claude-code-arcane 1.0.0

package/skills/change-management/references/adkar-details.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# ADKAR Change Types & Resistance Patterns
+
+## 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
+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"

package/skills/change-management/references/change-playbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,308 @@
+# Change Management Playbook
+
+Deep reference for rolling out organizational changes effectively.
+
+---
+
+## 1. ADKAR Deep Dive with Startup Examples
+
+### Awareness: The "Why" that actually lands
+
+Most change communications fail at awareness because they confuse informing with explaining.
+
+**Informing:** "We're moving from Jira to Linear next month."
+**Explaining:** "Our engineering team loses ~4 hours per week to Jira configuration, search latency, and reporting setup. At our current team size, that's 60+ hours per month. Linear's benchmarks from teams our size show a 40% reduction in that overhead. That's why we're switching — and here's the timeline."
+
+The explanation activates desire. The announcement just creates work.
+
+**Real example: Tool migration**
+> "We tried Asana, we tried Notion tasks, we tried spreadsheets. None of them stuck. After talking to 8 engineering leads at similar companies, the pattern was clear: teams that use Linear stick with it. We're going all-in. Here's why it will be different this time: [specific reasons]."
+
+**Real example: Reorg**
+> "The current structure has our customer success team reporting to Sales, which creates a conflict: Sales is measured on new logo count, CS is measured on retention. We've seen this play out in three recent customer losses where CS needed to raise concerns but felt the pressure to stay quiet. We're changing the reporting structure so CS reports directly to me. This is about removing a structural conflict, not about performance."
+
+---
+
+### Desire: Addressing the "What's in it for me?"
+
+Every stakeholder group needs a different answer.
+
+**Individual contributor:**
+- "Will my job change significantly?"
+- "Will this make my day easier or harder?"
+- "Is my role at risk?"
+
+**Manager:**
+- "What new responsibilities do I take on?"
+- "How do I explain this to my team?"
+- "What happens if someone on my team doesn't adapt?"
+
+**Senior leader:**
+- "What does this change our strategic posture?"
+- "What resources are reallocated and to what?"
+- "How does this affect my relationships with other senior leaders?"
+
+**Resistance scenario: Senior leader whose team is most affected**
+> They're supportive in the room, silent or undermining outside it.
+> Fix: Give them a role in the change. Make them a named co-leader of the implementation. Invested people don't undermine.
+
+---
+
+### Knowledge: The documentation that actually gets used
+
+The reason most change documentation fails: it's written for the decision-maker, not the user.
+
+**Documentation that gets used:**
+- Short (< 2 pages for most changes)
+- Organized by role: "If you're in Sales, here's what changes for you"
+- Answers "what do I do when X happens?" with specific answers
+- Has a clear owner: "Questions? Ask [person] in #channel"
+
+**Documentation that doesn't get used:**
+- Long rationale sections the user doesn't need
+- "See the full policy document for details"
+- No named point of contact
+- Buried in email threads
+
+---
+
+### Ability: The gap between knowing and doing
+
+Signs of a knowledge gap vs. an ability gap:
+
+| Symptom | Knowledge gap | Ability gap |
+|---------|-------------|------------|
+| People don't know what to do | ✅ | |
+| People know what to do but don't do it | | ✅ |
+| People do it wrong consistently | Could be either | |
+| People revert under pressure | | ✅ |
+| Training scores high, behavior unchanged | | ✅ |
+
+**Ability gaps are fixed by:**
+1. Practice time (before being measured)
+2. Reduced cognitive load during transition
+3. Peer support (not just manager support)
+4. Feedback loops that are fast and low-stakes
+
+**What kills ability development:**
+- Measuring performance on the new way in week 1
+- Adding new work simultaneously with the change
+- Making it embarrassing to ask for help
+
+---
+
+### Reinforcement: The phase everyone skips
+
+Go-live is not success. Go-live is the beginning of adoption.
+
+**Reinforcement calendar (template):**
+
+| Week | Action |
+|------|--------|
+| Week 1 (go-live) | High-visibility support. Leadership visible. Point person responsive. |
+| Week 2 | First adoption check: who's using it? Who isn't? Targeted help to laggards. |
+| Week 4 | Celebrate early adopters publicly. Share a win story. |
+| Week 6 | Adoption metric reported to leadership. Decommission old way (if applicable). |
+| Week 8 | Full adoption expected. Non-adoption now a performance conversation. |
+| Month 3 | Retrospective: What's working? What needs adjustment? |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Resistance Patterns and Counter-Strategies
+
+### The Vocal Skeptic
+
+**Who they are:** Asks hard questions in all-hands. Other people follow their lead.
+**What they need:** To feel heard and to understand the logic.
+**Strategy:** Talk to them before the all-hands. Not to persuade them — to hear their concerns and address what's valid. When they feel respected, they often become your best change advocates.
+
+**Script:** "I know you have concerns about this change. I want to understand them before we go broader with the announcement. What's your biggest worry?"
+
+---
+
+### The Silent Non-Complier
+
+**Who they are:** Agrees in meetings, continues the old behavior outside.
+**What they need:** To understand that non-compliance is visible and has consequences.
+**Strategy:** Direct 1:1 conversation. Name the behavior. Ask what's in the way. Give them a clear path.
+
+**Script:** "I've noticed you're still using [old way] two weeks after we launched [new way]. I want to understand what's in the way for you — is it a knowledge issue, a time issue, or something else?"
+
+---
+
+### The Grieving Top Performer
+
+**Who they are:** Was excellent under the old system. The change makes their skills less relevant.
+**What they need:** Recognition of their past contribution and a clear path forward.
+**Strategy:** Name the loss explicitly. "I know you built your expertise on [old approach] and this change asks you to develop a new one. That's a real transition." Then create a specific development plan.
+
+**What not to do:** Pretend the change doesn't affect them disproportionately.
+
+---
+
+### The Fearful Middle Manager
+
+**Who they are:** Middle managers whose authority or role scope is reduced by the change.
+**What they need:** A clear picture of their new role and why it's still valuable.
+**Strategy:** Individual conversation before the announcement. Walk them through what changes, what stays the same, and what their contribution looks like in the new world.
+
+---
+
+### The "We've Been Here Before" Cynics
+
+**Who they are:** Long-tenured employees who've seen multiple failed change initiatives.
+**What they need:** Evidence that this time is different.
+**Strategy:** Acknowledge the history. "I know we've announced changes that didn't stick. Here's specifically what's different this time: [specific differences]." Then prove it fast — show momentum in the first 30 days.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Communication Plan Template per Change Type
+
+### Template: Tool Migration
+
+```
+COMMUNICATION PLAN — [Tool Name] Migration
+
+AUDIENCE: All-hands / [specific team]
+DECISION OWNER: [Name]
+GO-LIVE DATE: [Date]
+POINT OF CONTACT: [Name] in [channel]
+
+COMMUNICATION TIMELINE:
+Week -4: Decision finalized (internal only)
+Week -3: Training materials ready
+Week -2: All-hands announcement (why + timeline + support plan)
+Week -1: Training sessions (2 sessions, different times)
+Week 0: Go-live. Point person in Slack. Old system still accessible.
+Week 2: First adoption check. Targeted help to non-adopters.
+Week 4: Old system access restricted.
+Week 8: Old system fully decommissioned.
+
+KEY MESSAGES:
+- Why we're switching: [honest 2-sentence reason]
+- What changes for you: [role-specific, max 3 bullets]
+- What doesn't change: [this matters for change fatigue]
+- How to get help: [channel, person, office hours]
+- Timeline: [specific dates]
+
+FAQ:
+Q: Is the old system going away completely?
+A: [Honest answer with date]
+Q: What if I have data in the old system?
+A: [Migration plan or acknowledgment]
+Q: What if I'm not proficient by go-live?
+A: [Realistic expectation-setting]
+```
+
+### Template: Reorg Announcement
+
+```
+REORG COMMUNICATION PLAN
+
+ANNOUNCEMENT DATE: [Date]
+EFFECTIVE DATE: [Date]
+FORMAT: Live (synchronous), all affected employees
+
+PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT (1 week before):
+- 1:1 with every affected leader
+- HR briefed and ready for questions
+- FAQ prepared
+
+ANNOUNCEMENT FORMAT:
+1. Context: Why this change? (2-3 minutes)
+2. What's changing: New structure, new reporting lines (3-4 minutes)
+3. What's NOT changing: Roles, comp, team members (2 minutes)
+4. Timeline: When does the new structure take effect? (1 minute)
+5. Q&A: Open, no time limit (at least 15 minutes)
+
+POST-ANNOUNCEMENT (week 1):
+- Each manager runs team meeting to answer team-specific questions
+- HR available for private conversations
+- FAQ published to all
+
+POST-ANNOUNCEMENT (week 2-4):
+- New structure is operational
+- Transition check-in: what questions emerged that weren't anticipated?
+
+THINGS NOT TO SAY:
+- "We can't share why [person] is leaving" (if they are)
+- "This affects everyone equally" (it doesn't)
+- "No one's job is at risk" (unless this is 100% certain)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 4. The Change Fatigue Problem
+
+### How organizations develop change fatigue
+
+**Phase 1 — Excitement (first 1-2 changes):** People engage, try the new way, hope it sticks.
+
+**Phase 2 — Skepticism (3-5 changes):** People comply but hedge. "Let's see if this one lasts."
+
+**Phase 3 — Detachment (6+ changes without completion):** People stop investing in changes. Compliance is surface-level. New announcements get eye-rolls.
+
+**Phase 4 — Cynicism (entrenched fatigue):** People actively resist changes. "We've been here before." High performers leave because they don't want to work in a chaotic environment.
+
+### The change inventory audit
+
+**Run this before announcing any new change:**
+
+| Change | Status | Started | Expected complete |
+|--------|--------|---------|-----------------|
+| [Change 1] | In progress / Complete / Stalled | | |
+| [Change 2] | | | |
+| [Change 3] | | | |
+
+**Rules:**
+- If > 2 significant changes are in progress, don't start a third
+- If any change is stalled, diagnose it before starting something new
+- Define "complete" for every change in progress
+
+### Recovery from change fatigue
+
+1. **Declare a change moratorium.** "We're not starting anything new for 60 days. We're finishing what we started."
+2. **Complete visible wins.** Ship the changes that are 80% done. Demonstrate follow-through.
+3. **Communicate stability.** "Here's what is NOT changing this year."
+4. **Slow down the next announcement.** More preparation, more consultation, clearer "this time is different" evidence.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Measuring Adoption vs. Compliance
+
+Most change leaders measure go-live, not adoption. These are different things.
+
+### Adoption metrics by change type
+
+**Tool migration:**
+- % of team actively using the new tool (not just logged in)
+- % of relevant workflows completed in new tool vs. old tool
+- Support ticket volume in weeks 1-4 (high = knowledge gap; dropping = adoption)
+
+**Process change:**
+- % of relevant transactions following new process
+- Error rates in new process vs. old process (should converge over time)
+- Time-to-complete for new process (should improve by week 4)
+
+**Org change:**
+- Decision cycle time in new structure (should improve by month 2)
+- Escalation patterns (fewer cross-boundary escalations = alignment improving)
+- Employee sentiment (survey at months 1, 3, 6)
+
+**Culture change:**
+- Values referenced in 1:1 conversations (manager self-report)
+- Values-linked recognition events per month
+- Culture survey scores in relevant dimensions (quarterly)
+
+### The compliance trap
+
+Measuring compliance: "Did they use the new system? Yes/No."
+Measuring adoption: "Did they use the new system because it's better, or because they had to?"
+
+Compliance is unstable. It reverts when enforcement loosens. Adoption is self-sustaining.
+
+**Adoption diagnostic:** Ask a random sample: "Why do you use [new way] instead of [old way]?"
+- "Because I have to" = compliance
+- "Because it's faster/easier/better" = adoption
+
+Only adoption makes the change permanent.

package/skills/changelog/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+name: changelog
+description: "Genera changelog desde git log entre dos tags/commits, agrupado por tipo (feat/fix/refactor/docs/test/chore). Usar cuando se mencione: changelog, release notes, qué cambió, historial de cambios."
+category: "documentation"
+argument-hint: "[range: vX..vY | vX | last-week | N | empty]"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Write
+---
+# Changelog Generator
+
+Genera un changelog profesional desde el historial de git.
+
+## Input
+
+Argumento opcional: `$ARGUMENTS`
+
+Formatos aceptados:
+- `v1.0.0..v1.1.0` — entre dos tags
+- `v1.2.0` — desde ese tag hasta HEAD
+- `last-week` / `last-month` — por fecha
+- `10` — últimos N commits
+- (vacío) — desde el último tag hasta HEAD
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Determinar rango
+
+```bash
+# Si hay tags
+git tag --sort=-v:refname | head -5
+
+# Si no hay tags, usar los últimos 20 commits
+git log --oneline -20
+```
+
+### 2. Extraer commits
+
+```bash
+git log [rango] --pretty=format:"%h|%s|%an|%ad" --date=short
+```
+
+### 3. Clasificar por tipo
+
+Parsear el prefijo del mensaje de commit (conventional commits):
+
+| Prefijo | Categoría |
+|---------|-----------|
+| `feat:` / `feature:` | Nueva funcionalidad |
+| `fix:` / `bugfix:` | Corrección de bugs |
+| `refactor:` | Refactorización |
+| `docs:` | Documentación |
+| `test:` | Tests |
+| `chore:` / `ci:` / `build:` | Mantenimiento |
+| `perf:` | Performance |
+| `style:` | Estilo de código |
+| `BREAKING CHANGE` | Cambios que rompen compatibilidad |
+| Sin prefijo | Otros |
+
+### 4. Generar changelog
+
+Formato de salida:
+
+```markdown
+# Changelog — [proyecto] — [fecha]
+**Rango:** [tag1] → [tag2/HEAD]
+**Commits:** [N total]
+
+## Breaking Changes
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Nueva funcionalidad
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Correcciones
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Refactorización
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Performance
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Documentación
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Tests
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Mantenimiento
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+## Otros
+- [hash] descripción (@autor)
+
+---
+**Estadísticas:**
+- X archivos modificados
+- +Y líneas / -Z líneas
+- N contribuidores
+```
+
+### 5. Output
+
+- Mostrar en pantalla
+- Si el usuario pide guardarlo → escribir en `CHANGELOG.md` (append al inicio)
+
+## Rules
+- Omitir categorías vacías
+- Si no usa conventional commits, intentar clasificar por contenido del mensaje
+- Incluir link al commit si el repo tiene remote configurado
+- En español

package/skills/check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+name: check
+description: "Auditoría rápida de calidad y seguridad: lint, type-check, tests, secrets, deps vulnerables. Reporta findings con severidad."
+category: "workflow"
+argument-hint: ""
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+Run a comprehensive code quality and security check on the current project:
+
+1. **Identify the stack** — Look at package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, Cargo.toml, etc.
+2. **Run linters** — Execute the project's configured linter (eslint, ruff, golangci-lint, clippy, etc.)
+3. **Run type checks** — tsc --noEmit, mypy, etc. if applicable
+4. **Run tests** — Execute the test suite and report results
+5. **Security scan** — Check for:
+   - Hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens in source code
+   - Known vulnerable dependencies (npm audit, pip audit, etc.)
+   - SQL injection, XSS, or command injection patterns
+6. **Report** — Summarize findings with severity levels and suggested fixes
+
+Focus on actionable issues, not style nitpicks.

package/skills/chief-of-staff/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+name: chief-of-staff
+description: "C-suite orchestration layer. Routes founder questions to the right advisor role(s), triggers multi-role board meetings for complex decisions, synthesizes outputs, and tracks decisions."
+argument-hint: ""
+category: "clevel-operations"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+# Chief of Staff
+
+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.
+
+## 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
+
+## 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, 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 |
+
+## Synthesis (Quick Reference)
+
+1. **Extract themes** — what 2+ roles agree on independently
+2. **Surface conflicts** — name disagreements explicitly
+3. **Action items** — specific, owned, time-bound (max 5)
+4. **One decision point** — the single thing needing founder judgment
+
+## Quality Standards
+
+Before delivering ANY output to the founder:
+- Bottom line is first — no preamble
+- Company context loaded (not generic advice)
+- Actions have owners and deadlines
+- Conflicts named, not smoothed
+- Max 5 bullets per section
+
+## Ecosystem Awareness
+
+The Chief of Staff routes to **28 skills total**: 10 C-suite roles, 6 orchestration skills, 6 cross-cutting skills, and 6 culture/collaboration skills. See `references/routing-matrix.md` for complete trigger mapping.
+
+## Resources
+- `references/routing-matrix.md` — per-topic routing rules, complementary skill triggers
+- `references/synthesis-framework.md` — full synthesis process, conflict types, output format