        - Creates environments where exploration is encouraged
-        - Models problem discovery orientation
-        - Seeks out ambiguity rather than avoiding it
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: cur_pro_exemp_1
-      text:
-        Your organization wants to become "AI-native" but most teams treat AI
-        tools as autocomplete. There's no culture of experimentation with new AI
-        capabilities.
-      context:
-        The company has 200+ engineers. AI tool licenses are available to
-        everyone but usage data shows 80% of usage is basic code completion.
-        Only 3 teams have experimented with AI agents. The CTO has asked you to
-        lead a transformation toward deeper AI integration. Budget is available
-        but cultural resistance is strong.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you create a culture of experimentation at organizational
-          scale?
-        - How do you sponsor initiatives that might fail?
-        - How do you influence engineers who are skeptical or intimidated by AI?
-        - How would you share learnings across 200+ engineers effectively?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shapes organizational culture around curiosity and learning
-        - Sponsors experimental initiatives across the organization
-        - Recognized as a thought leader in problem discovery
-        - Influences practices around innovation and exploration
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you measure whether the organization is becoming more
-          curious?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: cur_mgmt_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A team member asks if they can spend a day investigating a new database
-        technology. Your sprint is fully committed and you're behind by 2 story
-        points.
-      context:
-        The team member is your most productive engineer. The database
-        technology could solve a scaling problem you'll face in 3 months. You've
-        never managed competing priorities between exploration and delivery
-        before. Your manager tracks sprint velocity closely.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you decide whether to approve the exploration time?
-        - How would you frame this to your manager?
-        - What boundaries would you set on the exploration?
-        - How do you make this a learning opportunity regardless of the outcome?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Supports team learning and exploration
-        - Shows awareness of balancing curiosity with delivery
-        - Creates space for investigation even under pressure
-        - Treats learning as valuable, not wasteful
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: cur_mgmt_dev_1
-      text:
-        You notice your team only learns reactively — they pick up new skills
-        when forced by a project requirement but never explore proactively.
-      context:
-        The team of 7 engineers is competent and delivers well. But when a
-        project required Kubernetes knowledge, nobody had it and the team
-        scrambled. This has happened 3 times in the past year. Engineers say
-        they'd love to learn but "there's never time."
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you create structured opportunities for exploration?
-        - How do you make learning feel safe, not like extra work?
-        - What would you do if an exploration produces no tangible outcome?
-        - How do you balance your delivery commitments with learning time?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates time and space for exploration
-        - Balances delivery with learning proactively
-        - Encourages experimentation without fear of failure
-        - Makes curiosity part of the team's rhythm, not an exception
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: cur_mgmt_pract_1
-      text:
-        Two of your teams have different approaches to adopting new technology.
-        One team experiments constantly but ships slowly. The other never
-        experiments but delivers predictably.
-      context:
-        You manage both teams. The experimental team has found valuable
-        innovations but missed deadlines 3 times. The predictable team delivers
-        on time but their tech stack is becoming outdated. Leadership is
-        starting to question the experimental team's reliability.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you calibrate the right level of exploration for each team?
-        - What would you take from each team's culture to improve the other?
-        - How do you protect the experimental team from leadership pressure?
-        - How do you encourage the predictable team to question their
-          assumptions?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Builds team culture that values questioning assumptions
-        - Calibrates exploration against delivery needs
-        - Protects space for curiosity while maintaining accountability
-        - Creates sustainable patterns for experimentation
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: cur_mgmt_role_1
-      text:
-        Your engineering function is solving the same problems repeatedly across
-        teams because there's no culture of sharing discoveries or asking "has
-        anyone solved this before?"
-      context:
-        You lead 3 teams with 25 engineers total. In the last quarter, two teams
-        independently built similar caching solutions. Another team
-        re-investigated a technology that was evaluated and rejected 6 months
-        ago. Engineers are curious individually but there's no collective
-        curiosity.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you create collective curiosity, not just individual curiosity?
-        - What structures would you put in place for sharing discoveries?
-        - How do you model curiosity visibly as a leader?
-        - How do you make "has anyone solved this?" the first question, not the
-          last?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Models curiosity visibly in leadership
-        - Creates environments where discoveries are shared
-        - Builds collective inquiry practices
-        - Drives curiosity as a cultural value across teams
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: cur_mgmt_exemp_1
-      text:
-        The organization wants to launch an internal innovation program but
-        previous attempts failed because they felt disconnected from real work.
-      context:
-        Two previous "hack week" programs were cancelled after low
-        participation. Engineers felt the initiatives were performative — good
-        ideas went nowhere after the event. Leadership still believes in the
-        concept but wants a different approach. You've been asked to design
-        something that creates genuine, sustainable curiosity.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - Why did previous programs fail and how would yours be different?
-        - How do you build organizational systems that reward genuine curiosity?
-        - How do you ensure discoveries from the program feed back into real
-          work?
-        - How do you coach other managers to foster curiosity in their teams?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Builds organizational systems that reward curiosity
-        - Creates sustainable exploration programs, not performative ones
-        - Coaches other managers on fostering curiosity
-        - Balances predictable delivery with organizational learning
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How do you handle the inevitable pushback from delivery-focused
-          managers?