aigroup-workflow 1.0.1 → 1.1.1

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/engineering/interview-system-designer/references/debrief_facilitation_guide.md

@@ -1,319 +0,0 @@
-# Interview Debrief Facilitation Guide
-
-This guide provides a comprehensive framework for conducting effective, unbiased interview debriefs that lead to consistent hiring decisions. Use this to facilitate productive discussions that focus on evidence-based evaluation.
-
-## Pre-Debrief Preparation
-
-### Facilitator Responsibilities
-- [ ] **Review all interviewer feedback** before the meeting
-- [ ] **Identify significant score discrepancies** that need discussion
-- [ ] **Prepare discussion agenda** with time allocations
-- [ ] **Gather role requirements** and competency framework
-- [ ] **Review any flags or special considerations** noted during interviews
-- [ ] **Ensure all required materials** are available (scorecards, rubrics, candidate resume)
-- [ ] **Set up meeting logistics** (room, video conference, screen sharing)
-- [ ] **Send agenda to participants** 30 minutes before meeting
-
-### Required Materials Checklist
-- [ ] Candidate resume and application materials
-- [ ] Job description and competency requirements
-- [ ] Individual interviewer scorecards
-- [ ] Scoring rubrics and competency definitions
-- [ ] Interview notes and documentation
-- [ ] Any technical assessments or work samples
-- [ ] Company hiring standards and calibration examples
-- [ ] Bias mitigation reminders and prompts
-
-### Participant Preparation Requirements
-- [ ] All interviewers must **complete independent scoring** before debrief
-- [ ] **Submit written feedback** with specific evidence for each competency
-- [ ] **Review scoring rubrics** to ensure consistent interpretation
-- [ ] **Prepare specific examples** to support scoring decisions
-- [ ] **Flag any concerns or unusual circumstances** that affected assessment
-- [ ] **Avoid discussing candidate** with other interviewers before debrief
-- [ ] **Come prepared to defend scores** with concrete evidence
-- [ ] **Be ready to adjust scores** based on additional evidence shared
-
-## Debrief Meeting Structure
-
-### Opening (5 minutes)
-1. **State meeting purpose**: Make hiring decision based on evidence
-2. **Review agenda and time limits**: Keep discussion focused and productive
-3. **Remind of bias mitigation principles**: Focus on competencies, not personality
-4. **Confirm confidentiality**: Discussion stays within hiring team
-5. **Establish ground rules**: One person speaks at a time, evidence-based discussion
-
-### Individual Score Sharing (10-15 minutes)
-- **Go around the room systematically** - each interviewer shares scores independently
-- **No discussion or challenges yet** - just data collection
-- **Record scores on shared document** visible to all participants
-- **Note any abstentions** or "insufficient data" responses
-- **Identify clear patterns** and discrepancies without commentary
-- **Flag any scores requiring explanation** (1s or 4s typically need strong evidence)
-
-### Competency-by-Competency Discussion (30-40 minutes)
-
-#### For Each Core Competency:
-
-**1. Present Score Distribution (2 minutes)**
-- Display all scores for this competency
-- Note range and any outliers
-- Identify if consensus exists or discussion needed
-
-**2. Evidence Sharing (5-8 minutes per competency)**
-- Start with interviewers who assessed this competency directly
-- Share specific examples and observations
-- Focus on what candidate said/did, not interpretations
-- Allow questions for clarification (not challenges yet)
-
-**3. Discussion and Calibration (3-5 minutes)**
-- Address significant discrepancies (>1 point difference)
-- Challenge vague or potentially biased language
-- Seek additional evidence if needed
-- Allow score adjustments based on new information
-- Reach consensus or note dissenting views
-
-#### Structured Discussion Questions:
-- **"What specific evidence supports this score?"**
-- **"Can you provide the exact example or quote?"**
-- **"How does this compare to our rubric definition?"**
-- **"Would this response receive the same score regardless of who gave it?"**
-- **"Are we evaluating the competency or making assumptions?"**
-- **"What would need to change for this to be the next level up/down?"**
-
-### Overall Recommendation Discussion (10-15 minutes)
-
-#### Weighted Score Calculation
-1. **Apply competency weights** based on role requirements
-2. **Calculate overall weighted average**
-3. **Check minimum threshold requirements**
-4. **Consider any veto criteria** (critical competency failures)
-
-#### Final Recommendation Options
-- **Strong Hire**: Exceeds requirements in most areas, clear value-add
-- **Hire**: Meets requirements with growth potential
-- **No Hire**: Doesn't meet minimum requirements for success
-- **Strong No Hire**: Significant gaps that would impact team/company
-
-#### Decision Rationale Documentation
-- **Summarize key strengths** with specific evidence
-- **Identify development areas** with specific examples
-- **Explain final recommendation** with competency-based reasoning
-- **Note any dissenting opinions** and reasoning
-- **Document onboarding considerations** if hiring
-
-### Closing and Next Steps (5 minutes)
-- **Confirm final decision** and documentation
-- **Assign follow-up actions** (feedback delivery, offer preparation, etc.)
-- **Schedule any additional interviews** if needed
-- **Review timeline** for candidate communication
-- **Remind confidentiality** of discussion and decision
-
-## Facilitation Best Practices
-
-### Creating Psychological Safety
-- **Encourage honest feedback** without fear of judgment
-- **Validate different perspectives** and assessment approaches  
-- **Address power dynamics** - ensure junior voices are heard
-- **Model vulnerability** - admit when evidence changes your mind
-- **Focus on learning** and calibration, not winning arguments
-- **Thank participants** for thorough preparation and thoughtful input
-
-### Managing Difficult Conversations
-
-#### When Scores Vary Significantly
-1. **Acknowledge the discrepancy** without judgment
-2. **Ask for specific evidence** from each scorer
-3. **Look for different interpretations** of the same data
-4. **Consider if different questions** revealed different competency levels
-5. **Check for bias patterns** in reasoning
-6. **Allow time for reflection** and potential score adjustments
-
-#### When Someone Uses Biased Language
-1. **Pause the conversation** gently but firmly
-2. **Ask for specific evidence** behind the assessment
-3. **Reframe in competency terms** - "What specific skills did this demonstrate?"
-4. **Challenge assumptions** - "Help me understand how we know that"
-5. **Redirect to rubric** - "How does this align with our scoring criteria?"
-6. **Document and follow up** privately if bias persists
-
-#### When the Discussion Gets Off Track
-- **Redirect to competencies**: "Let's focus on the technical skills demonstrated"
-- **Ask for evidence**: "What specific example supports that assessment?"  
-- **Reference rubrics**: "How does this align with our level 3 definition?"
-- **Manage time**: "We have 5 minutes left on this competency"
-- **Table unrelated issues**: "That's important but separate from this hire decision"
-
-### Encouraging Evidence-Based Discussion
-
-#### Good Evidence Examples
-- **Direct quotes**: "When asked about debugging, they said..."
-- **Specific behaviors**: "They organized their approach by first..."
-- **Observable outcomes**: "Their code compiled on first run and handled edge cases"
-- **Process descriptions**: "They walked through their problem-solving step by step"
-- **Measurable results**: "They identified 3 optimization opportunities"
-
-#### Poor Evidence Examples
-- **Gut feelings**: "They just seemed off"
-- **Comparisons**: "Not as strong as our last hire"
-- **Assumptions**: "Probably wouldn't fit our culture"
-- **Vague impressions**: "Didn't seem passionate"
-- **Irrelevant factors**: "Their background is different from ours"
-
-### Managing Group Dynamics
-
-#### Ensuring Equal Participation
-- **Direct questions** to quieter participants
-- **Prevent interrupting** and ensure everyone finishes thoughts
-- **Balance speaking time** across all interviewers
-- **Validate minority opinions** even if not adopted
-- **Check for unheard perspectives** before finalizing decisions
-
-#### Handling Strong Personalities
-- **Set time limits** for individual speaking
-- **Redirect monopolizers**: "Let's hear from others on this"
-- **Challenge confidently stated opinions** that lack evidence
-- **Support less assertive voices** in expressing dissenting views
-- **Focus on data**, not personality or seniority in decision making
-
-## Bias Interruption Strategies
-
-### Affinity Bias Interruption
-- **Notice pattern**: Positive assessment seems based on shared background/interests
-- **Interrupt with**: "Let's focus on the job-relevant skills they demonstrated"
-- **Redirect to**: Specific competency evidence and measurable outcomes
-- **Document**: Note if personal connection affected professional assessment
-
-### Halo/Horn Effect Interruption
-- **Notice pattern**: One area strongly influencing assessment of unrelated areas
-- **Interrupt with**: "Let's score each competency independently"
-- **Redirect to**: Specific evidence for each individual competency area
-- **Recalibrate**: Ask for separate examples supporting each score
-
-### Confirmation Bias Interruption
-- **Notice pattern**: Only seeking/discussing evidence that supports initial impression
-- **Interrupt with**: "What evidence might suggest a different assessment?"
-- **Redirect to**: Consider alternative interpretations of the same data
-- **Challenge**: "How might we be wrong about this assessment?"
-
-### Attribution Bias Interruption
-- **Notice pattern**: Attributing success to luck/help for some demographics, skill for others
-- **Interrupt with**: "What role did the candidate play in achieving this outcome?"
-- **Redirect to**: Candidate's specific contributions and decision-making
-- **Standardize**: Apply same attribution standards across all candidates
-
-## Decision Documentation Framework
-
-### Required Documentation Elements
-1. **Final scores** for each assessed competency
-2. **Overall recommendation** with supporting rationale
-3. **Key strengths** with specific evidence
-4. **Development areas** with specific examples
-5. **Dissenting opinions** if any, with reasoning
-6. **Special considerations** or accommodation needs
-7. **Next steps** and timeline for decision communication
-
-### Evidence Quality Standards
-- **Specific and observable**: What exactly did the candidate do or say?
-- **Job-relevant**: How does this relate to success in the role?
-- **Measurable**: Can this be quantified or clearly described?
-- **Unbiased**: Would this evidence be interpreted the same way regardless of candidate demographics?
-- **Complete**: Does this represent the full picture of their performance in this area?
-
-### Writing Guidelines
-- **Use active voice** and specific language
-- **Avoid assumptions** about motivations or personality
-- **Focus on behaviors** demonstrated during the interview
-- **Provide context** for any unusual circumstances
-- **Be constructive** in describing development areas
-- **Maintain professionalism** and respect for candidate
-
-## Common Debrief Challenges and Solutions
-
-### Challenge: "I just don't think they'd fit our culture"
-**Solution**: 
-- Ask for specific, observable evidence
-- Define what "culture fit" means in job-relevant terms
-- Challenge assumptions about cultural requirements
-- Focus on ability to collaborate and contribute effectively
-
-### Challenge: Scores vary widely with no clear explanation
-**Solution**:
-- Review if different interviewers assessed different competencies
-- Look for question differences that might explain variance
-- Consider if candidate performance varied across interviews
-- May need additional data gathering or interview
-
-### Challenge: Everyone loved/hated the candidate but can't articulate why
-**Solution**:
-- Push for specific evidence supporting emotional reactions
-- Review competency rubrics together
-- Look for halo/horn effects influencing overall impression
-- Consider unconscious bias training for team
-
-### Challenge: Technical vs. non-technical interviewers disagree
-**Solution**:
-- Clarify which competencies each interviewer was assessing
-- Ensure technical assessments carry appropriate weight
-- Look for different perspectives on same evidence
-- Consider specialist input for technical decisions
-
-### Challenge: Senior interviewer dominates decision making
-**Solution**:
-- Structure discussion to hear from all levels first
-- Ask direct questions to junior interviewers
-- Challenge opinions that lack supporting evidence
-- Remember that assessment ability doesn't correlate with seniority
-
-### Challenge: Team wants to hire but scores don't support it
-**Solution**:
-- Review if rubrics match actual job requirements
-- Check for consistent application of scoring standards
-- Consider if additional competencies need assessment
-- May indicate need for rubric calibration or role requirement review
-
-## Post-Debrief Actions
-
-### Immediate Actions (Same Day)
-- [ ] **Finalize decision documentation** with all evidence
-- [ ] **Communicate decision** to recruiting team
-- [ ] **Schedule candidate feedback** delivery if applicable
-- [ ] **Update interview scheduling** based on decision
-- [ ] **Note any process improvements** needed for future
-
-### Follow-up Actions (Within 1 Week)
-- [ ] **Deliver candidate feedback** (internal or external)
-- [ ] **Update interview feedback** in tracking system
-- [ ] **Schedule any additional interviews** if needed
-- [ ] **Begin offer process** if hiring
-- [ ] **Document lessons learned** for process improvement
-
-### Long-term Actions (Monthly/Quarterly)
-- [ ] **Analyze debrief effectiveness** and decision quality
-- [ ] **Review interviewer calibration** based on decisions
-- [ ] **Update rubrics** based on debrief insights
-- [ ] **Provide additional training** if bias patterns identified
-- [ ] **Share successful practices** with other hiring teams
-
-## Continuous Improvement Framework
-
-### Debrief Effectiveness Metrics
-- **Decision consistency**: Are similar candidates receiving similar decisions?
-- **Time to decision**: Are debriefs completing within planned time?
-- **Participation quality**: Are all interviewers contributing evidence-based input?
-- **Bias incidents**: How often are bias interruptions needed?
-- **Decision satisfaction**: Do participants feel good about the process and outcome?
-
-### Regular Review Process
-- **Monthly**: Review debrief facilitation effectiveness and interviewer feedback
-- **Quarterly**: Analyze decision patterns and potential bias indicators  
-- **Semi-annually**: Update debrief processes based on hiring outcome data
-- **Annually**: Comprehensive review of debrief framework and training needs
-
-### Training and Calibration
-- **New facilitators**: Shadow 3-5 debriefs before leading independently
-- **All facilitators**: Quarterly calibration sessions on bias interruption
-- **Interviewer training**: Include debrief participation expectations
-- **Leadership training**: Ensure hiring managers can facilitate effectively
-
-This guide should be adapted to your organization's specific needs while maintaining focus on evidence-based, unbiased decision making.

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/engineering/interview-system-designer/references/interview-frameworks.md

@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
-# Interview Frameworks
-
-## Loop Design by Level
-
-### Junior/Mid
-
-- Emphasize fundamentals, debugging, and growth potential.
-- Keep loops concise with coding + behavioral validation.
-
-### Senior
-
-- Add system design and leadership rounds.
-- Evaluate tradeoff quality, mentoring, and cross-team collaboration.
-
-### Staff+
-
-- Focus on architecture direction and organizational impact.
-- Assess strategy, influence, and long-term technical judgment.
-
-## Competency Areas
-
-- Technical depth (implementation, design, quality)
-- Problem solving (ambiguity handling, prioritization)
-- Collaboration (communication, stakeholder alignment)
-- Leadership (ownership, mentoring, influence)
-
-## Scoring Rubric Baseline
-
-- `4`: exceeds level expectations with strong evidence
-- `3`: meets expectations consistently
-- `2`: partial signal with notable gaps
-- `1`: does not meet baseline requirements
-
-## Calibration Guidelines
-
-- Run recurring interviewer calibration sessions.
-- Compare interviewer scoring variance across rounds.
-- Track interview signal against new-hire outcomes.
-- Use structured debriefs with independent scoring before discussion.
-
-## Bias-Reduction Baseline
-
-- Standardize question banks per competency area.
-- Keep scorecards evidence-based and behavior-specific.
-- Use diverse interviewer panels where possible.
-- Require written rationale for strong yes/no recommendations.

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/engineering/interview-system-designer/scripts/interview_planner.py

@@ -1,133 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env python3
-"""Generate an interview loop plan by role and level."""
-
-from __future__ import annotations
-
-import argparse
-import json
-from typing import Dict, List
-
-BASE_ROUNDS = {
-    "junior": [
-        ("Screen", 45, "Fundamentals and communication"),
-        ("Coding", 60, "Problem solving and code quality"),
-        ("Behavioral", 45, "Collaboration and growth mindset"),
-    ],
-    "mid": [
-        ("Screen", 45, "Fundamentals and ownership"),
-        ("Coding", 60, "Implementation quality"),
-        ("System Design", 60, "Service/component design"),
-        ("Behavioral", 45, "Stakeholder collaboration"),
-    ],
-    "senior": [
-        ("Screen", 45, "Depth and tradeoff reasoning"),
-        ("Coding", 60, "Code quality and testing"),
-        ("System Design", 75, "Scalability and reliability"),
-        ("Leadership", 60, "Mentoring and decision making"),
-        ("Behavioral", 45, "Cross-functional influence"),
-    ],
-    "staff": [
-        ("Screen", 45, "Strategic and technical depth"),
-        ("Architecture", 90, "Org-level design decisions"),
-        ("Technical Strategy", 60, "Long-term tradeoffs"),
-        ("Influence", 60, "Cross-team leadership"),
-        ("Behavioral", 45, "Values and executive communication"),
-    ],
-}
-
-QUESTION_BANK = {
-    "coding": [
-        "Walk through your approach before coding and identify tradeoffs.",
-        "How would you test this implementation for edge cases?",
-        "What would you refactor if this code became a shared library?",
-    ],
-    "system": [
-        "Design this system for 10x traffic growth in 12 months.",
-        "Where are the main failure modes and how would you detect them?",
-        "What components would you scale first and why?",
-    ],
-    "leadership": [
-        "Describe a time you changed technical direction with incomplete information.",
-        "How do you raise the bar for code quality across a team?",
-        "How do you handle disagreement between product and engineering priorities?",
-    ],
-    "behavioral": [
-        "Tell me about a high-stakes mistake and what changed afterward.",
-        "Describe a conflict where you had to influence without authority.",
-        "How do you support underperforming teammates?",
-    ],
-}
-
-
-def normalize_level(level: str) -> str:
-    level = level.strip().lower()
-    if level in {"staff+", "principal", "lead"}:
-        return "staff"
-    if level not in BASE_ROUNDS:
-        raise ValueError(f"Unsupported level: {level}")
-    return level
-
-
-def suggested_questions(round_name: str) -> List[str]:
-    name = round_name.lower()
-    if "coding" in name:
-        return QUESTION_BANK["coding"]
-    if "system" in name or "architecture" in name:
-        return QUESTION_BANK["system"]
-    if "lead" in name or "influence" in name or "strategy" in name:
-        return QUESTION_BANK["leadership"]
-    return QUESTION_BANK["behavioral"]
-
-
-def generate_plan(role: str, level: str) -> Dict[str, object]:
-    normalized = normalize_level(level)
-    rounds = []
-    for idx, (name, minutes, focus) in enumerate(BASE_ROUNDS[normalized], start=1):
-        rounds.append(
-            {
-                "round": idx,
-                "name": name,
-                "duration_minutes": minutes,
-                "focus": focus,
-                "suggested_questions": suggested_questions(name),
-            }
-        )
-    return {
-        "role": role,
-        "level": normalized,
-        "total_rounds": len(rounds),
-        "total_minutes": sum(r["duration_minutes"] for r in rounds),
-        "rounds": rounds,
-    }
-
-
-def parse_args() -> argparse.Namespace:
-    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Generate an interview loop plan for a role and level.")
-    parser.add_argument("--role", required=True, help="Role name (e.g., Senior Software Engineer)")
-    parser.add_argument("--level", required=True, help="Level: junior|mid|senior|staff")
-    parser.add_argument("--json", action="store_true", help="Output as JSON")
-    return parser.parse_args()
-
-
-def main() -> int:
-    args = parse_args()
-    plan = generate_plan(args.role, args.level)
-
-    if args.json:
-        print(json.dumps(plan, indent=2))
-    else:
-        print(f"Interview Plan: {plan['role']} ({plan['level']})")
-        print(f"Total rounds: {plan['total_rounds']} | Total time: {plan['total_minutes']} minutes")
-        print("")
-        for r in plan["rounds"]:
-            print(f"Round {r['round']}: {r['name']} ({r['duration_minutes']} min)")
-            print(f"Focus: {r['focus']}")
-            for q in r["suggested_questions"]:
-                print(f"- {q}")
-            print("")
-
-    return 0
-
-
-if __name__ == "__main__":
-    raise SystemExit(main())

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/engineering/mcp-server-builder/README.md

@@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
-# MCP Server Builder
-
-Generate and validate MCP servers from OpenAPI contracts with production-focused tooling. This skill helps teams bootstrap fast and enforce schema quality before shipping.
-
-## Quick Start
-
-```bash
-# Generate scaffold from OpenAPI
-python3 scripts/openapi_to_mcp.py \
-  --input openapi.json \
-  --server-name my-mcp \
-  --language python \
-  --output-dir ./generated \
-  --format text
-
-# Validate generated manifest
-python3 scripts/mcp_validator.py --input generated/tool_manifest.json --strict --format text
-```
-
-## Included Tools
-
-- `scripts/openapi_to_mcp.py`: OpenAPI -> `tool_manifest.json` + starter server scaffold
-- `scripts/mcp_validator.py`: structural and quality validation for MCP tool definitions
-
-## References
-
-- `references/openapi-extraction-guide.md`
-- `references/python-server-template.md`
-- `references/typescript-server-template.md`
-- `references/validation-checklist.md`
-
-## Installation
-
-### Claude Code
-
-```bash
-cp -R engineering/mcp-server-builder ~/.claude/skills/mcp-server-builder
-```
-
-### OpenAI Codex
-
-```bash
-cp -R engineering/mcp-server-builder ~/.codex/skills/mcp-server-builder
-```
-
-### OpenClaw
-
-```bash
-cp -R engineering/mcp-server-builder ~/.openclaw/skills/mcp-server-builder
-```