@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/cto-advisor/references/technology_evaluation_framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,370 @@
+# Technology Evaluation Framework
+
+## Evaluation Process
+
+### Phase 1: Requirements Gathering (Week 1)
+
+#### Functional Requirements
+- Core features needed
+- Integration requirements
+- Performance requirements
+- Scalability needs
+- Security requirements
+
+#### Non-Functional Requirements
+- Usability/Developer experience
+- Documentation quality
+- Community support
+- Vendor stability
+- Compliance needs
+
+#### Constraints
+- Budget limitations
+- Timeline constraints
+- Team expertise
+- Existing technology stack
+- Regulatory requirements
+
+### Phase 2: Market Research (Week 1-2)
+
+#### Identify Candidates
+1. Industry leaders (Gartner Magic Quadrant)
+2. Open-source alternatives
+3. Emerging solutions
+4. Build vs Buy analysis
+
+#### Initial Filtering
+- Eliminate options not meeting hard requirements
+- Remove options outside budget
+- Focus on 3-5 top candidates
+
+### Phase 3: Deep Evaluation (Week 2-4)
+
+#### Technical Evaluation
+- Proof of Concept (PoC)
+- Performance benchmarks
+- Security assessment
+- Integration testing
+- Scalability testing
+
+#### Business Evaluation
+- Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
+- Return on Investment (ROI)
+- Vendor assessment
+- Risk analysis
+- Exit strategy
+
+### Phase 4: Decision (Week 4)
+
+## Evaluation Criteria Matrix
+
+### Technical Criteria (40%)
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| **Performance** | 10% | Speed, throughput, latency | 5: Exceeds requirements<br>3: Meets requirements<br>1: Below requirements |
+| **Scalability** | 10% | Ability to grow with needs | 5: Linear scalability<br>3: Some limitations<br>1: Hard limits |
+| **Reliability** | 8% | Uptime, fault tolerance | 5: 99.99% SLA<br>3: 99.9% SLA<br>1: <99% SLA |
+| **Security** | 8% | Security features, compliance | 5: Exceeds standards<br>3: Meets standards<br>1: Concerns exist |
+| **Integration** | 4% | API quality, compatibility | 5: Native integration<br>3: Good APIs<br>1: Limited integration |
+
+### Business Criteria (30%)
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| **Cost** | 10% | TCO including licenses, operation | 5: Under budget by >20%<br>3: Within budget<br>1: Over budget |
+| **ROI** | 8% | Value generation potential | 5: <6 month payback<br>3: <12 month payback<br>1: >24 month payback |
+| **Vendor Stability** | 6% | Financial health, market position | 5: Market leader<br>3: Established player<br>1: Startup/uncertain |
+| **Support Quality** | 6% | Support availability, SLAs | 5: 24/7 premium support<br>3: Business hours<br>1: Community only |
+
+### Operational Criteria (30%)
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| **Ease of Use** | 8% | Learning curve, UX | 5: Intuitive<br>3: Moderate learning<br>1: Steep curve |
+| **Documentation** | 7% | Quality, completeness | 5: Excellent docs<br>3: Adequate docs<br>1: Poor docs |
+| **Community** | 7% | Size, activity, resources | 5: Large, active<br>3: Moderate<br>1: Small/inactive |
+| **Maintenance** | 8% | Operational overhead | 5: Fully managed<br>3: Some maintenance<br>1: High maintenance |
+
+## Vendor Evaluation Template
+
+### Vendor Profile
+- **Company Name**:
+- **Founded**:
+- **Headquarters**:
+- **Employees**:
+- **Revenue**:
+- **Funding** (if applicable):
+- **Key Customers**:
+
+### Product Assessment
+
+#### Strengths
+- [ ] Market leader position
+- [ ] Strong feature set
+- [ ] Good performance
+- [ ] Excellent support
+- [ ] Active development
+
+#### Weaknesses
+- [ ] Price point
+- [ ] Learning curve
+- [ ] Limited customization
+- [ ] Vendor lock-in
+- [ ] Missing features
+
+#### Opportunities
+- [ ] Roadmap alignment
+- [ ] Partnership potential
+- [ ] Training availability
+- [ ] Professional services
+
+#### Threats
+- [ ] Competitive alternatives
+- [ ] Market changes
+- [ ] Technology shifts
+- [ ] Acquisition risk
+
+### Financial Analysis
+
+#### Cost Breakdown
+| Component | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
+|-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
+| Licensing | $ | $ | $ | $ |
+| Implementation | $ | $ | $ | $ |
+| Training | $ | $ | $ | $ |
+| Support | $ | $ | $ | $ |
+| Infrastructure | $ | $ | $ | $ |
+| **Total** | **$** | **$** | **$** | **$** |
+
+#### ROI Calculation
+- **Cost Savings**: 
+  - Reduced manual work: $/year
+  - Efficiency gains: $/year
+  - Error reduction: $/year
+- **Revenue Impact**:
+  - New capabilities: $/year
+  - Faster time to market: $/year
+- **Payback Period**: X months
+
+### Risk Assessment
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|--------|------------|
+| Vendor goes out of business | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | Strategy |
+| Technology becomes obsolete | | | |
+| Integration difficulties | | | |
+| Team adoption challenges | | | |
+| Budget overrun | | | |
+| Performance issues | | | |
+
+## Build vs Buy Decision Framework
+
+### When to Build
+
+**Advantages**:
+- Full control over features
+- No vendor lock-in
+- Potential competitive advantage
+- Perfect fit for requirements
+- No licensing costs
+
+**Build when**:
+- Core business differentiator
+- Unique requirements
+- Long-term investment
+- Have expertise in-house
+- No suitable solutions exist
+
+**Hidden Costs**:
+- Development time
+- Maintenance burden
+- Security responsibility
+- Documentation needs
+- Training requirements
+
+### When to Buy
+
+**Advantages**:
+- Faster time to market
+- Proven solution
+- Vendor support
+- Regular updates
+- Shared development costs
+
+**Buy when**:
+- Commodity functionality
+- Standard requirements
+- Limited internal resources
+- Need quick solution
+- Good options available
+
+**Hidden Costs**:
+- Customization limits
+- Vendor lock-in
+- Integration effort
+- Training needs
+- Scaling costs
+
+### When to Adopt Open Source
+
+**Advantages**:
+- No licensing costs
+- Community support
+- Transparency
+- Customizable
+- No vendor lock-in
+
+**Adopt when**:
+- Strong community exists
+- Standard solution needed
+- Have technical expertise
+- Can contribute back
+- Long-term stability needed
+
+**Hidden Costs**:
+- Support costs
+- Security responsibility
+- Upgrade management
+- Integration effort
+- Potential consulting needs
+
+## Proof of Concept Guidelines
+
+### PoC Scope
+1. **Duration**: 2-4 weeks
+2. **Team**: 2-3 engineers
+3. **Environment**: Isolated/sandbox
+4. **Data**: Representative sample
+
+### Success Criteria
+- [ ] Core use cases demonstrated
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks met
+- [ ] Integration points tested
+- [ ] Security requirements validated
+- [ ] Team feedback positive
+
+### PoC Checklist
+- [ ] Environment setup documented
+- [ ] Test scenarios defined
+- [ ] Metrics collection automated
+- [ ] Team training completed
+- [ ] Results documented
+
+### PoC Report Template
+
+```markdown
+# PoC Report: [Technology Name]
+
+## Executive Summary
+- **Recommendation**: [Proceed/Stop/Investigate Further]
+- **Confidence Level**: [High/Medium/Low]
+- **Key Finding**: [One sentence summary]
+
+## Test Results
+
+### Functional Tests
+| Test Case | Result | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| | Pass/Fail | |
+
+### Performance Tests
+| Metric | Target | Actual | Status |
+|--------|--------|--------|---------|
+| Response Time | <100ms | Xms | ✓/✗ |
+| Throughput | >1000 req/s | X req/s | ✓/✗ |
+| CPU Usage | <70% | X% | ✓/✗ |
+| Memory Usage | <4GB | XGB | ✓/✗ |
+
+### Integration Tests
+| System | Status | Effort |
+|--------|--------|--------|
+| Database | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |
+| API Gateway | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |
+| Authentication | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |
+
+## Team Feedback
+- **Ease of Use**: [1-5 rating]
+- **Documentation**: [1-5 rating]
+- **Would Recommend**: [Yes/No]
+
+## Risks Identified
+1. [Risk and mitigation]
+2. [Risk and mitigation]
+
+## Next Steps
+1. [Action item]
+2. [Action item]
+```
+
+## Technology Categories
+
+### Development Platforms
+- **Languages**: TypeScript, Python, Go, Rust, Java
+- **Frameworks**: React, Node.js, Spring, Django, FastAPI
+- **Mobile**: React Native, Flutter, Swift, Kotlin
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Developer productivity, ecosystem, performance
+
+### Databases
+- **SQL**: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQL Server
+- **NoSQL**: MongoDB, Cassandra, DynamoDB
+- **NewSQL**: CockroachDB, Vitess, TiDB
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Performance, scalability, consistency, operations
+
+### Infrastructure
+- **Cloud**: AWS, GCP, Azure
+- **Containers**: Docker, Kubernetes, Nomad
+- **Serverless**: Lambda, Cloud Functions, Vercel
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Cost, scalability, vendor lock-in, operations
+
+### Monitoring & Observability
+- **APM**: DataDog, New Relic, AppDynamics
+- **Logging**: ELK Stack, Splunk, CloudWatch
+- **Metrics**: Prometheus, Grafana, CloudWatch
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Coverage, cost, integration, insights
+
+### Security
+- **SAST**: Sonarqube, Checkmarx, Veracode
+- **DAST**: OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite
+- **Secrets**: Vault, AWS Secrets Manager
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Coverage, false positives, integration
+
+### DevOps Tools
+- **CI/CD**: Jenkins, GitLab CI, GitHub Actions
+- **IaC**: Terraform, CloudFormation, Pulumi
+- **Configuration**: Ansible, Chef, Puppet
+- **Evaluation Focus**: Flexibility, integration, learning curve
+
+## Continuous Evaluation
+
+### Quarterly Reviews
+- Technology landscape changes
+- Performance against expectations
+- Cost optimization opportunities
+- Team satisfaction
+- Market alternatives
+
+### Annual Assessment
+- Full technology stack review
+- Vendor relationship evaluation
+- Strategic alignment check
+- Technical debt assessment
+- Roadmap planning
+
+### Deprecation Planning
+- Migration strategy
+- Timeline definition
+- Risk assessment
+- Communication plan
+- Success metrics
+
+## Decision Documentation
+
+Always document:
+1. **Why** the technology was chosen
+2. **Who** was involved in the decision
+3. **When** the decision was made
+4. **What** alternatives were considered
+5. **How** success will be measured
+
+Use Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for significant technology choices.

package/org-skills/culture-architect/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/org-skills/culture-architect/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+name: culture-architect
+description: "Build, measure, and evolve company culture as operational behavior — not wall posters. Covers mission/vision/values workshops, values-to-behaviors translation, culture code creation, culture health assessment, and cultural rituals by stage."
+tags: ["leadership","operations"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills
+source_path: "c-level-advisor/skills/culture-architect"
+source_commit: 19392f7a08264ed00486a251f5b2098321771f94
+---
+# Culture Architect
+
+Culture is what you DO, not what you SAY. This skill builds culture as an operational system — observable behaviors, measurable health, and rituals that scale.
+
+## Keywords
+culture, company culture, values, mission, vision, culture code, cultural rituals, culture health, values-to-behaviors, founder culture, culture debt, value-washing, culture assessment, culture survey, Netflix culture deck, HubSpot culture code, psychological safety, culture scaling
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Culture = (What you reward) + (What you tolerate) + (What you celebrate)**
+
+If your values say "transparency" but you punish bearers of bad news — your real value is "optics." Culture is not aspirational. It's descriptive. The work is closing the gap between stated and actual.
+
+## Frameworks
+
+### 1. Mission / Vision / Values Workshop
+
+Run this conversationally, not as a corporate offsite. Three questions:
+
+**Mission** — Why do we exist (beyond making money)?
+- "What would be lost if we disappeared tomorrow?"
+- Mission is present-tense. "We reduce preventable falls in elderly care." Not "to be the leading..."
+
+**Vision** — What does winning look like in 5–10 years?
+- Specific enough to be wrong. "Every care home in Europe uses our system" beats "be the market leader."
+
+**Values** — What behaviors do we actually model?
+- Start with what you observe, not what sounds good. "What did our last great hire do that nobody asked them to?"
+- Keep to 3–5. More than 5 and none of them mean anything.
+
+### 2. Values → Behaviors Translation
+
+This is the work. Every value needs behavioral anchors or it's decoration.
+
+| Value | Bad version | Behavioral anchor |
+|-------|------------|-------------------|
+| Transparency | "We're open and honest" | "We share bad news within 24 hours, including to our manager" |
+| Ownership | "We take responsibility" | "We don't hand off problems — we own them until resolved, even across team boundaries" |
+| Speed | "We move fast" | "Decisions under €5K happen at team level, same day, no approval needed" |
+| Quality | "We don't cut corners" | "We stop the line before shipping something we're not proud of" |
+| Customer-first | "Customers are our priority" | "Any team member can escalate a customer issue to leadership, bypassing normal channels" |
+
+**Workshop exercise:** Write your value. Then ask "How would a new hire know we actually live this on day 30?" If you can't answer concretely, it's not a value — it's an aspiration.
+
+### 3. Culture Code Creation
+
+A culture code is a public document that describes how you operate. It should scare off the wrong people and attract the right ones.
+
+**Structure:**
+1. Who we are (mission + context)
+2. Who thrives here (specific behaviors, not adjectives)
+3. Who doesn't thrive here (honest — this is the useful part)
+4. How we make decisions
+5. How we communicate
+6. How we grow people
+7. What we expect of leaders
+
+See `templates/culture-code-template.md` for a complete template.
+
+**Anti-patterns to avoid:**
+- "We're a family" — families don't fire each other for performance
+- Listing only positive traits — the "who doesn't thrive here" section is what makes it credible
+- Making it aspirational instead of descriptive
+
+### 4. Culture Health Assessment
+
+Run quarterly. 8–12 questions. Anonymous. See `references/culture-playbook.md` for survey design.
+
+**Core areas to measure:**
+1. Psychological safety — "Can I raise a concern without fear?"
+2. Clarity — "Do I know how my work connects to company goals?"
+3. Fairness — "Are decisions made consistently and transparently?"
+4. Growth — "Am I learning and being challenged here?"
+5. Trust in leadership — "Do I believe what leadership tells me?"
+
+**Score interpretation:**
+| Score | Signal | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 80–100% | Healthy | Maintain, celebrate, document |
+| 65–79% | Warning | Identify specific friction — don't over-react |
+| 50–64% | Damaged | Urgent leadership attention + specific fixes |
+| < 50% | Crisis | Culture emergency — all-hands intervention |
+
+### 5. Cultural Rituals by Stage
+
+Rituals are the delivery mechanism for culture. What works at 10 people breaks at 100.
+
+**Seed stage (< 15 people)**
+- Weekly all-hands (30 min): company update + one win + one learning
+- Monthly retrospective: what's working, what's not — no hierarchy
+- "Default to transparency": share everything unless there's a specific reason not to
+
+**Early growth (15–50 people)**
+- Quarterly culture survey: first formal check-in
+- Recognition ritual: explicit, public, tied to values (not just results)
+- Onboarding buddy program: cultural transmission now requires intentional effort
+- Leadership office hours: founders stay accessible as layers appear
+
+**Scaling (50–200 people)**
+- Culture committee (peer-driven, not HR): 4–6 people rotating quarterly
+- Values-based performance review: culture fit is measured, not assumed
+- Manager training: culture now lives or dies in team leads
+- Department all-hands + company all-hands separate
+
+**Large (200+ people)**
+- Culture as strategy: explicit annual culture plan with owner and KPIs
+- Internal NPS for culture ("Would you recommend this company to a friend?")
+- Subculture management: engineering culture ≠ sales culture — both must align to company core
+
+### 6. Culture Anti-Patterns
+
+**Value-washing:** Listing values you don't practice. Symptom: employees roll their eyes during values discussions.
+- Fix: Run a values audit. Ask "What did the last person who got promoted demonstrate?" If it doesn't match your values, your real values are different.
+
+**Culture debt:** Accumulating cultural compromises over time. "We'll address the toxic star performer later." Later compounds.
+- Fix: Act on culture violations faster than you think necessary. One tolerated bad behavior destroys what ten good behaviors build.
+
+**Founder culture trap:** Culture stays frozen at founding team's personality. New hires assimilate or leave.
+- Fix: Explicitly evolve values as you scale. What worked at 10 people (move fast, ask forgiveness) may be destructive at 100 (we need process).
+
+**Culture by osmosis:** Assuming culture transmits naturally. It did at 10 people. It doesn't at 50.
+- Fix: Make culture intentional. Document it. Teach it. Measure it. Reward it explicitly.
+
+## Culture Integration with C-Suite
+
+| When... | Culture Architect works with... | To... |
+|---------|---------------------------------|-------|
+| Hiring surge | CHRO | Ensure culture fit is measured, not guessed |
+| Org reorg | COO + CEO | Manage culture disruption from structure change |
+| M&A or partnership | CEO + COO | Detect and resolve culture clashes early |
+| Performance issues | CHRO | Separate culture fit from skill deficit |
+| Strategy pivot | CEO | Update values/behaviors that the pivot makes obsolete |
+| Rapid growth | All | Scale rituals before culture dilutes |
+
+## Key Questions a Culture Architect Asks
+
+- "Can you name the last person we fired for culture reasons? What did they do?"
+- "What behavior got your last promoted employee promoted? Is that in your values?"
+- "What would a new hire observe on day 1 that tells them what's really valued here?"
+- "What do we tolerate that we shouldn't? Who knows and does nothing?"
+- "How does a team lead in Berlin know what the culture is in Madrid?"
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Values posted on the wall, never referenced in reviews or decisions
+- Star performers protected from cultural standards
+- Leaders who "don't have time" for culture rituals
+- New hires feeling the culture is "different than advertised"
+- No mechanism to raise cultural concerns safely
+- Culture survey results never shared with the team
+
+## Detailed References
+- `references/culture-playbook.md` — Netflix analysis, survey design, ritual examples, M&A playbook
+- `templates/culture-code-template.md` — Culture code document template