arkaos 2.57.0 → 2.58.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/VERSION
CHANGED
|
@@ -1 +1 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
2.
|
|
1
|
+
2.58.0
|
|
@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
---
|
|
2
2
|
name: org/culture-define
|
|
3
3
|
description: >
|
|
4
|
-
Culture definition
|
|
4
|
+
Culture definition — values (inversion-tested), observable behaviours,
|
|
5
|
+
reinforcing rituals, decision principles, and operationalisation in hiring
|
|
6
|
+
+ performance + promotion.
|
|
5
7
|
allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, WebFetch, WebSearch]
|
|
6
8
|
---
|
|
7
9
|
|
|
@@ -21,12 +23,147 @@ does not replace the vault.
|
|
|
21
23
|
|
|
22
24
|
# Culture Define — `/org culture`
|
|
23
25
|
|
|
24
|
-
> **
|
|
26
|
+
> **Lead:** Sofia (COO) | **Cross-dept:** Tomas (Strategy) + Clara (KB) + Eduardo (Copy) + Marta (CQO) | **Frameworks:** Netflix Culture + Lencioni Five Dysfunctions + Dalio Principles + Inversion Test
|
|
25
27
|
|
|
26
|
-
## What
|
|
28
|
+
## What ships
|
|
27
29
|
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
30
|
+
A production culture document in 6 deliverables:
|
|
29
31
|
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
32
|
+
1. **Cultural archaeology** — what's already true vs aspirational
|
|
33
|
+
2. **Values set** — 4-6 values that pass the inversion test
|
|
34
|
+
3. **Behaviour map** — 3-5 observable behaviours per value
|
|
35
|
+
4. **Ritual catalogue** — value-reinforcing rituals with owners + frequency
|
|
36
|
+
5. **Decision principles** — how the org decides, disagrees, commits
|
|
37
|
+
6. **Operationalisation plan** — culture wired into hiring + onboarding + performance + promotion
|
|
31
38
|
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
39
|
+
## The Inversion Test (the only test that matters)
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
A value passes the inversion test if **its opposite is a defensible position held by another reputable company**. Values that fail the inversion test are platitudes, not values.
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
| Value | Inverse | Pass / Fail |
|
|
44
|
+
|---|---|---|
|
|
45
|
+
| "Move fast" | "Move with deliberation, premortem every change" | PASS — Boeing, surgical software vendors |
|
|
46
|
+
| "Customer obsession" | "Engineer obsession — make the system right, customers adapt" | PASS — Linux kernel, AWS internal services |
|
|
47
|
+
| "Excellence" | (no defensible opposite — nobody says "mediocrity") | FAIL — platitude |
|
|
48
|
+
| "Integrity" | (no defensible opposite — nobody says "dishonesty") | FAIL — platitude |
|
|
49
|
+
| "Bias for action" | "Bias for analysis — measure twice, cut once" | PASS — research orgs, regulated industries |
|
|
50
|
+
| "Radical candour" | "Diplomatic harmony — preserve relationships over signals" | PASS — Japanese corporate culture, diplomatic services |
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
If you cannot name a real company that holds the opposite position, the value is not a value. Drop it.
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
## Cultural Archaeology (extract before defining)
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
Before defining culture aspirationally, **map what already is**. Cultural artefacts to inspect:
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
- **Slack/Discord patterns** — who responds when, what gets celebrated, what gets ignored
|
|
59
|
+
- **Decision logs** — what got built vs what got rejected, with rationale
|
|
60
|
+
- **Founder choices** — first hires, first firings, first product cuts
|
|
61
|
+
- **Calendar reality** — what gets weekly time vs quarterly time vs never
|
|
62
|
+
- **Recognition patterns** — who gets praised publicly, for what
|
|
63
|
+
- **Conflict patterns** — how disagreement is surfaced, escalated, resolved
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
Map the as-is. Then compare to the desired-is. The gap between as-is and desired-is is the culture-change work — and most of it is operationalisation, not aspiration.
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
## Behaviour Mapping (observable + coachable)
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
Each value translates to 3-5 behaviours that are:
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
- **Observable** — a third-party could watch and identify the behaviour
|
|
72
|
+
- **Coachable** — a manager can give feedback specific to this behaviour
|
|
73
|
+
- **Inversion-defensible** — the inverse behaviour would identifiably belong to a different value
|
|
74
|
+
|
|
75
|
+
Example translation:
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
```yaml
|
|
78
|
+
value: "Radical Candour"
|
|
79
|
+
behaviours:
|
|
80
|
+
- observable: "In meetings, names a disagreement explicitly within 30 seconds of forming it"
|
|
81
|
+
coachable: "Manager can flag: 'You sat on that disagreement for 5 minutes before raising it. What kept you quiet?'"
|
|
82
|
+
- observable: "Gives critical feedback to peers directly before going to manager"
|
|
83
|
+
coachable: "Manager can flag: 'You came to me about Marco's work — have you told Marco first?'"
|
|
84
|
+
- observable: "Writes the dissenting view in the decision document, not in DM"
|
|
85
|
+
coachable: "Manager can flag: 'I see you DM'd me your concern — that belongs in the doc thread.'"
|
|
86
|
+
```
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
Behaviours that aren't observable + coachable are aspirations, not culture.
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
## Ritual Catalogue (load-bearing rituals)
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
Rituals reinforce values by repetition. Each ritual must:
|
|
93
|
+
|
|
94
|
+
- **Have an owner** — named human who runs it
|
|
95
|
+
- **Have a value it reinforces** — explicit link, not "team-building"
|
|
96
|
+
- **Be load-bearing** — if removed, the value erodes
|
|
97
|
+
- **Have a cadence** — daily / weekly / monthly / quarterly / annual
|
|
98
|
+
|
|
99
|
+
Decorative rituals (Friday afternoon trivia with no value link) should be cut. Load-bearing rituals (Monday decision-log review reinforcing "Radical Candour") should be defended.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
101
|
+
Sample ritual catalogue format:
|
|
102
|
+
|
|
103
|
+
```yaml
|
|
104
|
+
rituals:
|
|
105
|
+
- name: "Decision Log Review"
|
|
106
|
+
cadence: weekly
|
|
107
|
+
owner: <coo>
|
|
108
|
+
value_reinforced: Radical Candour + Document Everything
|
|
109
|
+
description: 30min weekly review of decisions made + dissents noted
|
|
110
|
+
load_bearing: yes # removing this means decisions lose dissent visibility
|
|
111
|
+
```
|
|
112
|
+
|
|
113
|
+
## Decision Principles
|
|
114
|
+
|
|
115
|
+
How the org decides:
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
```yaml
|
|
118
|
+
decision_principles:
|
|
119
|
+
fast_lane:
|
|
120
|
+
criteria: "Reversible, contained blast radius, single owner can decide"
|
|
121
|
+
process: "DRI decides, posts decision in #decisions, moves on"
|
|
122
|
+
slow_lane:
|
|
123
|
+
criteria: "Irreversible, cross-team impact, or > $X spend"
|
|
124
|
+
process: "RFC posted, 1-week comment period, decision meeting, exec sign-off if > $Y"
|
|
125
|
+
disagree_and_commit:
|
|
126
|
+
when: "Decision is made and you dissented"
|
|
127
|
+
expected_behaviour: "Make the decision succeed as if it were yours"
|
|
128
|
+
escalation:
|
|
129
|
+
when: "Cannot reach decision within timebox"
|
|
130
|
+
process: "Escalate to specific named human, no triangulation"
|
|
131
|
+
```
|
|
132
|
+
|
|
133
|
+
Decision principles must be specific enough to predict behaviour, not vague enough to mean nothing.
|
|
134
|
+
|
|
135
|
+
## Operationalisation (the hard part)
|
|
136
|
+
|
|
137
|
+
Values without operational integration are wall posters. Wire culture into:
|
|
138
|
+
|
|
139
|
+
### Hiring
|
|
140
|
+
- Interview rubrics test for each value's observable behaviours
|
|
141
|
+
- "Culture interview" measures inverse-test alignment, not generic "good fit"
|
|
142
|
+
- Reject criteria: candidate who consistently exhibits inverse behaviours
|
|
143
|
+
|
|
144
|
+
### Onboarding
|
|
145
|
+
- Day 1: Values + behaviour map + inversion test framing
|
|
146
|
+
- Week 2: Shadowing of load-bearing rituals
|
|
147
|
+
- Month 1: Reflection conversation — which values felt foreign vs native?
|
|
148
|
+
|
|
149
|
+
### Performance Review
|
|
150
|
+
- Behaviour-specific feedback against each value's observable list
|
|
151
|
+
- "What value did you most embody this period? What evidence?"
|
|
152
|
+
- Areas-for-development tied to specific behaviours
|
|
153
|
+
|
|
154
|
+
### Promotion
|
|
155
|
+
- Each level requires demonstrating specific behaviours
|
|
156
|
+
- Senior level requires modelling behaviours to others
|
|
157
|
+
- Lead level requires defending values when convenient to violate them
|
|
158
|
+
|
|
159
|
+
## Common Failure Modes
|
|
160
|
+
|
|
161
|
+
1. **Platitude values** — "Excellence", "Integrity", "Innovation" without inverses. Drop them
|
|
162
|
+
2. **As-is denial** — defining the aspirational culture without mapping the actual culture. Gap becomes invisible
|
|
163
|
+
3. **Decorative rituals** — Friday trivia with no value link. Cut it
|
|
164
|
+
4. **Behaviours without observability** — "be a team player" is not a behaviour, "names disagreement within 30 seconds" is
|
|
165
|
+
5. **Wall poster syndrome** — values defined but not wired into hiring / performance / promotion. Operationalisation is 80% of the work
|
|
166
|
+
|
|
167
|
+
## Output → Obsidian: `WizardingCode/Org/Culture/<company>-<date>/`
|
|
168
|
+
|
|
169
|
+
Delivers: cultural archaeology (as-is map) + values set (inversion-tested) + behaviour map (3-5 observable behaviours per value) + ritual catalogue (load-bearing only) + decision principles + operationalisation plan (hiring + onboarding + performance + promotion) + 1-page executive summary.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
id: org-culture
|
|
2
|
+
name: Culture Definition
|
|
3
|
+
description: Define organisational culture explicitly — values + behaviours + rituals + decision principles — that can be operationalised in hiring, performance, and decision-making
|
|
4
|
+
department: org
|
|
5
|
+
tier: enterprise
|
|
6
|
+
command: "/org culture"
|
|
7
|
+
requires_branch: false
|
|
8
|
+
requires_spec: false
|
|
9
|
+
quality_gate_required: true
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
phases:
|
|
12
|
+
- id: brief
|
|
13
|
+
name: Culture Brief
|
|
14
|
+
description: Define company stage, current culture state (default-on or explicit), audience for the document
|
|
15
|
+
agents:
|
|
16
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
17
|
+
role: Frame company stage, current culture state, audience
|
|
18
|
+
gate:
|
|
19
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
20
|
+
description: User confirms scope and audience
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
- id: archaeology
|
|
23
|
+
name: Cultural Archaeology
|
|
24
|
+
description: Extract the existing implicit culture from artefacts — Slack patterns, email norms, decisions taken, founder choices
|
|
25
|
+
agents:
|
|
26
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
27
|
+
role: Cultural artefact analysis — what's already true vs aspirational
|
|
28
|
+
- agent_id: kb-curator-clara
|
|
29
|
+
role: Mine the KB for founder stories, public statements, recurring decision patterns
|
|
30
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
31
|
+
gate:
|
|
32
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
33
|
+
description: User approves the as-is culture map
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
- id: values-set
|
|
36
|
+
name: Values Set (Real, Not Marketing)
|
|
37
|
+
description: Define 4-6 values that pass the inversion test — values whose opposites are also defensible positions held by other companies
|
|
38
|
+
agents:
|
|
39
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
40
|
+
role: Values selection with inversion test per value
|
|
41
|
+
- agent_id: strategy-director-tomas
|
|
42
|
+
role: Strategic coherence — do values reinforce competitive position?
|
|
43
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
44
|
+
gate:
|
|
45
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
46
|
+
description: User approves values set
|
|
47
|
+
outputs:
|
|
48
|
+
- type: document
|
|
49
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
50
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/Org/Culture/Values/"
|
|
51
|
+
description: Values set with inversion test + strategic rationale per value
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
- id: behaviours
|
|
54
|
+
name: Behaviour Mapping
|
|
55
|
+
description: Translate each value to 3-5 concrete behaviours that are observable and coachable
|
|
56
|
+
agents:
|
|
57
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
58
|
+
role: Per-value behaviour mapping with observable + coachable criteria
|
|
59
|
+
gate:
|
|
60
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
61
|
+
description: User approves behaviour map
|
|
62
|
+
|
|
63
|
+
- id: rituals
|
|
64
|
+
name: Rituals & Practices
|
|
65
|
+
description: Identify the rituals that reinforce values — weekly cadences, decision rituals, recognition patterns, retrospective formats
|
|
66
|
+
agents:
|
|
67
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
68
|
+
role: Ritual catalogue with frequency + owner + value-reinforced per ritual
|
|
69
|
+
gate:
|
|
70
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
71
|
+
description: User approves ritual catalogue
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
- id: decision-principles
|
|
74
|
+
name: Decision Principles
|
|
75
|
+
description: Codify decision principles — when do we decide fast vs slow, who decides what, how do we disagree, how do we commit
|
|
76
|
+
agents:
|
|
77
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
78
|
+
role: Decision principles with examples per principle
|
|
79
|
+
- agent_id: cqo-marta
|
|
80
|
+
role: Quality + governance integration check
|
|
81
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
82
|
+
gate:
|
|
83
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
84
|
+
description: User approves decision principles
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
- id: operationalisation
|
|
87
|
+
name: Operationalisation
|
|
88
|
+
description: Wire culture into hiring, onboarding, performance review, promotion criteria
|
|
89
|
+
agents:
|
|
90
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
91
|
+
role: Operational integration plan per HR surface
|
|
92
|
+
gate:
|
|
93
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
94
|
+
description: User approves operationalisation plan
|
|
95
|
+
|
|
96
|
+
- id: self-critique
|
|
97
|
+
name: Self-Critique
|
|
98
|
+
description: Stress-test — does each value pass the inversion test? Are behaviours observable? Are rituals load-bearing or decorative?
|
|
99
|
+
agents:
|
|
100
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
101
|
+
role: Culture coherence check + decorative-ritual elimination
|
|
102
|
+
gate:
|
|
103
|
+
type: auto
|
|
104
|
+
|
|
105
|
+
- id: quality-gate
|
|
106
|
+
name: Quality Gate
|
|
107
|
+
model_override: opus
|
|
108
|
+
description: Mandatory quality review
|
|
109
|
+
agents:
|
|
110
|
+
- agent_id: cqo-marta
|
|
111
|
+
role: Orchestrate quality review
|
|
112
|
+
- agent_id: copy-director-eduardo
|
|
113
|
+
role: Values prose, no aspirational clichés, behaviour specificity
|
|
114
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
115
|
+
- agent_id: tech-director-francisca
|
|
116
|
+
role: Operationalisation feasibility, observability of behaviours, ritual ownership clarity
|
|
117
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
118
|
+
gate:
|
|
119
|
+
type: quality_gate
|
|
120
|
+
required_verdict: APPROVED
|
|
121
|
+
|
|
122
|
+
- id: delivery
|
|
123
|
+
name: Culture Document Delivery
|
|
124
|
+
description: Compile the culture document — values + behaviours + rituals + decision principles + operationalisation
|
|
125
|
+
agents:
|
|
126
|
+
- agent_id: coo-sofia
|
|
127
|
+
role: Full culture document + 1-page executive summary
|
|
128
|
+
gate:
|
|
129
|
+
type: auto
|
|
130
|
+
outputs:
|
|
131
|
+
- type: document
|
|
132
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
133
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/Org/Culture/"
|
|
134
|
+
description: Complete culture document — values (inversion-tested) + behaviours + rituals + decision principles + operationalisation plan + exec summary
|
package/package.json
CHANGED