| name | governance |
| description | Use when a proposal concerns institutional reform, decentralisation, accountability, anti-corruption, public financial management, or public-service delivery; use education or health when sector outcomes dominate. |
| metadata | {"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]} |
Governance and Public Sector Reform
Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.
Use When
- Use this skill when the assignment is clearly in governance, institutional reform, accountability, or public-sector systems work.
- Load it when proposal sections need sector-specific framing, terminology, stakeholders, risks, or methodology cues.
Do Not Use When
- Another sector is the closer fit and this one adds no material value.
- The task only needs procurement-form instructions without domain context.
Required Inputs
| Artefact | Source/provider | Required? | Missing-input behaviour |
|---|
| The assignment brief or ToR. | Buyer solicitation, ToR, or approved brief | Required | Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap. |
| The geography and institutional context, especially if Uganda-specific evidence is relevant. | Buyer, verified sector source, or discovery | Required | Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap. |
Workflow
- Confirm the sector fit from the brief.
- Read the sector reference file for evidence, terminology, and current signals.
- Translate the sector context into problem framing, methodology choices, stakeholder logic, and risks.
- Use the sector framing inside the relevant numbered proposal section skills.
Stop condition: Stop when proposer identity, controlling framework, mandatory form, sector fit, current rule, or load-bearing evidence remains unresolved.
Recovery: Record the gap and owner, seek clarification or current evidence, and return only the separable proposal content that remains supportable.
Quality Standards
- Prefer sector detail that improves credibility and delivery realism.
- Use reference data to sharpen the proposal story, not to overwhelm it.
Anti-Patterns
- Do not paste statistics without explaining their relevance.
- Do not use sector jargon as a substitute for a clear methodology.
- Treating a neighbouring sector or framework as interchangeable. Fix: identify the controlling rule and primary outcome.
- Adding terminology without changing a delivery choice. Fix: link each term to method, risk, output, or evaluation criterion.
- Presenting an unverified current rule or statistic as settled. Fix: cite and date the source or mark it not assessed.
- Ignoring a missing mandatory input. Fix: stop the affected claim and assign an evidence owner.
- Letting sector or identity framing contradict methodology, staffing, schedule, or price. Fix: reconcile all affected sections before release.
Outputs
| Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|
| Sector-specific framing and methodology cues for governance assignments. | Proposal lead, section writer, and evaluator-readiness reviewer | Applied consistently, traceable to the selected source, and free of unsupported identity, framework, or sector claims. |
Evidence Produced
| Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|
| Routing and source record | Proposal lead and reviewer | Selected identity, framework, sector, source, date, and material gaps are recorded. |
| Decision record | Section writer and delivery lead | Each material choice has rationale, owner, evidence, and a review or stop condition. |
| Conformance check | Release reviewer | Mandatory forms, identity rules, sector logic, and unresolved checks are explicitly assessed. |
Capability Contract
This skill may read supplied profiles, solicitations, ToRs, approved references, and proposal drafts and may prepare routing guidance or draft content within the authorised workspace. Review is read-only by default. It must not invent credentials, certify compliance, submit a bid, accept terms, publish, disclose confidential information, or change source records without explicit authority.
Degraded Mode
If the solicitation, profile, current procurement source, sector evidence, network, or reviewer is unavailable, provide the narrowest useful qualified routing or draft. Mark the missing check not assessed, omit unsupported credentials, thresholds, dates, or compliance claims, and identify the evidence owner. An unassessed requirement is never a pass.
Decision Rules
| Decision | Action | Failure/risk avoided |
|---|
| Institutional mandate | Map the legal mandate, decision rights, incentives, political constraints, and service outcome before proposing reform. | Technocratic reform detached from authority and implementation |
| Conflicting solicitation and background guidance | Follow the solicitation while recording the conflict for formal clarification. | Non-responsive interpretation |
| Missing mandatory evidence | Stop the affected claim or form, record the owner and deadline, and continue only with independent supported content. | Fabricated evidence or silent omission |
| Submission, certification, or contractual commitment | Obtain explicit authority and preserve approval evidence before acting. | Unauthorised external commitment |
Worked Example
A solicitation requires institutional mandate, but one controlling input is missing. The proposal team applies this rule: Map the legal mandate, decision rights, incentives, political constraints, and service outcome before proposing reform. It records the gap and owner, withholds the affected assurance, and proceeds only with content that can be verified. This avoids technocratic reform detached from authority and implementation.
References
