@forwardimpact/schema 0.9.1 → 0.10.0

package/examples/capabilities/delivery.yaml

@@ -361,6 +361,8 @@ skills:
             - All dependencies installed and versions locked
             - Environment variables configured for local development
             - Database running locally with schema applied
+            - All credentials stored in .env — NEVER hardcoded in code,
+              including seed scripts and utility scripts
             - Linter and formatter pass on existing code
             - Development server starts and responds to requests
             - CI pipeline configuration is valid
@@ -379,6 +381,7 @@ skills:
             - Database schema supports the feature
             - Error handling spans all layers
             - Feature works end-to-end
+            - At least one test exists for each API route and passes when run
             - Deployment is automated
         review:
           focus: |
@@ -613,10 +616,12 @@ skills:
             Surface ambiguities and unknowns before attempting solutions.
           readChecklist:
             - Document the initial problem statement as understood
-            - List stakeholders and their perspectives
-            - Identify what is known vs unknown
-            - Document assumptions that need validation
-            - Mark all ambiguities with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]
+            - ASK the user who the stakeholders are and what their perspectives
+              are
+            - ASK the user what is known vs unknown about the problem
+            - ASK the user to confirm or reject your assumptions
+            - Mark all ambiguities with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] and ASK the user
+              to clarify them
           confirmChecklist:
             - Initial problem statement is documented
             - Stakeholders are identified
@@ -858,6 +863,9 @@ skills:
           confirmChecklist:
             - Core concept is demonstrable
             - Happy path works end-to-end
+            - At least one smoke test verifying the happy path exists
+            - SSR pages that fetch from API routes use environment-aware base
+              URLs (not hardcoded localhost)
             - Known limitations are documented
             - Stakeholders can interact with it
         review:

package/examples/questions/capabilities/business.yaml

@@ -58,50 +58,50 @@ managementQuestions:
   working:
     - id: biz_mgmt_work_decomp_1
       text:
-        Your engineering team is being asked to support a new business unit that
-        has different priorities than your current stakeholders. How would you
-        manage this?
+        Your engineering organization needs to reduce costs by 20% while
+        maintaining delivery commitments. How would you approach this?
       context:
-        The new business unit wants rapid feature delivery for market testing.
-        Your current stakeholders prioritize stability and compliance. You have
-        limited capacity to serve both.
+        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 assess the strategic importance of each stakeholder?
-        - What process would you use to prioritize conflicting demands?
-        - How would you communicate capacity constraints to leadership?
-        - What organizational changes might be needed?
+        - 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:
-        - Escalates appropriately to resolve competing priorities
-        - Creates transparent prioritization framework
-        - Considers team capacity and sustainable pace
-        - Proposes structural solutions rather than just working harder
+        - 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 the new business unit's executive has more organizational
-          power?
-        - How would you handle if your team felt stretched between demands?
+        - 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:
-        Leadership wants to build in-house capability for a technology area
-        currently handled by vendors. How would you evaluate and plan this
-        transition?
+        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 company spends $2M annually on a third-party data analytics
-        platform. Building in-house would require hiring 4 specialists and 18
-        months of development. Leadership wants your recommendation.
+        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 factors would drive your build vs buy recommendation?
-        - How would you structure the hiring and team formation?
-        - What risks would you highlight to leadership?
-        - How would you phase the transition to minimize disruption?
+        - 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 total cost of ownership including hiring and retention
-        - Considers organizational capability development
-        - Plans for knowledge transfer and vendor relationship management
-        - Structures decision with clear criteria and milestones
+        - 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 you couldn't hire the specialists needed?
-        - How would you handle if the vendor relationship became adversarial?
+        - 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

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ professionalQuestions:
         - 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
@@ -54,51 +55,47 @@ managementQuestions:
   working:
     - id: del_mgmt_work_decomp_1
       text:
-        Your team has committed to delivering a major feature, but halfway
-        through the sprint you realize the scope was underestimated. How would
-        you handle this?
+        A critical project is at risk of missing its deadline, and stakeholders
+        are escalating. How would you assess and address the situation?
       context:
-        The feature was estimated at 2 weeks but will likely take 4 weeks. The
-        client has a marketing launch planned around the original date. Your
-        team has 5 engineers.
+        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 communicate the delay to stakeholders?
-        - What options would you present for moving forward?
-        - How would you support your team through this situation?
-        - What would you change to prevent this in the future?
+        - 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:
-        - Communicates early and transparently with stakeholders
-        - Presents options rather than just problems
-        - Protects team from blame while addressing root causes
-        - Focuses on learning and process improvement
+        - 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 the stakeholder insists on the original date?
-        - How would you handle if this was the third time this quarter scope was
-          underestimated?
+        - 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 leading a cross-functional initiative involving three teams with
-        different managers, timelines, and priorities. How would you coordinate
-        delivery?
+        You're responsible for coordinating a major platform initiative across 4
+        engineering teams. How would you structure the delivery?
       context:
-        The initiative is a platform modernization requiring backend, frontend,
-        and infrastructure teams. Each team has their own roadmap commitments.
-        Executive sponsorship is strong but day-to-day coordination is
-        challenging.
+        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 governance and decision-making?
-        - What coordination mechanisms would you put in place?
-        - How would you handle conflicts between team priorities?
-        - How would you maintain momentum and visibility?
+        - 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 accountability and escalation paths
-        - Establishes regular coordination touchpoints
-        - Negotiates with peer managers for alignment
-        - Uses visibility and reporting to maintain executive support
+        - 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 consistently missed their commitments?
-        - How would you handle if executive sponsorship weakened mid-project?
+        - 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

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ professionalQuestions:
       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:
@@ -57,48 +58,49 @@ managementQuestions:
   working:
     - id: ppl_mgmt_work_decomp_1
       text:
-        One of your engineers has been underperforming for the past two months.
-        They were previously a strong contributor. How would you approach this?
+        One of your team members is consistently underperforming despite
+        multiple feedback conversations. How would you handle this situation?
       context:
-        Their code quality has declined, they've missed two sprint commitments,
-        and other team members have started picking up slack. They haven't
-        mentioned any issues proactively.
+        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 prepare for a conversation with them?
-        - What would you try to understand about the situation?
-        - How would you structure support and accountability?
-        - What timeline and milestones would you set?
+        - 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:
-        - Approaches with curiosity rather than assumptions
-        - Considers personal and external factors
-        - Creates clear expectations with support plan
-        - Documents appropriately while maintaining trust
+        - 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 they revealed they're dealing with a personal crisis?
-        - How would you handle if there was no improvement after one month?
+        - 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:
-        Your organization is going through a restructuring that will affect your
-        team's composition. Some team members may be moved to other teams or
-        laid off. How do you navigate this with your team?
+        You need to grow your engineering organization from 25 to 50 engineers
+        over the next year. How would you approach this scaling challenge?
       context:
-        Leadership has shared preliminary plans with managers. Final decisions
-        are two weeks away. Rumors are starting to circulate. Your team has 8
-        members, 3 of whom may be affected.
+        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 communicate with your team during uncertainty?
-        - How would you advocate for your team members with leadership?
-        - How would you support those who are affected?
-        - How would you maintain team function during the transition?
+        - 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:
-        - Balances transparency with appropriate confidentiality
-        - Advocates for team while aligning with organizational needs
-        - Provides emotional support during uncertainty
-        - Maintains team effectiveness through transition
+        - 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 disagreed with leadership's decisions about your team?
-        - How would you handle if remaining team members had survivor's guilt?
+        - 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

@@ -56,48 +56,50 @@ managementQuestions:
   working:
     - id: rel_mgmt_work_decomp_1
       text:
-        Your team's on-call rotation is burning people out. Three engineers have
-        complained about being paged too frequently. How would you address this?
+        Your on-call engineers are burning out due to frequent pages and
+        incident response. How would you improve the situation?
       context:
-        The team of 6 handles on-call for 3 services. Page volume is 40 per
-        week, with 60% being false alarms or low-priority. Two engineers are
-        considering leaving due to on-call burden.
+        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 assess the current on-call health?
-        - What changes would you prioritize to reduce burden?
-        - How would you balance immediate relief with long-term fixes?
-        - How would you rebuild team trust around on-call?
+        - 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:
-        - Takes retention risk seriously
-        - Analyzes page sources to prioritize fixes
-        - Considers short-term accommodations while fixing root causes
-        - Involves team in designing sustainable solutions
+        - 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 you couldn't reduce page volume quickly?
-        - How would you handle if leadership wanted to add a fourth service?
+        - 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:
-        After a major incident, your team's postmortem revealed significant
-        process and communication failures. How would you drive organizational
-        improvements?
+        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:
-        The incident lasted 4 hours and impacted $500K in transactions. Root
-        causes included unclear escalation paths, lack of runbooks, and poor
-        cross-team communication. Multiple teams were involved.
+        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 prioritize the improvements identified?
-        - How would you build consensus across teams and leadership?
-        - What governance would you establish to ensure follow-through?
-        - How would you measure whether improvements are working?
+        - 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:
-        - Focuses on systemic issues rather than individual blame
-        - Creates cross-functional alignment on improvements
-        - Establishes accountability for action items
-        - Builds culture of continuous reliability improvement
+        - 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 other teams resisted changes to their processes?
-        - How would you handle pressure to move on without implementing fixes?
+        - What if teams resist reliability requirements as overhead?
+        - How would you handle if different teams have conflicting SLO
+          definitions?

package/examples/questions/capabilities/scale.yaml

@@ -55,49 +55,50 @@ managementQuestions:
   working:
     - id: scl_mgmt_work_decomp_1
       text:
-        Your team's codebase has grown significantly and new engineers are
-        taking much longer to become productive. How would you address this?
+        Your team is responsible for a system that needs to scale significantly,
+        but you don't have dedicated infrastructure expertise. How would you
+        build this capability?
       context:
-        Onboarding time has increased from 2 weeks to 6 weeks. The codebase has
-        300K lines of code with limited documentation. You're planning to hire 3
-        more engineers this quarter.
+        The system needs to 10x in capacity over the next year. Your team of 6
+        engineers has strong application development skills but limited
+        infrastructure and performance engineering experience.
       decompositionPrompts:
-        - How would you assess what's causing the onboarding slowdown?
-        - What investments would you prioritize to improve the situation?
-        - How would you balance documentation work with feature delivery?
-        - How would you measure improvement over time?
+        - How would you assess your team's current capabilities and gaps?
+        - What strategy would you use to build the needed expertise?
+        - How would you manage the risk during the scaling effort?
+        - How would you balance learning with delivery commitments?
       lookingFor:
-        - Investigates root causes systematically
-        - Considers documentation, tooling, and mentorship investments
-        - Creates sustainable approach that doesn't overburden existing team
-        - Sets concrete onboarding time targets
+        - Honestly assesses capability gaps without blame
+        - Considers multiple approaches (hire, train, partner, outsource)
+        - Creates risk mitigation plan for capability building period
+        - Protects learning time while meeting business needs
       expectedDurationMinutes: 15
       followUps:
-        - What if senior engineers resisted taking time for documentation?
-        - How would you handle pressure to start new hires on features
-          immediately?
+        - What if you can't hire and must develop expertise internally?
+        - How would you handle if early scaling efforts fail?
 
   practitioner:
     - id: scl_mgmt_pract_decomp_1
       text:
-        Your organization wants to scale from 3 engineering teams to 8 teams
-        over the next year. You've been asked to help plan the team structure
-        and architecture evolution. How would you approach this?
+        Your organization's infrastructure costs have grown faster than revenue,
+        and leadership wants a 30% cost reduction while maintaining performance.
+        How would you approach this?
       context:
-        Current teams are organized by layer (frontend, backend,
-        infrastructure). The product is a B2B SaaS platform with 5 major feature
-        areas. Current architecture is a monolith with some extracted services.
+        Current cloud spend is $2M annually across 15 teams. Some services are
+        over-provisioned, others have inefficient architectures. Teams have
+        autonomy over their infrastructure but no accountability for costs.
       decompositionPrompts:
-        - What factors would drive your team topology recommendations?
-        - How would you align architecture changes with team growth?
-        - What challenges do you anticipate and how would you mitigate them?
-        - How would you phase the transition?
+        - How would you analyze current spend and identify opportunities?
+        - What governance changes would you propose?
+        - How would you drive cost consciousness across teams?
+        - How would you ensure cost reduction doesn't impact performance?
       lookingFor:
-        - Considers domain-driven team boundaries
-        - Aligns architecture evolution with organizational design
-        - Plans for communication overhead and coordination costs
-        - Anticipates cultural and process challenges of rapid growth
+        - Creates visibility into costs at service and team level
+        - Proposes accountability model while respecting team autonomy
+        - Identifies both quick wins and architectural improvements
+        - Establishes guardrails to prevent performance regression
       expectedDurationMinutes: 15
       followUps:
-        - What if leadership wanted to move faster than you recommended?
-        - How would you handle if existing teams resisted reorganization?
+        - What if teams push back on cost accountability?
+        - How would you handle if major cost savings require significant
+          refactoring?