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>
3.6 KiB
3.6 KiB
trigger, description
| trigger | description |
|---|---|
| model_decision | Map stakeholders for a product decision and produce a tailored influence strategy with talking points. Use when asked to get alignment, build consensus, get buy-in from engineering or finance or legal, navigate organisational resistance, or plan stakeholder conversations for a major initiative. Produces a stakeholder map, recommended conversation sequence, and tailored talking points per stakeholder. |
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
- Build stakeholder map with: role, primary concern, decision authority (blocker / influencer / informed), current stance (supportive / neutral / resistant / unknown)
- Identify the critical path of conversations — who must be won before others
- For each stakeholder, lead with their concern, not your ask
- Prepare one likely objection per stakeholder and a prepared response
- Flag any stakeholders who should NOT be approached until others are aligned
- 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
- [Name first] — because [reason they unlock others]
- [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