@forwardimpact/schema 0.3.0 → 0.6.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (46) hide show
  1. package/bin/fit-schema.js +2 -2
  2. package/examples/capabilities/business.yaml +1 -1
  3. package/examples/capabilities/delivery.yaml +9 -7
  4. package/examples/capabilities/people.yaml +1 -1
  5. package/examples/capabilities/reliability.yaml +32 -11
  6. package/examples/capabilities/scale.yaml +1 -1
  7. package/examples/framework.yaml +1 -1
  8. package/examples/questions/behaviours/outcome_ownership.yaml +226 -49
  9. package/examples/questions/behaviours/polymathic_knowledge.yaml +273 -45
  10. package/examples/questions/behaviours/precise_communication.yaml +246 -52
  11. package/examples/questions/behaviours/relentless_curiosity.yaml +246 -48
  12. package/examples/questions/behaviours/systems_thinking.yaml +236 -50
  13. package/examples/questions/capabilities/business.yaml +107 -0
  14. package/examples/questions/capabilities/delivery.yaml +104 -0
  15. package/examples/questions/capabilities/people.yaml +104 -0
  16. package/examples/questions/capabilities/reliability.yaml +103 -0
  17. package/examples/questions/capabilities/scale.yaml +103 -0
  18. package/examples/questions/skills/architecture_design.yaml +102 -51
  19. package/examples/questions/skills/cloud_platforms.yaml +90 -44
  20. package/examples/questions/skills/code_quality.yaml +86 -45
  21. package/examples/questions/skills/data_modeling.yaml +93 -43
  22. package/examples/questions/skills/devops.yaml +91 -44
  23. package/examples/questions/skills/full_stack_development.yaml +93 -45
  24. package/examples/questions/skills/sre_practices.yaml +92 -41
  25. package/examples/questions/skills/stakeholder_management.yaml +97 -46
  26. package/examples/questions/skills/team_collaboration.yaml +87 -40
  27. package/examples/questions/skills/technical_writing.yaml +89 -40
  28. package/examples/stages.yaml +6 -0
  29. package/package.json +9 -9
  30. package/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json +53 -26
  31. package/schema/json/capability-questions.schema.json +95 -0
  32. package/schema/json/capability.schema.json +3 -3
  33. package/schema/json/skill-questions.schema.json +34 -19
  34. package/schema/json/stages.schema.json +5 -1
  35. package/schema/rdf/behaviour-questions.ttl +39 -7
  36. package/schema/rdf/capability.ttl +5 -5
  37. package/schema/rdf/defs.ttl +3 -3
  38. package/schema/rdf/skill-questions.ttl +28 -1
  39. package/schema/rdf/stages.ttl +27 -3
  40. package/{lib → src}/levels.js +37 -80
  41. package/{lib → src}/loader.js +9 -5
  42. package/{lib → src}/modifiers.js +3 -3
  43. package/{lib → src}/validation.js +74 -37
  44. /package/{lib → src}/index-generator.js +0 -0
  45. /package/{lib → src}/index.js +0 -0
  46. /package/{lib → src}/schema-validation.js +0 -0
@@ -1,47 +1,275 @@
1
1
  # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
2
2
 
3
- emerging:
4
- - id: poly_emerg_1
5
- text: What interests do you have outside your primary technical domain?
6
- lookingFor:
7
- - Breadth of interests
8
- - Cross-disciplinary awareness
9
- expectedDurationMinutes: 5
10
- developing:
11
- - id: poly_dev_1
12
- text: Describe a time when knowledge from one area helped you in another.
13
- lookingFor:
14
- - Cross-domain application
15
- - Creative problem solving
16
- expectedDurationMinutes: 5
17
- practicing:
18
- - id: poly_pract_1
19
- text: How do you approach problems that span multiple disciplines?
20
- lookingFor:
21
- - Integration of knowledge
22
- - Holistic thinking
23
- expectedDurationMinutes: 8
24
- role_modeling:
25
- - id: poly_role_1
26
- text: How do you encourage cross-disciplinary learning in your organization?
27
- lookingFor:
28
- - Creating learning opportunities
29
- - Breaking down silos
30
- expectedDurationMinutes: 8
31
- exemplifying:
32
- - id: poly_exemp_1
33
- text: How do you build and promote polymathic culture across an enterprise?
34
- followUps:
35
- - How do you break down organizational silos?
36
- lookingFor:
37
- - Enterprise cross-disciplinary leadership
38
- - Silo breaking at scale
39
- expectedDurationMinutes: 10
40
- - id: poly_exemp_2
41
- text:
42
- How do you personally maintain breadth across multiple domains while
43
- achieving depth? How do you model this for others?
44
- lookingFor:
45
- - Personal polymathic practice
46
- - Modeling breadth and depth balance
47
- expectedDurationMinutes: 10
3
+ professionalQuestions:
4
+ emerging:
5
+ - id: poly_pro_emerg_1
6
+ text:
7
+ You're building a feature for a pharmaceutical client's clinical trial
8
+ management system. The PM hands you a spec full of domain terms you
9
+ don't understand.
10
+ context:
11
+ The feature tracks "adverse event reporting" with specific regulatory
12
+ timelines. The spec references ICH E2B guidelines, MedDRA coding, and
13
+ CIOMS forms. Your team has no pharma domain experts. The client expects
14
+ the first deliverable in 2 weeks and will review your data model.
15
+ simulationPrompts:
16
+ - How would you approach learning enough about this domain to build
17
+ effectively?
18
+ - What's the difference between blindly implementing the spec vs
19
+ understanding the domain?
20
+ - How would you know if you've learned enough to start building?
21
+ - What questions would you ask the client in your first meeting?
22
+ lookingFor:
23
+ - Recognizes that problems benefit from cross-disciplinary understanding
24
+ - Shows interest in domains beyond immediate technical requirements
25
+ - Asks questions that reveal genuine curiosity about the domain
26
+ - Willing to invest in learning unfamiliar territory
27
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
28
+
29
+ developing:
30
+ - id: poly_pro_dev_1
31
+ text:
32
+ Your team is building a recommendation engine. You have strong backend
33
+ skills but the UX designer keeps talking about cognitive load and
34
+ decision fatigue. You don't understand their concerns.
35
+ context:
36
+ The recommendation engine shows 50 product suggestions. The UX designer
37
+ insists this will paralyze users, citing the "paradox of choice." The PM
38
+ sides with engineering more recommendations means more sales. The
39
+ designer is frustrated that nobody understands their perspective.
40
+ simulationPrompts:
41
+ - How would you bridge the gap between the engineering and design
42
+ perspectives?
43
+ - What would you do to understand the UX designer's concerns more
44
+ deeply?
45
+ - How would knowledge of behavioral psychology change your technical
46
+ approach?
47
+ - How do you apply insights from one domain to inform decisions in
48
+ another?
49
+ lookingFor:
50
+ - Applies knowledge from one domain to inform decisions in another
51
+ - Studies adjacent fields to broaden perspective
52
+ - Begins learning the language of other disciplines
53
+ - Sees connections between technical implementation and human behavior
54
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
55
+
56
+ practicing:
57
+ - id: poly_pro_pract_1
58
+ text:
59
+ Your company is deciding between building vs buying a supply chain
60
+ optimization tool. Engineering says build, finance says buy, operations
61
+ says neither option fits their workflow.
62
+ context:
63
+ The build option would take 6 months and give full customization. The
64
+ buy option costs £200K/year but is available immediately. Operations has
65
+ unique workflows around cold chain management for biologics that neither
66
+ option handles well. You've been asked to lead the evaluation because
67
+ you understand both the technical and business sides.
68
+ simulationPrompts:
69
+ - How do you evaluate this spanning engineering, finance, and operations
70
+ perspectives?
71
+ - How do you speak the language of each stakeholder group?
72
+ - What insights from the operations domain would change the technical
73
+ approach?
74
+ - How do you synthesize cross-disciplinary concerns into a coherent
75
+ recommendation?
76
+ lookingFor:
77
+ - Bridges gaps between engineering, business, and domain expertise
78
+ - Rapidly immerses in new domains to make informed decisions
79
+ - Speaks the language of different stakeholder groups
80
+ - Makes better decisions by understanding broader context
81
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
82
+
83
+ role_modeling:
84
+ - id: poly_pro_role_1
85
+ text:
86
+ Your engineering team builds great software but consistently
87
+ misunderstands the commercial context. Features are technically
88
+ excellent but miss what customers actually need.
89
+ context:
90
+ In the last year, 3 features were technically impressive but
91
+ commercially unsuccessful. Engineers don't attend customer calls or read
92
+ commercial reports. The sales team has stopped asking engineering for
93
+ input on product direction. You see a growing disconnect between what
94
+ engineers think is important and what drives business value.
95
+ simulationPrompts:
96
+ - How do you get engineers to think like business insiders?
97
+ - What cross-disciplinary practices would you champion?
98
+ - How do you translate specialized engineering knowledge into business
99
+ language?
100
+ - How do you create holistic solutions spanning technical and business
101
+ domains?
102
+ lookingFor:
103
+ - Champions cross-disciplinary learning across the function
104
+ - Creates holistic solutions spanning technical and business domains
105
+ - Translates specialized knowledge into accessible explanations
106
+ - Thinks like a business insider, not just an engineer
107
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
108
+
109
+ exemplifying:
110
+ - id: poly_pro_exemp_1
111
+ text:
112
+ Your organization wants to create a new role — "Technical Domain Expert"
113
+ — that bridges engineering and the pharmaceutical business. Nobody
114
+ agrees on what this role should look like.
115
+ context:
116
+ The company builds software for pharma R&D. Engineers lack domain
117
+ knowledge; domain experts lack technical depth. Projects routinely fail
118
+ at the intersection. The CEO wants engineers who can "think like
119
+ scientists." You've been asked to define the role, the hiring criteria,
120
+ and the development path.
121
+ simulationPrompts:
122
+ - How would you define this role drawing from your polymathic
123
+ experience?
124
+ - How do you build a development path that creates genuine breadth, not
125
+ surface knowledge?
126
+ - How would you influence industry thinking about cross-disciplinary
127
+ engineering roles?
128
+ - What organizational structures would you create to sustain polymathic
129
+ growth?
130
+ lookingFor:
131
+ - Shapes organizational learning strategy across disciplines
132
+ - Advises leadership on cross-functional strategy
133
+ - Influences industry practices around polymathic engineering
134
+ - Recognized as a thought leader bridging technology and business
135
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
136
+ followUps:
137
+ - How would you assess whether someone is genuinely polymathic vs
138
+ superficially broad?
139
+
140
+ managementQuestions:
141
+ emerging:
142
+ - id: poly_mgmt_emerg_1
143
+ text:
144
+ A team member wants to attend a 2-day workshop on pharmaceutical
145
+ regulatory processes. It's not directly related to their current project
146
+ work.
147
+ context:
148
+ The workshop covers FDA submission processes and GxP compliance. Your
149
+ team builds internal tools, not regulatory software. The team member
150
+ says "I want to understand what our company actually does." The workshop
151
+ conflicts with a sprint commitment. Your manager values predictable
152
+ delivery.
153
+ simulationPrompts:
154
+ - How do you evaluate the value of cross-domain learning for this team
155
+ member?
156
+ - How would you justify this to your manager?
157
+ - What would make you say yes vs no?
158
+ - How do you create a culture where this kind of exploration is
159
+ encouraged?
160
+ lookingFor:
161
+ - Supports cross-disciplinary learning even when not immediately
162
+ relevant
163
+ - Recognizes the long-term value of domain breadth
164
+ - Encourages team members to explore beyond their specialization
165
+ - Balances learning investment with delivery commitments
166
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
167
+
168
+ developing:
169
+ - id: poly_mgmt_dev_1
170
+ text:
171
+ Your team of infrastructure engineers struggles to understand why the
172
+ product team makes certain decisions. They build technically sound
173
+ solutions that don't align with product goals.
174
+ context:
175
+ Recent example — the team over-engineered a caching layer for a feature
176
+ that product planned to deprecate in 3 months. Engineers didn't know
177
+ about the deprecation because they don't attend product planning.
178
+ They've asked "why should we care about product strategy?"
179
+ simulationPrompts:
180
+ - How would you create opportunities for your team to learn from the
181
+ product domain?
182
+ - How do you make cross-domain knowledge feel valuable, not like extra
183
+ work?
184
+ - What specific practices would you introduce?
185
+ - How do you handle engineers who resist learning beyond their technical
186
+ domain?
187
+ lookingFor:
188
+ - Creates structured cross-disciplinary learning opportunities
189
+ - Makes cross-domain knowledge practically relevant
190
+ - Builds bridges between engineering and other functions
191
+ - Doesn't force breadth but makes it naturally valuable
192
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
193
+
194
+ practicing:
195
+ - id: poly_mgmt_pract_1
196
+ text:
197
+ You manage a team that is highly specialized — everyone is an expert in
198
+ one narrow area but the system requires decisions that span multiple
199
+ domains.
200
+ context:
201
+ Your team of 8 has deep specialists in database performance, frontend
202
+ UX, API design, and security. A recent architecture decision required
203
+ all four perspectives but no one could evaluate the trade-offs across
204
+ domains. The decision was made by averaging opinions rather than
205
+ synthesizing them. Quality is suffering at the seams between
206
+ specializations.
207
+ simulationPrompts:
208
+ - How do you structure your team to leverage depth while building
209
+ breadth?
210
+ - What practices would you introduce to break specialization silos?
211
+ - How do you develop T-shaped engineers from I-shaped specialists?
212
+ - How do you handle the tension between deep expertise and broad
213
+ understanding?
214
+ lookingFor:
215
+ - Structures teams to leverage diverse knowledge
216
+ - Breaks down specialization silos with concrete practices
217
+ - Develops engineers toward polymathic breadth
218
+ - Creates environments where cross-domain synthesis happens naturally
219
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
220
+
221
+ role_modeling:
222
+ - id: poly_mgmt_role_1
223
+ text:
224
+ Your engineering function operates in silos — backend, frontend,
225
+ platform, and data teams rarely share knowledge or attend each other's
226
+ reviews.
227
+ context:
228
+ You lead 3 teams with 20 engineers. Each team has strong internal
229
+ culture but there's minimal cross-pollination. When a project requires
230
+ cross-team collaboration, it takes weeks to build shared understanding.
231
+ A recent project failed because the data team's model assumptions
232
+ conflicted with the backend team's architecture, and nobody caught it
233
+ until production.
234
+ simulationPrompts:
235
+ - How do you model polymathic learning as a leader?
236
+ - What structures would you create for cross-team knowledge sharing?
237
+ - How do you demonstrate the value of breadth to specialists who are
238
+ comfortable in their silos?
239
+ - How do you make cross-disciplinary collaboration a norm, not an
240
+ exception?
241
+ lookingFor:
242
+ - Models polymathic learning visibly as a leader
243
+ - Creates structures that promote cross-team knowledge
244
+ - Demonstrates value of breadth beyond just efficiency gains
245
+ - Builds collaborative culture across specialization boundaries
246
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
247
+
248
+ exemplifying:
249
+ - id: poly_mgmt_exemp_1
250
+ text:
251
+ The organization wants to hire "full-stack" engineers but keeps
252
+ attracting deep specialists. Meanwhile, the most impactful engineers are
253
+ those with cross-domain knowledge.
254
+ context:
255
+ Exit interviews show that polymathic engineers leave because they feel
256
+ undervalued compared to deep specialists. The promotion criteria reward
257
+ depth. Hiring screens filter for specific tech skills, not cross-domain
258
+ thinking. The CEO observes that competitors with broader engineering
259
+ cultures ship faster.
260
+ simulationPrompts:
261
+ - How would you redesign hiring and promotion to value polymathic
262
+ knowledge?
263
+ - How do you build organizational incentives for breadth alongside
264
+ depth?
265
+ - How do you coach other managers to value cross-disciplinary growth?
266
+ - How do you balance the need for specialization with the strategic
267
+ value of breadth?
268
+ lookingFor:
269
+ - Shapes organizational structures to promote polymathic culture
270
+ - Redesigns talent practices to value breadth
271
+ - Coaches other managers on developing cross-disciplinary teams
272
+ - Strategic approach to balancing depth and breadth at scale
273
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
274
+ followUps:
275
+ - How would you measure the business impact of polymathic culture?
@@ -1,54 +1,248 @@
1
1
  # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
2
2
 
3
- emerging:
4
- - id: comm_emerg_1
5
- text:
6
- Tell me about a time when you had to explain something technical to
7
- someone less familiar with the topic.
8
- lookingFor:
9
- - Ability to simplify concepts
10
- - Awareness of audience
11
- expectedDurationMinutes: 5
12
- developing:
13
- - id: comm_dev_1
14
- text: Describe how you approach writing documentation for your work.
15
- lookingFor:
16
- - Clear writing habits
17
- - Consideration of readers
18
- expectedDurationMinutes: 5
19
- practicing:
20
- - id: comm_pract_1
21
- text:
22
- Tell me about presenting a complex technical topic to diverse
23
- stakeholders.
24
- lookingFor:
25
- - Audience adaptation
26
- - Facilitation skills
27
- expectedDurationMinutes: 8
28
- role_modeling:
29
- - id: comm_role_1
30
- text: How have you improved communication practices in your organization?
31
- lookingFor:
32
- - Leadership in communication
33
- - Systemic improvements
34
- expectedDurationMinutes: 8
35
- exemplifying:
36
- - id: comm_exemp_1
37
- text:
38
- How do you shape communication culture across an enterprise and represent
39
- your organization externally?
40
- followUps:
41
- - How do you coach executives on technical communication?
42
- lookingFor:
43
- - Enterprise communication leadership
44
- - External representation
45
- - Communication excellence at all levels
46
- expectedDurationMinutes: 10
47
- - id: comm_exemp_2
48
- text:
49
- Describe how you've established communication standards that span
50
- technical and business audiences across the organization.
51
- lookingFor:
52
- - Cross-functional communication leadership
53
- - Scalable communication practices
54
- expectedDurationMinutes: 10
3
+ professionalQuestions:
4
+ emerging:
5
+ - id: comm_pro_emerg_1
6
+ text:
7
+ A product manager asks you to explain why a feature will take longer
8
+ than expected. They need to update the client by end of day.
9
+ context:
10
+ The delay is caused by an unexpected API limitation in a third-party
11
+ service. The PM has no technical background but is under pressure from
12
+ the client. You've been working on this for 2 days and just discovered
13
+ the blocker.
14
+ simulationPrompts:
15
+ - How would you explain the technical blocker to the PM?
16
+ - What information do they need vs what details can you leave out?
17
+ - How would you frame the timeline impact clearly?
18
+ - How would you write this up if they asked for a brief email summary?
19
+ lookingFor:
20
+ - Communicates basic technical concepts in accessible language
21
+ - Adapts level of detail for the audience
22
+ - Provides clear timeline impact without overwhelming with detail
23
+ - Shows willingness to communicate proactively
24
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
25
+
26
+ developing:
27
+ - id: comm_pro_dev_1
28
+ text:
29
+ You need to write a specification for a feature that will be partially
30
+ implemented by an AI coding tool. The feature involves complex business
31
+ rules.
32
+ context:
33
+ The feature calculates tiered pricing based on customer segment, volume,
34
+ and contract terms. Previous attempts to use AI for similar features
35
+ resulted in subtle logic errors because the specs were ambiguous. Your
36
+ team relies on AI tools for ~40% of implementation.
37
+ simulationPrompts:
38
+ - How would you structure the specification to minimize ambiguity?
39
+ - What's the difference between a spec humans can follow and one AI can
40
+ follow?
41
+ - How would you verify the AI interpreted your spec correctly?
42
+ - Walk me through how you'd document one of the pricing rules
43
+ lookingFor:
44
+ - Writes clear specifications that reduce ambiguity
45
+ - Considers how AI tools parse requirements differently than humans
46
+ - Crafts effective prompts and specifications for AI consumption
47
+ - Adapts communication style for different audiences
48
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
49
+
50
+ practicing:
51
+ - id: comm_pro_pract_1
52
+ text:
53
+ You need to present a proposed architecture change to a room with the
54
+ CTO, product managers, and frontend engineers. Each group cares about
55
+ different aspects.
56
+ context:
57
+ The change migrates from a monolith to microservices for the payments
58
+ domain. The CTO cares about strategic alignment, PMs care about feature
59
+ velocity impact, and engineers care about implementation details. You
60
+ have 30 minutes and expect pushback from PMs about the 6-week
61
+ productivity dip.
62
+ simulationPrompts:
63
+ - How would you structure the presentation for this mixed audience?
64
+ - How do you translate between technical and business language?
65
+ - How do you handle questions from stakeholders with conflicting
66
+ priorities?
67
+ - How do you separate what needs deciding now vs what can be decided
68
+ later?
69
+ lookingFor:
70
+ - Separates concerns precisely for different audiences
71
+ - Translates between technical and business language fluently
72
+ - Facilitates productive discussion among stakeholders with competing
73
+ priorities
74
+ - Enables clear decisions by structuring information precisely
75
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
76
+
77
+ role_modeling:
78
+ - id: comm_pro_role_1
79
+ text:
80
+ Your function has recurring miscommunication between engineering and
81
+ product. Requirements are interpreted differently, leading to rework.
82
+ context:
83
+ In the last quarter, 3 major features needed significant rework due to
84
+ specification ambiguity. Engineers blame vague requirements. Product
85
+ managers blame engineers for not asking clarifying questions. You've
86
+ been asked to propose a better process. The function has 40 engineers
87
+ and 8 product managers.
88
+ simulationPrompts:
89
+ - What's the root cause of the miscommunication pattern?
90
+ - What spec-driven practices would you introduce?
91
+ - How do you get buy-in from both engineering and product?
92
+ - How do you mentor others on precise communication without being
93
+ prescriptive?
94
+ lookingFor:
95
+ - Creates spec-driven development practices that reduce ambiguity
96
+ - Mentors others on precise communication across the function
97
+ - Bridges communication gaps between engineering and product
98
+ - Drives clarity as a core value, not just a process
99
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
100
+
101
+ exemplifying:
102
+ - id: comm_pro_exemp_1
103
+ text:
104
+ The organisation wants to adopt spec-driven AI development but has no
105
+ standards for how specifications should be written across teams.
106
+ context:
107
+ Teams use different formats, levels of detail, and terminology. AI tool
108
+ effectiveness varies wildly between teams. External clients are starting
109
+ to ask about the company's AI development methodology for compliance
110
+ purposes. You've been asked to lead the standardization effort.
111
+ simulationPrompts:
112
+ - How would you define organizational communication standards?
113
+ - How do you balance standardization with team autonomy?
114
+ - How would you represent this externally to clients and industry?
115
+ - How would you measure whether communication precision is improving?
116
+ lookingFor:
117
+ - Shapes organizational standards for technical communication
118
+ - Defines spec-driven AI development practices at scale
119
+ - Represents the organization's approach externally with authority
120
+ - Creates standards that improve outcomes, not just compliance
121
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
122
+ followUps:
123
+ - How would you handle teams that resist the standardization?
124
+
125
+ managementQuestions:
126
+ emerging:
127
+ - id: comm_mgmt_emerg_1
128
+ text:
129
+ You notice that standup updates from your team are vague — "still
130
+ working on it" with no specifics. Sprint planning decisions are being
131
+ made on incomplete information.
132
+ context:
133
+ Your team of 6 engineers has been together for 3 months. Some members
134
+ are quiet and uncomfortable speaking in groups. Others give detailed
135
+ updates but talk for too long. The standups regularly run over 15
136
+ minutes.
137
+ simulationPrompts:
138
+ - How would you improve the quality of standup communication?
139
+ - How do you coach a quiet team member to share more effectively?
140
+ - How do you coach a verbose team member to be more concise?
141
+ - What structure or format would you introduce?
142
+ lookingFor:
143
+ - Identifies communication gaps affecting team effectiveness
144
+ - Coaches individuals on clear, concise communication
145
+ - Creates structures that support better communication
146
+ - Shows awareness of different communication styles
147
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
148
+
149
+ developing:
150
+ - id: comm_mgmt_dev_1
151
+ text:
152
+ A team member's pull request descriptions are consistently unclear,
153
+ causing reviewers to misunderstand the intent and approve problematic
154
+ changes.
155
+ context:
156
+ Two bugs in the last month were traced back to PRs where the reviewer
157
+ didn't understand the full scope of the change. The team member is
158
+ technically strong but their written communication is ambiguous. Other
159
+ team members are reluctant to review their PRs.
160
+ simulationPrompts:
161
+ - How do you give feedback on their communication without undermining
162
+ their technical confidence?
163
+ - What would you suggest as a PR description standard?
164
+ - How do you make clear communication a team expectation, not just an
165
+ individual issue?
166
+ - How do you verify the coaching is working?
167
+ lookingFor:
168
+ - Provides constructive feedback on communication skills
169
+ - Sets clear communication expectations for the team
170
+ - Coaches without undermining technical confidence
171
+ - Makes communication quality a team norm
172
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
173
+
174
+ practicing:
175
+ - id: comm_mgmt_pract_1
176
+ text:
177
+ Your team needs to communicate a breaking API change to 5 consuming
178
+ teams. Past breaking changes caused friction because of poor
179
+ communication timing and unclear migration guides.
180
+ context:
181
+ The API change removes deprecated endpoints used by at least 3 teams.
182
+ Your team wants to ship in 4 weeks. Previous breaking changes led to
183
+ angry messages in Slack and escalations. You need to manage both the
184
+ technical communication and the stakeholder relationships.
185
+ simulationPrompts:
186
+ - How would you structure the communication plan?
187
+ - How do you help your team communicate effectively with each consuming
188
+ team?
189
+ - What communication standards would you establish for breaking changes?
190
+ - How do you handle a team that doesn't respond to the migration
191
+ timeline?
192
+ lookingFor:
193
+ - Establishes communication standards for high-impact changes
194
+ - Coaches team members on stakeholder communication
195
+ - Creates communication practices that become team norms
196
+ - Manages multi-stakeholder communication proactively
197
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
198
+
199
+ role_modeling:
200
+ - id: comm_mgmt_role_1
201
+ text:
202
+ Cross-functional meetings in your area are unproductive — engineers and
203
+ product managers talk past each other, decisions aren't captured, and
204
+ actions are unclear.
205
+ context:
206
+ You manage 3 teams and participate in weekly cross-functional meetings
207
+ with product, design, and engineering. The meetings often end without
208
+ clear decisions. Product managers feel engineers don't listen to
209
+ business context; engineers feel product doesn't understand technical
210
+ constraints.
211
+ simulationPrompts:
212
+ - How do you model precise communication in these meetings?
213
+ - What facilitation practices would you introduce?
214
+ - How do you establish shared language between engineering and product?
215
+ - How do you make your communication standards visible to peers?
216
+ lookingFor:
217
+ - Models precise communication in leadership settings
218
+ - Establishes facilitation practices that drive clarity
219
+ - Creates shared language across functions
220
+ - Drives communication as a core value, not just a skill
221
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
222
+
223
+ exemplifying:
224
+ - id: comm_mgmt_exemp_1
225
+ text:
226
+ You've been asked to develop strategic communication capabilities across
227
+ your organization to support AI-driven development practices.
228
+ context:
229
+ Your organization has 100+ engineers across 15 teams. AI tools are being
230
+ adopted but spec quality varies wildly. Customer-facing communication
231
+ about AI capabilities is inconsistent. The CEO wants the organization to
232
+ be known for communication excellence.
233
+ simulationPrompts:
234
+ - How do you develop strategic communication capabilities at scale?
235
+ - How do you handle communication breakdowns between teams as an
236
+ organizational pattern?
237
+ - How do you build communication excellence into hiring and development?
238
+ - How do you balance transparency with appropriate information
239
+ boundaries?
240
+ lookingFor:
241
+ - Develops organizational communication strategy
242
+ - Addresses communication patterns systemically, not individually
243
+ - Builds communication excellence into talent development
244
+ - Shows strategic judgment about communication at enterprise scale
245
+ expectedDurationMinutes: 20
246
+ followUps:
247
+ - How would you measure communication effectiveness across the
248
+ organization?