@forwardimpact/map 0.12.0 → 0.14.0

package/examples/questions/behaviours/systems_thinking.yaml

@@ -1,238 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: sys_pro_emerg_1
-      text:
-        You are asked to add a caching layer to a frequently called API
-        endpoint. The change seems straightforward but the endpoint is used by
-        three other services.
-      context:
-        The endpoint currently handles 500 requests per second. Two of the
-        consuming services expect real-time data, while the third can tolerate
-        staleness. Your team owns the endpoint but not the consuming services.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - What would you check before implementing the cache?
-        - How would you find out who depends on this endpoint?
-        - What could go wrong with adding caching here?
-        - How would you communicate the change to the other teams?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Considers immediate dependencies before making changes
-        - Recognizes that systems have interconnected parts
-        - Asks about downstream impact rather than assuming it's safe
-        - Shows basic cause-and-effect thinking
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: sys_pro_dev_1
-      text:
-        After deploying a database migration, response times on an unrelated
-        service have increased by 300%. There is no obvious connection between
-        the two.
-      context:
-        The migration added an index to a high-traffic table. The affected
-        service shares the same database cluster but uses different tables.
-        Monitoring shows increased lock contention during peak hours.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you investigate the connection between these two events?
-        - What tools would you use to trace the impact?
-        - How would you map the dependencies that led to this?
-        - What would you do to resolve it while the investigation continues?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Identifies upstream and downstream impacts methodically
-        - Uses observability tools to trace cross-service effects
-        - Maps dependencies before proposing a fix
-        - Understands feedback loops in shared infrastructure
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: sys_pro_pract_1
-      text:
-        Your team is proposing to replace a synchronous API with an event-driven
-        architecture. The change would affect 6 consuming services across 3
-        teams.
-      context:
-        The current API handles order processing. Moving to events would improve
-        throughput but change data consistency guarantees. Two of the consuming
-        services have SLAs that depend on synchronous confirmation. Business
-        stakeholders want the throughput improvement for peak season.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you map the full system impact of this architectural change?
-        - How do you handle the teams whose SLAs depend on synchronous
-          behaviour?
-        - What would your migration approach look like?
-        - How would you help business stakeholders understand the trade-offs?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Maps complex interactions across technical and business domains
-        - Anticipates cascading effects of architectural changes
-        - Designs migration that degrades gracefully during transition
-        - Understands how technology changes impact business operations
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: sys_pro_role_1
-      text:
-        A major outage was caused by a cascading failure across 4 services. The
-        post-mortem reveals that no single team understood the full dependency
-        chain.
-      context:
-        The cascade started with a memory leak in Service A, which caused
-        timeouts in Service B, which triggered retries that overwhelmed Service
-        C, which failed over incorrectly to Service D. Each team had local
-        monitoring but no one had end-to-end visibility. This is the second
-        cascading failure this quarter.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you lead the cross-team investigation?
-        - What systemic changes would you propose to prevent cascading failures?
-        - How would you create shared visibility across these teams?
-        - How do you make the case for investing in system-wide resilience?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shapes systems design practices across the function
-        - Bridges technical systems thinking with business process impact
-        - Creates clarity from complexity for multiple stakeholder groups
-        - Influences cross-team architecture decisions
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: sys_pro_exemp_1
-      text:
-        The organisation is scaling from 20 to 80 microservices. Complexity is
-        growing faster than the team's ability to reason about the system.
-      context:
-        Incident frequency has tripled in 6 months. Teams operate in silos with
-        no shared architectural principles. Executive leadership is concerned
-        about reliability but doesn't want to slow feature delivery. You've been
-        asked to define the systems architecture strategy.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you define organizational systems architecture principles?
-        - How do you balance team autonomy with system-wide coherence?
-        - How would you advise executive leadership on the systemic risks?
-        - What governance structures would you put in place?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Defines organizational systems architecture principles
-        - Advises executive leadership on systemic risks and opportunities
-        - Creates frameworks that scale with organizational growth
-        - Takes an approach recognized as industry-leading
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you measure whether systems thinking is improving?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: sys_mgmt_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A team member made a change to your service that broke a downstream
-        consumer. They didn't realize the dependency existed.
-      context:
-        The downstream team is upset and your team member feels terrible. The
-        dependency wasn't documented and there's no integration test covering
-        it. Your team has 6 members, most of whom are unfamiliar with the
-        broader system context.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you help the team member understand what happened?
-        - What do you say to the downstream team?
-        - How do you help your team understand the broader system context?
-        - What would you put in place to prevent similar blind spots?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Helps team members see how their work fits the broader system
-        - Creates context awareness without blame
-        - Shows basic understanding of system dependencies
-        - Takes steps to improve visibility
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: sys_mgmt_dev_1
-      text:
-        Your team is about to ship a major refactor. Another team's manager
-        warns you it might affect their service, but your team can't see how.
-      context:
-        The refactor changes internal data structures but the API contract
-        should remain the same. The other team's concern is based on past
-        experience where "internal changes" leaked through. You need to decide
-        whether to delay the release to investigate.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you assess the risk the other manager is raising?
-        - How do you help your team think about second-order effects?
-        - What would you do if your team disagrees with the delay?
-        - How do you build a collaborative relationship with the other team?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Teaches team to think about downstream impacts
-        - Takes cross-team concerns seriously even without proof
-        - Facilitates systems thinking in planning decisions
-        - Builds collaborative relationships across team boundaries
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: sys_mgmt_pract_1
-      text:
-        Your team needs to plan a quarter of work but keeps getting interrupted
-        by production issues caused by other teams' changes affecting your
-        service.
-      context:
-        Your service is a critical dependency for 5 other teams. In the last
-        quarter, 40% of your team's time was spent on reactive work caused by
-        upstream changes. Your team is frustrated and wants to "build a wall"
-        with strict API contracts.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you structure your team's work to account for cross-system
-          dependencies?
-        - How would you work with the other teams rather than building walls?
-        - What systemic improvements would you propose?
-        - How do you protect your team while maintaining collaborative system
-          stewardship?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Embeds systems thinking into team planning processes
-        - Coordinates cross-team to address systemic issues
-        - Balances team protection with broader system health
-        - Proposes structural improvements, not just coping mechanisms
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: sys_mgmt_role_1
-      text:
-        You want to invest in chaos engineering but your leadership sees it as
-        unnecessary risk. Meanwhile, cascading failures are becoming more
-        frequent.
-      context:
-        Your function has had 5 cascading failures in 6 months. Each post-mortem
-        identifies systemic issues but fixes are always local. Leadership wants
-        predictable delivery and sees intentional failure injection as
-        dangerous. You manage 3 teams that own core platform services.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you make the case for chaos engineering to sceptical
-          leadership?
-        - How would you implement it safely to build confidence?
-        - How do you develop systems thinking capabilities across your teams?
-        - What metrics would you use to demonstrate value?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Models systems thinking in leadership decisions
-        - Develops team capabilities for understanding complex systems
-        - Makes reasoning visible and transparent to stakeholders
-        - Proposes incremental approaches that build trust
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: sys_mgmt_exemp_1
-      text:
-        You are leading an organizational initiative to improve system
-        reliability, but teams have no shared language or practices for systems
-        thinking.
-      context:
-        You are responsible for a function of 50+ engineers across 8 teams.
-        Incident reviews reveal that most outages are caused by teams not
-        understanding cross-system impacts. There is no architectural governance
-        and teams have conflicting approaches to resilience.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you create organizational structures that promote systems
-          thinking?
-        - How do you balance local team optimization with broader system health?
-        - How do you develop a shared language for discussing system complexity?
-        - How do you handle complexity that spans multiple team boundaries?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates organizational structures for systems thinking
-        - Balances local and global optimization at scale
-        - Builds shared understanding of system complexity
-        - Takes a strategic, long-term approach to systemic improvement
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you know if systems thinking maturity is improving?

package/examples/questions/capabilities/business.yaml

@@ -1,107 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/capability-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: biz_pro_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        The product team wants to add a feature that will increase revenue but
-        requires significant technical investment. How would you evaluate this?
-      context:
-        The feature is an AI-powered recommendation engine. Product estimates
-        15% revenue increase. Your team estimates 4 months of work and ongoing
-        maintenance costs.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What questions would you ask the product team?
-        - How would you break down the technical cost assessment?
-        - What factors would influence your recommendation?
-        - How would you present your analysis to stakeholders?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Balances business value against technical cost
-        - Considers ongoing maintenance and operational complexity
-        - Asks about success metrics and measurement approach
-        - Thinks about alternatives and build vs buy decisions
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if the CEO strongly favors this feature but your analysis
-          suggests otherwise?
-        - How would you handle if the revenue estimate turned out to be
-          optimistic?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: biz_pro_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your company is considering entering a new market that requires
-        different compliance requirements. How would you approach the technical
-        evaluation?
-      context:
-        The new market is healthcare (HIPAA compliance). Current systems handle
-        financial data but were not designed for healthcare. Leadership wants a
-        go/no-go decision in 4 weeks.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What stakeholders need to be involved in this assessment?
-        - How would you structure the technical gap analysis?
-        - What are the key decision points you need to surface?
-        - How would you communicate risk and uncertainty to leadership?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Identifies compliance, security, and data handling as separate
-          workstreams
-        - Involves legal, security, and product stakeholders appropriately
-        - Creates structured assessment with clear criteria
-        - Communicates uncertainty and risk levels clearly
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What would change if you had 3 months instead of 4 weeks?
-        - How would you handle if different stakeholders had conflicting
-          priorities?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: biz_mgmt_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your engineering organization needs to reduce costs by 20% while
-        maintaining delivery commitments. How would you approach this?
-      context:
-        Budget constraints require significant cost reduction. You manage 3
-        teams with 18 engineers total. Current commitments include two major
-        product launches in the next quarter.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you identify cost reduction opportunities?
-        - How would you prioritize cuts while protecting critical work?
-        - How would you communicate changes to your teams?
-        - How would you ensure commitments are still achievable?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Analyzes costs systematically (infrastructure, tooling, headcount)
-        - Protects high-value work while cutting low-impact activities
-        - Communicates transparently with teams about constraints
-        - Renegotiates scope or timelines where necessary
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if leadership insists on no headcount changes but still needs 20%
-          savings?
-        - How would you handle if key team members leave due to uncertainty?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: biz_mgmt_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        The board is considering a major acquisition that would double your
-        engineering organization. How would you evaluate the technical due
-        diligence and integration plan?
-      context:
-        The target company has 100 engineers, different tech stack, and
-        overlapping product lines. You have 6 weeks for due diligence and need
-        to present integration risks and synergies to the board.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What technical areas would you prioritize in due diligence?
-        - How would you assess organizational and cultural compatibility?
-        - What integration models would you consider?
-        - How would you quantify risks and synergies for the board?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Evaluates architecture, tech debt, and platform compatibility
-        - Assesses talent retention risk and cultural differences
-        - Proposes realistic integration timeline and approach
-        - Presents findings with clear decision criteria for leadership
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if the acquisition goes through despite your concerns?
-        - How would you handle if the target's best engineers leave
-          post-acquisition?

package/examples/questions/capabilities/delivery.yaml

@@ -1,101 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/capability-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: del_pro_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        A new client needs a dashboard that shows real-time analytics for their
-        e-commerce platform. Walk me through how you would approach this.
-      context:
-        The client has 50,000 daily active users, uses PostgreSQL for their main
-        database, and wants the dashboard within 6 weeks.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What information would you need to gather first?
-        - How would you break down the technical implementation?
-        - What are the biggest risks and how would you mitigate them?
-        - How would AI tools change your approach to building this faster?
-        - How would you prioritize if you had only 3 weeks instead?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Asks clarifying questions about requirements before diving in
-        - Identifies data pipeline, storage, and visualization as separate
-          concerns
-        - Considers real-time vs near-real-time trade-offs
-        - Thinks about scalability and performance constraints
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What would you do differently if their data was in 5 different
-          systems?
-        - How would you handle if a key team member left mid-project?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: del_pro_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your team needs to migrate a critical monolith to microservices while
-        keeping the system running. How would you approach this?
-      context:
-        The monolith handles payment processing, has 99.99% uptime requirements,
-        and the team has 8 engineers.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you decide what to extract first?
-        - What's your strategy for maintaining reliability during the migration?
-        - How would you structure the team's work?
-        - What would success look like at each phase?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Proposes strangler fig or similar incremental approach
-        - Identifies domain boundaries as extraction points
-        - Plans for rollback and feature flags
-        - Considers team coordination and parallel workstreams
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - How would you handle if stakeholders wanted everything migrated in 6
-          months?
-        - What metrics would you track to know the migration is succeeding?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: del_mgmt_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        A critical project is at risk of missing its deadline, and stakeholders
-        are escalating. How would you assess and address the situation?
-      context:
-        The project was planned for 8 weeks but is now in week 6 with 40% of
-        scope remaining. The team of 5 engineers reports blockers from another
-        team. The business committed the date to a major customer.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you assess the true state of the project?
-        - What options would you present to stakeholders?
-        - How would you protect the team while managing expectations?
-        - How would you prevent this situation in future projects?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Gets accurate assessment from team without blame
-        - Presents realistic options with trade-offs (scope, time, resources)
-        - Manages stakeholder expectations transparently
-        - Addresses systemic issues (estimation, dependencies, communication)
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if leadership insists the original date cannot move?
-        - How would you handle if the blocking team is unresponsive?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: del_mgmt_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        You're responsible for coordinating a major platform initiative across 4
-        engineering teams. How would you structure the delivery?
-      context:
-        The initiative is a 12-month platform modernization affecting all
-        products. Teams have different managers, priorities, and technical
-        preferences. Executive sponsorship is strong but teams are skeptical.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you establish alignment across teams?
-        - What governance and coordination mechanisms would you put in place?
-        - How would you handle competing priorities between teams?
-        - How would you track and communicate progress to executives?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates clear roles, responsibilities, and decision rights
-        - Establishes lightweight coordination that doesn't slow teams
-        - Manages dependencies and resolves conflicts across teams
-        - Provides executive visibility without micromanagement
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if one team's manager disagrees with the overall approach?
-        - How would you handle if the initiative loses executive sponsorship?

package/examples/questions/capabilities/people.yaml

@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/capability-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: ppl_pro_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        A new engineer is joining your team next month who has strong skills but
-        no experience in your tech stack. How would you plan their onboarding?
-      context:
-        They're a senior engineer from a Java/Spring background joining a
-        TypeScript/Node.js team. Your team has 5 members and is mid-sprint on a
-        critical project.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What would the first week look like vs the first month?
-        - How would you balance their learning with team productivity?
-        - How would AI tools accelerate their ramp-up on the new stack?
-        - What pairing or mentoring structure would you set up?
-        - How would you measure whether onboarding is successful?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Structures onboarding in phases with clear milestones
-        - Considers both technical skills and team integration
-        - Protects team delivery while investing in new member
-        - Plans for feedback loops and adjustment
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if they were struggling after 3 weeks?
-        - How would you handle if existing team members felt burdened?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: ppl_pro_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Two senior engineers on your team have conflicting views on the
-        technical direction. This is affecting team morale and velocity. How do
-        you address it?
-      context:
-        One wants to adopt a new framework for better developer experience. The
-        other wants to stick with the current stack for stability. Both are high
-        performers you want to retain.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you understand the root cause of the conflict?
-        - What process would you use to reach a decision?
-        - How would you maintain both engineers' engagement regardless of
-          outcome?
-        - What would you do if the conflict persists after a decision?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Separates technical disagreement from interpersonal conflict
-        - Creates structured decision-making process
-        - Ensures both parties feel heard and respected
-        - Plans for ongoing relationship management
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if one engineer threatens to leave if their approach isn't
-          chosen?
-        - How would you handle if this pattern repeats with the same
-          individuals?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: ppl_mgmt_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        One of your team members is consistently underperforming despite
-        multiple feedback conversations. How would you handle this situation?
-      context:
-        The engineer has been on the team for 8 months. They meet basic
-        expectations but are not growing. Peers are frustrated with carrying
-        extra load. You've had 3 feedback conversations with limited
-        improvement.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you assess whether this is a skill, will, or fit issue?
-        - What performance improvement approach would you take?
-        - How would you manage the impact on the rest of the team?
-        - What decision criteria would you use for next steps?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Diagnoses root cause before choosing intervention
-        - Creates clear, measurable improvement plan with timeline
-        - Manages team dynamics while addressing individual performance
-        - Prepares for multiple outcomes including separation
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if the engineer claims the expectations are unfair?
-        - How would you handle if the team wants you to act faster?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: ppl_mgmt_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        You need to grow your engineering organization from 25 to 50 engineers
-        over the next year. How would you approach this scaling challenge?
-      context:
-        The company has secured Series B funding. Current team is strong but has
-        no formal career ladders or management structure. You're the only
-        engineering manager reporting to the CTO.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you structure the hiring plan and timeline?
-        - What organizational structure would you build?
-        - How would you develop management capacity?
-        - How would you preserve culture while scaling?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates phased hiring plan with clear milestones
-        - Designs org structure that scales (spans of control, team topology)
-        - Develops managers from within and hires experienced managers
-        - Explicitly addresses culture preservation and evolution
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if you can't find enough quality candidates?
-        - How would you handle if existing senior ICs don't want to become
-          managers?

package/examples/questions/capabilities/reliability.yaml

@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/capability-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: rel_pro_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your service experienced three outages in the past month, each from
-        different root causes. How would you approach improving reliability?
-      context:
-        The outages were caused by database connection exhaustion, a failed
-        deployment, and an upstream dependency timeout. SLO is 99.9% and you're
-        currently at 99.5%.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you categorize and analyze these incidents?
-        - What systematic improvements would you prioritize?
-        - How would you balance reliability investment with feature work?
-        - What would success look like 3 months from now?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Looks for patterns across incidents rather than treating in isolation
-        - Proposes both reactive fixes and proactive improvements
-        - Creates measurable reliability targets
-        - Considers observability and early warning systems
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if leadership is pressuring for more features over reliability
-          work?
-        - How would you structure the team's on-call rotation going forward?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: rel_pro_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        You're designing the disaster recovery strategy for a system that
-        processes customer financial transactions. Walk me through your
-        approach.
-      context:
-        The system handles $10M in daily transactions, uses AWS in us-east-1,
-        and currently has no cross-region capability. Budget for DR is $50K
-        annual.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - What are the key requirements you need to establish first?
-        - How would you structure the technical options analysis?
-        - What trade-offs would you present to stakeholders?
-        - How would you test and validate the DR plan?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Defines RTO/RPO requirements with business stakeholders
-        - Evaluates active-active vs active-passive vs pilot light approaches
-        - Balances cost against recovery capabilities
-        - Plans for regular testing and runbook maintenance
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What would you do if a regional outage happened before DR was
-          complete?
-        - How would you handle if the $50K budget was cut in half?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  working:
-    - id: rel_mgmt_work_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your on-call engineers are burning out due to frequent pages and
-        incident response. How would you improve the situation?
-      context:
-        The team is paged an average of 5 times per week outside business hours.
-        Two engineers have asked to leave on-call rotation. Incident response
-        often requires escalation because documentation is lacking.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you analyze the current on-call burden?
-        - What changes to the on-call structure would you consider?
-        - How would you reduce incident frequency and impact?
-        - How would you sustain these improvements over time?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Analyzes incidents to identify patterns and preventable pages
-        - Considers rotation structure, compensation, and workload distribution
-        - Invests in runbooks, automation, and self-healing
-        - Creates sustainable practices rather than short-term fixes
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if leadership says there's no budget for additional on-call
-          support?
-        - How would you handle if the most experienced engineers refuse on-call?
-
-  practitioner:
-    - id: rel_mgmt_pract_decomp_1
-      text:
-        Your organization has grown to 20 services owned by different teams but
-        has no consistent approach to reliability. How would you establish
-        reliability practices at scale?
-      context:
-        Some teams have mature SLOs and incident response, others don't. Recent
-        cross-team incidents took too long to resolve due to unclear ownership.
-        Leadership wants to improve reliability organization-wide.
-      decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you assess current reliability maturity across teams?
-        - What standards and practices would you establish?
-        - How would you drive adoption across teams with different contexts?
-        - How would you coordinate reliability during cross-team incidents?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates maturity model to meet teams where they are
-        - Establishes minimum standards while allowing team flexibility
-        - Provides enablement (tooling, templates) alongside requirements
-        - Defines clear escalation and coordination for cross-team issues
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 15
-      followUps:
-        - What if teams resist reliability requirements as overhead?
-        - How would you handle if different teams have conflicting SLO
-          definitions?