justin/pm-claude-skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: v12.0.0 — 150-skill milestone, 15 new skills across 10 bundles

Browse Source 
Adds 15 new skills reaching the 150-skill milestone:

Data & Analytics (pm-data):
- cohort-analysis: retention curves, LTV projection, behavioural segmentation, SQL reference queries
- data-pipeline-spec: ETL/ELT design with SLAs, DQ rules, error handling, compliance

Customer Success (pm-cs):
- renewal-playbook: health snapshot, value story, commercial scenarios, objection responses, 16-week timeline
- customer-success-plan: joint success plan with milestones, mutual commitments, escalation path

People & Leadership (pm-people):
- 360-feedback-template: survey instrument + narrative report with strengths and development themes
- team-health-check: Spotify-model assessment across 7 dimensions with facilitation guide

Operations (pm-operations):
- risk-register: L×I scoring, RAG heat map, mitigation and contingency plans
- raci-matrix: role definitions, decision map, anti-pattern guide, communication template

Marketing & GTM (pm-gtm):
- social-media-strategy: audience profile, content pillars, KPIs, 4-week starter calendar
- product-positioning-doc: April Dunford-style positioning, messaging hierarchy, persona messaging

Discovery (pm-discovery):
- customer-journey-map: stage-by-stage journey with touchpoints, emotions, and prioritised opportunities

Delivery (pm-delivery):
- user-story-writer: Given/When/Then ACs, edge cases, definition of done, epic decomposition

Advanced (pm-advanced):
- ai-ethics-review: fairness, bias, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, societal impact

Sales (pm-sales):
- partnership-proposal: mutual value, commercial model, joint GTM plan, governance

Design (pm-design):
- design-system-audit: component coverage, token consistency, WCAG, adoption, remediation roadmap

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
2026-05-26 21:58:13 +01:00
parent 94e53d38a8
commit ae6ea4d53e
32 changed files with 6630 additions and 152 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
plugins/pm-people/skills/360-feedback-template/SKILL.md
+256
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
---
name: 360-feedback-template
description: "Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas."
---
# 360-Degree Feedback Template Skill
This skill produces two outputs depending on what the user needs: (1) a complete 360 survey instrument for gathering feedback, or (2) a structured 360 feedback report written from gathered notes. Both outputs follow best practice: behaviourally anchored ratings, specific examples, and development-oriented framing.
## Required Inputs
Ask the user which output they need, then gather inputs:
**For a survey instrument:**
- **Role being reviewed** (job title and level)
- **Competencies to assess** (or use defaults below)
- **Reviewer relationships** (peer / direct report / manager / cross-functional)
- **Rating scale preference** (1–5 / 1–4 / frequency-based)
- **Anonymity level** (fully anonymous / attributed / confidential aggregated)
**For a feedback report:**
- **Person being reviewed** (role and level)
- **Feedback notes or raw themes** from reviewers (paste what you have)
- **Reviewer relationships** (how many peers, direct reports, managers responded)
- **Any context** — performance cycle, specific behaviours to address, promotion consideration
---
## Output A: 360 Survey Instrument
---
# 360 Feedback Survey: [Role / Level]
**Purpose:** This survey helps [Name / "the reviewee"] understand how their behaviours and impact are perceived by the people they work with most closely. Responses [are / are not] anonymous. Results will be shared as [individual responses / aggregated themes].
**Instructions:** For each statement, rate how frequently you observe this behaviour. Add specific examples in the open-ended sections — these are the most valuable part of the survey.
**Rating scale:**
- **5 — Consistently:** Almost always demonstrates this behaviour, even in difficult situations
- **4 — Usually:** Demonstrates this behaviour more often than not
- **3 — Sometimes:** Demonstrates this behaviour inconsistently
- **2 — Rarely:** Seldom demonstrates this behaviour
- **1 — Not observed:** Have not had the opportunity to observe this behaviour
---
### Section 1: Delivery & Execution
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Delivers work on time and to the expected quality | |
| Proactively flags risks and blockers before they become problems | |
| Follows through on commitments without needing to be chased | |
| Manages their workload effectively without compromising quality | |
| Adapts quickly when priorities or requirements change | |
**Open question:** Describe a specific time when [Name] handled a delivery challenge particularly well or poorly.
---
### Section 2: Communication & Collaboration
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Communicates clearly and concisely in both written and verbal formats | |
| Listens actively and considers others' input before responding | |
| Keeps the right people informed without over-communicating | |
| Resolves disagreements constructively and without defensiveness | |
| Makes it easy for others to collaborate with them | |
**Open question:** Give an example of how [Name] handled a difficult or high-stakes communication.
---
### Section 3: Leadership & Influence
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Sets a clear direction that others can follow | |
| Builds confidence and capability in people around them | |
| Influences decisions without relying on authority | |
| Gives clear, constructive feedback that helps others improve | |
| Creates an environment where people feel safe to raise concerns | |
**Open question:** Describe a situation where [Name]'s leadership had a notable positive or negative impact on the team.
---
### Section 4: Strategic Thinking
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Understands the broader business context, not just their immediate work | |
| Makes connections between their work and organisational goals | |
| Thinks ahead and anticipates second-order consequences | |
| Brings original ideas or new approaches to problems | |
| Balances short-term needs with longer-term thinking | |
**Open question:** Give an example of [Name] demonstrating (or missing) strategic thinking.
---
### Section 5: Culture & Values
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Treats everyone with respect, regardless of level or background | |
| Is someone people trust and can rely on | |
| Gives credit to others and shares the spotlight | |
| Takes responsibility for mistakes without placing blame | |
| Contributes positively to team morale, especially under pressure | |
**Open question:** How does [Name] embody (or not embody) the team's values in practice?
---
### Section 6: Overall & Development
**Open questions (all reviewers):**
1. What is [Name]'s single most important strength? Give a specific example.
2. What is the one behaviour or habit that, if changed, would most increase [Name]'s effectiveness?
3. Is there anything else you want [Name] to know? (This response will be shared directly.)
---
## Output B: 360 Feedback Report
---
# 360 Feedback Report: [Name] — [Role]
**Review cycle:** [Quarter / Year / Promotion cycle]
**Responses received:** [X total — X peers, X direct reports, X managers, X cross-functional]
**Report prepared by:** [HR / People team / Manager / Coach]
**Date:** [Date]
> This report synthesises feedback from [X] reviewers. Open-ended responses have been lightly edited for clarity; no individual response is attributed to protect reviewer confidentiality. Direct quotes marked in *italics* appear verbatim.
---
### Executive Summary
[3–4 sentences. State the overall picture: what is this person known for, what is working well, and what one or two areas are the consistent development themes. Balanced, honest, and grounded in the data — not a sanitised summary.]
**Overall rating:** [X.X / 5.0 — above average / at level / below expectations for level]
---
### Strengths: What to Build On
**Theme 1: [Strength — e.g. Reliability and follow-through]**
[2–3 sentences synthesising the feedback evidence for this strength. Reference how many reviewers noted it and in what contexts.]
*"[Direct quote from reviewer that best illustrates this theme]"*
---
**Theme 2: [Strength — e.g. Collaborative problem-solving]**
[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]
*"[Direct quote]"*
---
**Theme 3: [Strength — e.g. Clear communication under pressure]**
[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]
*"[Direct quote]"*
---
### Development Areas: What to Work On
**Theme 1: [Development area — e.g. Giving timely upward feedback]**
[2–3 sentences describing the behaviour pattern observed, what impact it has, and what different looks like. Non-blaming and specific.]
*"[Direct quote that captures the theme]"*
**Suggested actions:**
- [Specific, observable behaviour change — e.g. In the next team meeting where you disagree with a decision, name your concern in the meeting rather than after it]
- [Development resource or practice — e.g. Try the "I notice / I wonder / I suggest" framework for giving difficult feedback]
---
**Theme 2: [Development area — e.g. Strategic communication to leadership]**
[2–3 sentences.]
*"[Direct quote]"*
**Suggested actions:**
- [...]
- [...]
---
### Ratings Summary
| Competency | Average score | Range | Notable pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery & Execution | [X.X] | [X–X] | [e.g. Consistently high; one outlier] |
| Communication & Collaboration | [X.X] | [X–X] | [e.g. Peers score higher than direct reports] |
| Leadership & Influence | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| Strategic Thinking | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| Culture & Values | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| **Overall** | **[X.X]** | [X–X] | |
**Score variance:** [Is there high agreement or wide spread across reviewers? High variance suggests the behaviour is context-dependent — explore when and with whom.]
---
### Direct Message from Reviewers
[Include up to 3 unedited quotes from the "Is there anything else you want [Name] to know?" question. These are shared verbatim as agreed in the survey instructions.]
*"[Quote 1]"*
*"[Quote 2]"*
*"[Quote 3]"*
---
### Recommended Focus for the Next 90 Days
[1–2 specific, measurable development commitments. Written to be agreed in the feedback conversation — not prescriptive.]
1. **[Behaviour to change]:** [What does success look like at 90 days? How will we measure it?]
2. **[Skill to build]:** [What specific resource, practice, or support will help? Who will observe progress?]
---
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Survey questions are behaviourally anchored — they describe observable actions, not attitudes
- [ ] Open-ended questions ask for specific examples — not general impressions
- [ ] Report strengths are backed by specific evidence, not generic praise
- [ ] Development areas name the behaviour and its impact — not the person's character
- [ ] Suggested actions are specific enough that the reviewee knows exactly what to do differently on Monday
- [ ] Direct quotes are genuinely direct — not paraphrased into blandness
## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Build a 360 feedback survey for a [role] at senior level"
- "Write a 360 feedback report from these notes: [paste notes]"
- "Design a 360 review template for engineering managers"
- "Help me write constructive 360 feedback for my colleague [Name]"
- "Create a peer feedback survey for our upcoming performance cycle"
plugins/pm-people/skills/team-health-check/SKILL.md
+262
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
---
name: team-health-check
description: "Run a structured team health assessment. Use when asked to run a team health check, assess team morale, facilitate a team retrospective on ways of working, or evaluate team dynamics. Produces a health assessment across key dimensions with RAG status, underlying signals, and prioritised improvement actions."
---
# Team Health Check Skill
This skill produces a structured team health assessment inspired by Spotify's health check model and extended with engineering, product, and cross-functional team dimensions. Output can be used as a facilitation guide for a live session or as an async survey-and-report format.
## Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- **Team name and function** (engineering squad, product team, sales pod, etc.)
- **Team size and composition** (how many people, what roles)
- **Format** — facilitated live session or async survey + report?
- **Context** — why are you running this now? (new team / ongoing ritual / post-incident / low morale signal)
- **Any known issues** — anything the facilitator knows going in that will colour the results?
## Output Structure
---
# Team Health Check: [Team Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Facilitated by:** [Name or role]
**Team size:** [X people]
**Format:** [Live session (60 min) / Async survey + report]
**Cycle:** [One-off / Quarterly / Monthly]
---
## Part 1: Facilitation Guide (Live Session)
Use this guide to run the session in 60 minutes.
### Session structure
| Time | Activity | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| 0–5 min | Framing and ground rules | Facilitator |
| 5–40 min | Card voting — 7 dimensions, 5 min each | Full team |
| 40–50 min | Top 3 themes discussion | Full team |
| 50–58 min | Actions and owners | Team lead |
| 58–60 min | Close and next date | Facilitator |
### Ground rules (read at start)
- This is not a performance review — there are no wrong answers
- We're assessing the team, not individuals — speak about "we" not "they"
- What's said here stays here — results shared as aggregated themes, not attributed to individuals
- The goal is one or two actionable improvements, not a long list
### Voting mechanic
For each dimension, each team member votes with one of three cards:
- 🟢 **Green** — working well, we're proud of this
- 🟡 **Amber** — some things work, but there are issues worth discussing
- 🔴 **Red** — we have a real problem here that's slowing us down
After voting, the team discusses: what drove the votes? What would make this Green?
---
## Part 2: Health Dimensions
---
### Dimension 1: Delivering Value
*Are we shipping things that matter, at the pace we should?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| We ship work that creates real value for our users | How do we know our output is valuable? When did we last talk to a user? |
| Our pace of delivery feels healthy and sustainable | Are we consistently shipping? Or do we have long dry spells? |
| We have clarity on what "done" looks like | Do we have a shared definition of ready and done? |
| We celebrate shipping, not just building | Do we acknowledge completed work, or does it just disappear into the backlog? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 2: Easy to Release
*Is releasing software (or our work) smooth and low-risk?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| We can release whenever we choose, without anxiety | What does a release feel like? Smooth or stressful? |
| Our deployment process is automated and reliable | How much manual work does a release involve? |
| We have confidence in our test coverage | Do we catch bugs before users do? |
| Rollback is fast and rehearsed | Have we ever rolled back? How long did it take? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 3: Fun & Morale
*Do people enjoy working here and with each other?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| People generally enjoy coming to work | If you had to describe the team energy in one word, what would it be? |
| We celebrate successes as a team | When did we last properly celebrate something? |
| Interpersonal dynamics are healthy — no drama or cliques | Are there any relationships that are strained or avoided? |
| We laugh and have non-work conversations | Do we know each other as people, not just colleagues? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 4: Psychological Safety
*Can people speak up, take risks, and make mistakes without fear?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| People raise concerns without worrying about the consequences | When did someone last raise a concern publicly? What happened? |
| Mistakes are treated as learning opportunities, not blame events | Think of the last mistake on the team. How was it handled? |
| People challenge each other's ideas in a constructive way | Do we have real debates, or do we agree in the room and disagree in the corridor? |
| Everyone's voice feels equally heard regardless of seniority | Do the same people always speak first and longest? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 5: Speed & Feedback Loops
*Do we learn fast and adjust quickly?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| We get feedback on our work quickly (from users, data, tests) | How long after shipping do we know if something worked? |
| Our planning and retrospective cycles help us improve | Do retros lead to real change, or do the same issues come back? |
| We cut work that isn't working, even when it's hard | Can you name something we've stopped doing because it wasn't working? |
| Our meetings and processes don't slow us down | Which meetings do people dread? Which do they find valuable? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 6: Mission & Purpose
*Do we understand why our work matters?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| Everyone on the team can articulate why their work matters | Could each person on this team explain to a stranger why their work is important? |
| The team's goals are clear and shared | Can everyone name the team's top 3 priorities right now? |
| Our work connects to the wider company direction | Do we understand how we fit into the bigger picture? |
| We're proud of what this team builds | If you described your team's work to someone you respect, would you feel good about it? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
### Dimension 7: Collaboration & Support
*Do we work well together and support each other?*
| Indicator | Probes for discussion |
|---|---|
| People actively help each other when someone is stuck | Think of the last time someone was blocked — what happened? |
| Knowledge is shared openly — no information silos | Is there any knowledge that only one person holds? What's the risk? |
| Cross-team collaboration is smooth and low-friction | Which team is hardest to collaborate with and why? |
| People feel supported when they're struggling | Is there psychological safety to say "I'm struggling with this"? |
**Current vote:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
**Key themes from discussion:**
**What would make this Green?**
---
## Part 3: Health Summary & Report
Use this template to document results after the session or survey.
---
### RAG Summary Dashboard
| Dimension | Score | Status | Trend vs last quarter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivering Value | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [↑ / → / ↓] |
| Easy to Release | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| Fun & Morale | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| Psychological Safety | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| Speed & Feedback Loops | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| Mission & Purpose | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| Collaboration & Support | [X/5] | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [...] |
| **Overall** | **[X/5]** | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 | [↑ / → / ↓] |
---
### Top Themes
**What's working well (keep doing):**
1. [...]
2. [...]
**What needs attention (most important to fix):**
1. [Most pressing issue — specific, with evidence from the session]
2. [Second issue]
3. [Third issue — if applicable]
---
### Action Plan
| Action | Owner | Due date | Success indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Specific action — e.g. Introduce pairing Fridays for knowledge sharing] | [Team lead / individual] | [Date] | [How will we know it worked?] |
| [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
**Next health check:** [Date — recommended 6–8 weeks for teams with active improvement actions, 13 weeks for steady-state teams]
---
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Session ground rules established psychological safety before voting started
- [ ] Each dimension had open discussion, not just a vote
- [ ] Actions are specific enough to be verifiably done — no vague commitments like "improve communication"
- [ ] Each action has a single owner — not "the team"
- [ ] Results are shared with the team, not kept by management
- [ ] Trend data is tracked across cycles to show improvement or regression
## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Run a team health check for my engineering squad"
- "Facilitate a team health assessment — we've had some morale issues"
- "Build a team health check survey for my product team"
- "Generate a Spotify-style health check for our cross-functional pod"
- "Create a quarterly team health check template"