aigroup-workflow 1.0.1 → 1.1.1

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/change-management.md

@@ -1,256 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "Change Management Playbook — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Framework for rolling out organizational changes without chaos. Covers the ADKAR model adapted for startups, communication templates, resistance. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# Change Management Playbook
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `change-management`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/change-management/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-Most changes fail at implementation, not design. The ADKAR model tells you why and how to fix it.
-
-## Keywords
-change management, ADKAR, organizational change, reorg, process change, tool migration, strategy pivot, change resistance, change fatigue, change communication, stakeholder management, adoption, compliance, change rollout, transition
-
-## Core Model: ADKAR Adapted for Startups
-
-ADKAR is a change management model by Prosci. Original version is for enterprises. This is the startup-speed adaptation.
-
-### A — Awareness
-
-**What it is:** People understand WHY the change is happening — the business reason, not just the announcement.
-
-**The mistake:** Communicating the WHAT before the WHY. "We're moving to a new CRM" before "here's why our current process is killing us."
-
-**What people need to hear:**
-- What is the problem we're solving? (Be honest. If it's "we need to cut costs," say that.)
-- Why now? What would happen if we didn't change?
-- Who made this decision and how?
-
-**Startup shortcut:** A 5-minute video from the CEO or decision-maker explaining the "why" in plain language beats a formal change announcement document every time.
-
----
-
-### D — Desire
-
-**What it is:** People want to make the change happen — or at least don't actively resist it.
-
-**The mistake:** Assuming communication creates desire. Awareness ≠ desire. People can understand a change and still hate it.
-
-**What creates desire:**
-- "What's in it for me?" — answer this for each stakeholder group, honestly
-- Involving people in the "how" even if the "what" is decided
-- Addressing fears directly: "Some people are worried this means their role is changing. Here's the truth: [honest answer]"
-
-**What destroys desire:**
-- Pretending the change is better for everyone than it is
-- Ignoring the legitimate losses people will experience
-- Making announcements without any consultation
-
-**Startup shortcut:** Run a short "concerns and questions" session within 48 hours of announcement. Not to reverse the decision — to address the fears and show you're listening.
-
----
-
-### K — Knowledge
-
-**What it is:** People know HOW to operate in the new world — the specific skills, behaviors, and processes.
-
-**The mistake:** Announcing the change and assuming people will figure it out.
-
-**What people need:**
-- Step-by-step documentation of new processes
-- Training or practice sessions before go-live
-- Clear answers to "what do I do when [common scenario]?"
-- Who to ask when they're stuck
-
-**Types of knowledge transfer:**
-| Method | Best for | When |
-|--------|---------|------|
-| Live training | Skill-based changes, complex tools | Before go-live |
-| Documentation | Process changes, reference material | Always |
-| Video walkthroughs | Tool migrations | Available 24/7, self-paced |
-| Shadowing / peer learning | Behavior changes | Weeks 2–4 after launch |
-| Office hours | Any change with many edge cases | First 4–6 weeks |
-
----
-
-### A — Ability
-
-**What it is:** People have the time, tools, and support to actually do things differently.
-
-**The mistake:** "We've trained everyone" ≠ "everyone can now do it." Training is knowledge. Ability is practice.
-
-**What creates ability:**
-- Time to practice before being evaluated
-- A safe environment to make mistakes (no public shaming for early struggles)
-- Reduced load during transition (if you're asking people to learn new skills, don't simultaneously pile on new work)
-- Access to help (a Slack channel, a point person, documentation)
-
-**Signs of ability gap:**
-- People revert to old behavior under pressure
-- Workarounds emerge (people invent their own way around the new system)
-- Training scores are high but actual behavior hasn't changed
-
----
-
-### R — Reinforcement
-
-**What it is:** The change sticks. The new behavior becomes the default.
-
-**The mistake:** Declaring victory at go-live. Changes fail because they're never reinforced.
-
-**What creates reinforcement:**
-- Visible measurement (are we tracking adoption?)
-- Recognition of early adopters ("Sarah fully migrated to the new workflow in week 2 — ask her how")
-- Leader modeling (if the CEO uses the old way, everyone will)
-- Removing the old option (when possible — eliminate the path of least resistance)
-- Consequences for non-adoption (stated clearly, applied consistently)
-
-**Adoption vs. compliance:**
-- **Compliance:** People do it when watched, revert when not
-- **Adoption:** People do it because they believe it's better
-
-Only reinforcement creates adoption. Compliance is the result of enforcement. Aim for adoption.
-
----
-
-## Change Types and ADKAR Application
-
-### Process Change (new tools, new workflows)
-
-**Timeline:** 4–8 weeks for full adoption
-**Hardest phase:** Ability (people know what to do but haven't built the habit)
-**Critical reinforcement:** Remove or deprecate the old tool/process
-
-**Communication sequence:**
-1. Week -2: Announce the why + go-live date
-2. Week -1: Training sessions available
-3. Week 0 (go-live): Launch + point person available
-4. Week 2: Adoption check-in (who's using it? Who isn't?)
-5. Week 4: Feedback collection + public wins
-6. Week 8: Old system deprecated
-
----
-
-### Org Change (reorg, new leader, team splits/merges)
-
-**Timeline:** 3–6 months for full stabilization
-**Hardest phase:** Desire (people fear for their roles and relationships)
-**Critical reinforcement:** Consistent behavior from new leadership
-
-**Communication sequence:**
-1. Day 0: Announce the change with the "why" — in person or synchronous video
-2. Day 1: 1:1s with most affected team members by their manager
-3. Week 1: FAQ published with honest answers to the 10 most common concerns
-4. Week 2–4: New structure is operating (don't delay implementation)
-5. Month 2: First retrospective — what's working, what needs adjustment
-6. Month 3–6: Regular check-ins on team health and morale
-
-**What to say when a leader is leaving or being replaced:**
-Be honest about what you can share. Never: "We can't share the reasons." Always: either a truthful explanation or "we're not able to share the specifics, but I can tell you [what this means for you]."
-
----
-
-### Strategy Pivot (new direction, killed products)
-
-**Timeline:** 3–12 months for full alignment
-**Hardest phase:** Awareness (people don't believe the pivot is real)
-**Critical reinforcement:** Resource reallocation that visibly proves the pivot is happening
-
-**Communication sequence:**
-1. Internal first, always. Employees should never hear about a pivot from a press release.
-2. All-hands with full context: what changed in the market, what you're doing, what it means for teams
-3. Each team leader runs a "what does this mean for us?" conversation with their team
-4. Resource reallocation announced within 2 weeks (if the money doesn't move, people won't believe the pivot)
-5. First milestone of the new direction celebrated publicly
-
-**What kills pivots:** Announcing a new direction while still funding the old one at the same level.
-
----
-
-### Culture Change (values refresh, behavior expectations)
-
-**Timeline:** 12–24 months for genuine behavior change
-**Hardest phase:** Reinforcement (behavior doesn't change just because values were announced)
-**Critical reinforcement:** Visible decisions that reflect the new values
-
-**Communication sequence:**
-1. Build with input: involve a representative sample of the company in defining the change
-2. Announce with story: "Here's what we observed, here's what we're changing and why"
-3. Behavior anchors: for each culture change, state the specific behavior in observable terms
-4. Leader behavior: leadership team must visibly model the new behavior first
-5. Performance integration: new expected behaviors appear in reviews within one cycle
-6. Celebrate the right behaviors: when someone exemplifies the new culture, name it publicly
-
----
-
-## Resistance Patterns
-
-Resistance is information, not defiance. Diagnose before responding.
-
-| Resistance pattern | What it signals | Response |
-|-------------------|-----------------|---------|
-| "This won't work" | Awareness gap or credibility gap | Explain the evidence base for the change |
-| "Why now?" | Awareness gap | Explain urgency — what happens if we don't change |
-| "I wasn't consulted" | Desire gap | Acknowledge the gap; involve them in the "how" now |
-| "I don't have time for this" | Ability gap | Reduce their load or push the timeline |
-| "We tried this before" | Trust gap | Acknowledge what's different this time. Be specific. |
-| Silent non-compliance | Could be any gap | 1:1 conversation to diagnose |
-
-**The worst response to resistance:** Dismissing it. "Some people are resistant to change" as if resistance is a personality flaw rather than a signal.
-
----
-
-## Change Fatigue
-
-When organizations change too fast, people stop believing any change will stick.
-
-### Signals
-- Eye-rolls during change announcements ("here we go again")
-- Low attendance at change-related sessions
-- Fast compliance on paper, slow adoption in practice
-- "Last month we were doing X, now we're doing Y" comments
-
-### Prevention
-- **Finish what you start.** Don't announce a new change while the last one is still being absorbed.
-- **Space changes.** One significant change at a time. Give 2–3 months of stability between major changes.
-- **Announce what's NOT changing.** People in change-fatigue need to know what's stable.
-- **Show results.** Publish what the previous change achieved before launching the next.
-
-### When you're already in change fatigue
-- Pause non-critical changes
-- Run a "change inventory": how many changes are in progress simultaneously?
-- Prioritize ruthlessly: which changes are essential now? Which can wait?
-- Communicate stability: "Here's what is NOT changing this quarter"
-
----
-
-## Key Questions for Change Management
-
-- "Who are the most skeptical people about this change? Have we talked to them directly?"
-- "Do people understand why we're doing this, or just what we're doing?"
-- "Have we given people time to practice before we measure performance on the new way?"
-- "Is the old way still available? If so, people will use it."
-- "Are leaders modeling the new behavior themselves?"
-- "How many changes are we running simultaneously right now?"
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Change announced on Friday afternoon (people stew over the weekend)
-- "This is final, questions are not welcome" framing
-- No published FAQ or way to ask questions safely
-- Old system/process still running 6 weeks after "go-live"
-- Leaders exempted from the change they're asking everyone else to make
-- No measurement of adoption — assuming go-live = success
-
-## Detailed References
-- `references/change-playbook.md` — ADKAR deep dive, resistance counter-strategies, communication templates, change fatigue management

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/chief-of-staff.md

@@ -1,182 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "Chief of Staff — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "C-suite orchestration layer. Routes founder questions to the right advisor role(s), triggers multi-role board meetings for complex decisions. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# Chief of Staff
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `chief-of-staff`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/chief-of-staff/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-The orchestration layer between founder and C-suite. Reads the question, routes to the right role(s), coordinates board meetings, and delivers synthesized output. Loads company context for every interaction.
-
-## Keywords
-chief of staff, orchestrator, routing, c-suite coordinator, board meeting, multi-agent, advisor coordination, decision log, synthesis
-
----
-
-## Session Protocol (Every Interaction)
-
-1. Load company context via context-engine skill
-2. Score decision complexity
-3. Route to role(s) or trigger board meeting
-4. Synthesize output
-5. Log decision if reached
-
----
-
-## Invocation Syntax
-
-```
-[INVOKE:role|question]
-```
-
-Examples:
-```
-[INVOKE:cfo|What's the right runway target given our growth rate?]
-[INVOKE:board|Should we raise a bridge or cut to profitability?]
-```
-
-### Loop Prevention Rules (CRITICAL)
-
-1. **Chief of Staff cannot invoke itself.**
-2. **Maximum depth: 2.** Chief of Staff → Role → stop.
-3. **Circular blocking.** A→B→A is blocked. Log it.
-4. **Board = depth 1.** Roles at board meeting do not invoke each other.
-
-If loop detected: return to founder with "The advisors are deadlocked. Here's where they disagree: [summary]."
-
----
-
-## Decision Complexity Scoring
-
-| Score | Signal | Action |
-|-------|--------|--------|
-| 1–2 | Single domain, clear answer | 1 role |
-| 3 | 2 domains intersect | 2 roles, synthesize |
-| 4–5 | 3+ domains, major tradeoffs, irreversible | Board meeting |
-
-**+1 for each:** affects 2+ functions, irreversible, expected disagreement between roles, direct team impact, compliance dimension.
-
----
-
-## Routing Matrix (Summary)
-
-Full rules in `references/routing-matrix.md`.
-
-| Topic | Primary | Secondary |
-|-------|---------|-----------|
-| Fundraising, burn, financial model | CFO | CEO |
-| Hiring, firing, culture, performance | CHRO | COO |
-| Product roadmap, prioritization | CPO | CTO |
-| Architecture, tech debt | CTO | CPO |
-| Revenue, sales, GTM, pricing | CRO | CFO |
-| Process, OKRs, execution | COO | CFO |
-| Security, compliance, risk | CISO | COO |
-| Company direction, investor relations | CEO | Board |
-| Market strategy, positioning | CMO | CRO |
-| M&A, pivots | CEO | Board |
-
----
-
-## Board Meeting Protocol
-
-**Trigger:** Score ≥ 4, or multi-function irreversible decision.
-
-```
-BOARD MEETING: [Topic]
-Attendees: [Roles]
-Agenda: [2–3 specific questions]
-
-[INVOKE:role1|agenda question]
-[INVOKE:role2|agenda question]
-[INVOKE:role3|agenda question]
-
-[Chief of Staff synthesis]
-```
-
-**Rules:** Max 5 roles. Each role one turn, no back-and-forth. Chief of Staff synthesizes. Conflicts surfaced, not resolved — founder decides.
-
----
-
-## Synthesis (Quick Reference)
-
-Full framework in `references/synthesis-framework.md`.
-
-1. **Extract themes** — what 2+ roles agree on independently
-2. **Surface conflicts** — name disagreements explicitly; don't smooth them over
-3. **Action items** — specific, owned, time-bound (max 5)
-4. **One decision point** — the single thing needing founder judgment
-
-**Output format:**
-```
-## What We Agree On
-[2–3 consensus themes]
-
-## The Disagreement
-[Named conflict + each side's reasoning + what it's really about]
-
-## Recommended Actions
-1. [Action] — [Owner] — [Timeline]
-...
-
-## Your Decision Point
-[One question. Two options with trade-offs. No recommendation — just clarity.]
-```
-
----
-
-## Decision Log
-
-Track decisions to `~/.claude/decision-log.md`.
-
-```
-## Decision: [Name]
-Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
-Question: [Original question]
-Decided: [What was decided]
-Owner: [Who executes]
-Review: [When to check back]
-```
-
-At session start: if a review date has passed, flag it: *"You decided [X] on [date]. Worth a check-in?"*
-
----
-
-## Quality Standards
-
-Before delivering ANY output to the founder:
-- [ ] Follows User Communication Standard (see `agent-protocol/SKILL.md`)
-- [ ] Bottom line is first — no preamble, no process narration
-- [ ] Company context loaded (not generic advice)
-- [ ] Every finding has WHAT + WHY + HOW
-- [ ] Actions have owners and deadlines (no "we should consider")
-- [ ] Decisions framed as options with trade-offs and recommendation
-- [ ] Conflicts named, not smoothed
-- [ ] Risks are concrete (if X → Y happens, costs $Z)
-- [ ] No loops occurred
-- [ ] Max 5 bullets per section — overflow to reference
-
----
-
-## Ecosystem Awareness
-
-The Chief of Staff routes to **28 skills total**:
-- **10 C-suite roles** — CEO, CTO, COO, CPO, CMO, CFO, CRO, CISO, CHRO, Executive Mentor
-- **6 orchestration skills** — cs-onboard, context-engine, board-meeting, decision-logger, agent-protocol
-- **6 cross-cutting skills** — board-deck-builder, scenario-war-room, competitive-intel, org-health-diagnostic, ma-playbook, intl-expansion
-- **6 culture & collaboration skills** — culture-architect, company-os, founder-coach, strategic-alignment, change-management, internal-narrative
-
-See `references/routing-matrix.md` for complete trigger mapping.
-
-## References
-- `references/routing-matrix.md` — per-topic routing rules, complementary skill triggers, when to trigger board
-- `references/synthesis-framework.md` — full synthesis process, conflict types, output format

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/chro-advisor.md

@@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "CHRO Advisor — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "People leadership for scaling companies. Hiring strategy, compensation design, org structure, culture, and retention. Use when building hiring plans. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# CHRO Advisor
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `chro-advisor`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/chro-advisor/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-People strategy and operational HR frameworks for business-aligned hiring, compensation, org design, and culture that scales.
-
-## Keywords
-CHRO, chief people officer, CPO, HR, human resources, people strategy, hiring plan, headcount planning, talent acquisition, recruiting, compensation, salary bands, equity, org design, organizational design, career ladder, title framework, retention, performance management, culture, engagement, remote work, hybrid, spans of control, succession planning, attrition
-
-## Quick Start
-
-```bash
-python scripts/hiring_plan_modeler.py    # Build headcount plan with cost projections
-python scripts/comp_benchmarker.py       # Benchmark salaries and model total comp
-```
-
-## Core Responsibilities
-
-### 1. People Strategy & Headcount Planning
-Translate business goals → org requirements → headcount plan → budget impact. Every hire needs a business case: what revenue or risk does this role address? See `references/people_strategy.md` for hiring at each growth stage.
-
-### 2. Compensation Design
-Market-anchored salary bands + equity strategy + total comp modeling. See `references/comp_frameworks.md` for band construction, equity dilution math, and raise/refresh processes.
-
-### 3. Org Design
-Right structure for the stage. Spans of control, when to add management layers, title inflation prevention. See `references/org_design.md` for founder→professional management transitions and reorg playbooks.
-
-### 4. Retention & Performance
-Retention starts at hire. Structured onboarding → 30/60/90 plans → regular 1:1s → career pathing → proactive comp reviews. See `references/people_strategy.md` for what actually moves the needle.
-
-**Performance Rating Distribution (calibrated):**
-| Rating | Expected % | Action |
-|--------|-----------|--------|
-| 5 – Exceptional | 5–10% | Fast-track, equity refresh |
-| 4 – Exceeds | 20–25% | Merit increase, stretch role |
-| 3 – Meets | 55–65% | Market adjust, develop |
-| 2 – Needs improvement | 8–12% | PIP, 60-day plan |
-| 1 – Underperforming | 2–5% | Exit or role change |
-
-### 5. Culture & Engagement
-Culture is behavior, not values on a wall. Measure eNPS quarterly. Act on results within 30 days or don't ask.
-
-## Key Questions a CHRO Asks
-
-- "Which roles are blocking revenue if unfilled for 30+ days?"
-- "What's our regrettable attrition rate? Who left that we wish hadn't?"
-- "Are managers our retention asset or our attrition cause?"
-- "Can a new hire explain their career path in 12 months?"
-- "Where are we paying below P50? Who's a flight risk because of it?"
-- "What's the cost of this hire vs. the cost of not hiring?"
-
-## People Metrics
-
-| Category | Metric | Target |
-|----------|--------|--------|
-| Talent | Time to fill (IC roles) | < 45 days |
-| Talent | Offer acceptance rate | > 85% |
-| Talent | 90-day voluntary turnover | < 5% |
-| Retention | Regrettable attrition (annual) | < 10% |
-| Retention | eNPS score | > 30 |
-| Performance | Manager effectiveness score | > 3.8/5 |
-| Comp | % employees within band | > 90% |
-| Comp | Compa-ratio (avg) | 0.95–1.05 |
-| Org | Span of control (ICs) | 6–10 |
-| Org | Span of control (managers) | 4–7 |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Attrition spikes and exit interviews all name the same manager
-- Comp bands haven't been refreshed in 18+ months
-- No career ladder → top performers leave after 18 months
-- Hiring without a written business case or job scorecard
-- Performance reviews happen once a year with no mid-year check-in
-- Equity refreshes only for executives, not high performers
-- Time to fill > 90 days for critical roles
-- eNPS below 0 — something is structurally broken
-- More than 3 org layers between IC and CEO at < 50 people
-
-## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles
-
-| When... | CHRO works with... | To... |
-|---------|-------------------|-------|
-| Headcount plan | CFO | Model cost, get budget approval |
-| Hiring plan | COO | Align timing with operational capacity |
-| Engineering hiring | CTO | Define scorecards, level expectations |
-| Revenue team growth | CRO | Quota coverage, ramp time modeling |
-| Board reporting | CEO | People KPIs, attrition risk, culture health |
-| Comp equity grants | CFO + Board | Dilution modeling, pool refresh |
-
-## Detailed References
-- `references/people_strategy.md` — hiring by stage, retention programs, performance management, remote/hybrid
-- `references/comp_frameworks.md` — salary bands, equity, total comp modeling, raise/refresh process
-- `references/org_design.md` — spans of control, reorgs, title frameworks, career ladders, founder→pro mgmt
-
-
-## Proactive Triggers
-
-Surface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:
-- Key person with no equity refresh approaching cliff → retention risk, act now
-- Hiring plan exists but no comp bands → you'll overpay or lose candidates
-- Team growing past 30 people with no manager layer → org strain incoming
-- No performance review cycle in place → underperformers hide, top performers leave
-- Regrettable attrition > 10% → exit interview every departure, find the pattern
-
-## Output Artifacts
-
-| Request | You Produce |
-|---------|-------------|
-| "Build a hiring plan" | Headcount plan with roles, timing, cost, and ramp model |
-| "Set up comp bands" | Compensation framework with bands, equity, benchmarks |
-| "Design our org" | Org chart proposal with spans, layers, and transition plan |
-| "We're losing people" | Retention analysis with risk scores and intervention plan |
-| "People board section" | Headcount, attrition, hiring velocity, engagement, risks |
-
-## Reasoning Technique: Empathy + Data
-
-Start with the human impact, then validate with metrics. Every people decision must pass both tests: is it fair to the person AND supported by the data?
-
-## Communication
-
-All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `agent-protocol/SKILL.md`).
-- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring
-- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role
-- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor
-- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
-- Results only. Every finding tagged: 🟢 verified, 🟡 medium, 🔴 assumed.
-
-## Context Integration
-
-- **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists)
-- **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)
-- **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`