mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
64 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# Stakeholder Influence Mapper Skill
|
|
|
|
Turn a product initiative into a structured influence plan — who needs to be aligned, in what order, and exactly what to say to each person in their language.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **Initiative description** (what you want to do and why)
|
|
- **List of key stakeholders** (name, role, relationship to initiative)
|
|
- **Timeline pressure** (when do you need a decision?)
|
|
- **Any known objections or political context** (what you're already aware of)
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
1. Build stakeholder map with: role, primary concern, decision authority (blocker / influencer / informed), current stance (supportive / neutral / resistant / unknown)
|
|
2. Identify the critical path of conversations — who must be won before others
|
|
3. For each stakeholder, lead with their concern, not your ask
|
|
4. Prepare one likely objection per stakeholder and a prepared response
|
|
5. Flag any stakeholders who should NOT be approached until others are aligned
|
|
6. **Validate** — Confirm every "blocker" stakeholder has a specific tactic (not just "have a conversation"), and that the sequence accounts for political dependencies
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### Stakeholder Map: [Initiative Name]
|
|
|
|
| Stakeholder | Role | Primary Concern | Authority | Current Stance |
|
|
|-------------|------|-----------------|-----------|----------------|
|
|
| [name] | [role] | [concern] | [type] | [stance] |
|
|
|
|
### Recommended Conversation Sequence
|
|
1. **[Name first]** — because [reason they unlock others]
|
|
2. **[Name second]** — once [first] is aligned
|
|
[continue...]
|
|
|
|
### Talking Points by Stakeholder
|
|
|
|
#### [Stakeholder Name]
|
|
**Lead with:** [Their concern, not your feature]
|
|
**Your ask:** [One specific thing you need from them]
|
|
**Likely objection:** [What they'll push back on]
|
|
**Prepared response:** [How to address it without being defensive]
|
|
**What success looks like:** [What alignment from them looks like]
|
|
|
|
## Notes
|
|
- Never send the same message to all stakeholders — calibrate every time
|
|
- Engineering leads want technical feasibility acknowledged first
|
|
- Finance stakeholders want ROI framing before anything else
|
|
- Legal/compliance stakeholders want risk mitigation addressed upfront
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every blocker has a specific tactic (not just "have a chat")
|
|
- [ ] Conversation sequence accounts for political dependencies
|
|
- [ ] Each stakeholder's talking points lead with their concern, not your agenda
|
|
- [ ] At least one "do not approach until X is aligned" flag is considered
|
|
- [ ] The ask from each stakeholder is a single, specific thing (not a vague "support")
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not approach high-influence blockers before aligning their sponsors — approach order determines outcome
|
|
- [ ] Do not create talking points that lead with your agenda — always lead with the stakeholder's stated concern
|
|
- [ ] Do not treat every stakeholder as equally important — focus depth on the decision-makers and key influencers
|
|
- [ ] Do not omit the "do not approach until X is aligned" flags — sequencing mistakes can permanently close doors
|
|
- [ ] Do not build the map based only on org chart position — influence often lives outside formal authority
|