team-diagnosis

name

team-diagnosis

description

Use when the user wants a structured read on the *health* of their team — beyond individual morale to delivery cadence, attrition risk, dependency tax, on-call burden, peer relationships, and cross-cutting patterns. Trigger phrases include "how is my team doing", "I want a team health check", "diagnose my team", "before my skip-level update, what should I flag", "is something off with the team that I'm missing". Reads the user's stakeholder-reflect entries on direct reports + team file + any inputs the user provides (recent retros, attrition events, eng survey scores), and produces a multi-dimensional diagnosis with patterns, risks, and concrete actions.

Team Diagnosis

Individual reflection (via stakeholder-reflect) catches per-person signals. Team health is different — it shows up in patterns across people, in second-order signals (who's gone quiet, who's covering for whom), and in interactions between the team and its surroundings.

This skill produces a structured health check across the dimensions that usually go unexamined until something breaks.

When to use

• Quarterly cadence, ideally before a skip-level update or planning round.
• After a triggering event — a surprise resignation, a missed delivery, an exec asking "is your team okay?", a retro that surfaced more than usual.
• Before a hard decision — reorg, headcount cut, role change — that needs a calibrated read on what the team can absorb.
• When the user has a vague unease but can't articulate why.

Don't trigger for: routine status updates, sprint-level operational reviews, individual performance concerns (use performance-management or stakeholder-reflect instead).

Inputs to gather first

1. The user's stakeholder-reflect files for each direct report (~/bettersense-work-reflections/managing-down/<slug>.md).
2. The team file if one exists (~/bettersense-work-reflections/teams/<slug>.md).
3. Recent retros if the user has them or can summarize.
4. Eng survey scores or equivalent (manager satisfaction, psychological safety, etc.) if available.
5. Recent attrition events in the last 6–12 months.
6. Delivery track record — last 2–3 quarters, did they hit / miss / cancel commitments?

If the user has none of these except their own gut sense, the diagnosis will be qualitative — say so, and probe with the user's own observations.

The eight dimensions

Walk through each, scoring green / yellow / red with evidence:

1. Delivery cadence

Are commitments being hit on the timelines committed? Or is "we'll get to it next sprint" the recurring chorus? Look for:

• Hit rate on quarterly goals (last 2–3 quarters)
• Drift between plan and actual (do projects routinely take 1.5x estimate?)
• Cancellations / re-prioritizations (signal of upstream chaos or unclear strategy)

2. Attrition risk

Who's flight risk, and why? Look for:

• Reports who've gone quiet in 1:1s
• Reports who've started talking about "growth" or "what's next" pointedly
• Reports who got passed over and haven't recalibrated
• Reports whose comp is materially below market
• Patterns of who's leaving competitor companies / accepting recruiter calls
• Surprise resignations in the last 12 months (each one is a signal you missed)

A team with 15%+ unwanted attrition over a year has a problem; you want to find the leading indicators before the next person quits.

3. Dependency tax

How much of the team's time is paying tax to other teams' dependencies, processes, or chaos? Look for:

• Standing meetings that exist because something else is broken
• Recurring "blocked on X team" patterns
• People privately complaining about specific cross-team friction

4. On-call burden

Who's bearing the weight, is it sustainable, is the team reducing pager load over time? Look for:

• Pages per week per oncall (trending up or down?)
• Concentration: is one person the de facto SME on too many systems?
• Toil ratio: how much oncall is "real incidents" vs. "papercut alerts that should be auto-resolved"

5. Peer relationships and cross-functional health

How does the team work with other teams? Look for:

• Are PMs frustrated with eng, or vice versa?
• Are there design or research partnerships that are underleveraged?
• Is there a peer team that resents this team for some reason (taking credit, pushing risk, etc.)?

6. Information flow

Does the right information reach the right people, on time? Look for:

• Surprises in skip-level meetings (information should have flowed up earlier)
• Decisions made without the people who needed to be in the room
• Repeated "I didn't know X was happening" moments

7. Technical health

Where is the codebase / infrastructure / ops health degrading? Look for:

• Test coverage trends
• Tech debt that gets discussed but not addressed
• Velocity slowing not because of people but because of system friction
• Specific systems people dread touching
• Onboarding time — how long does it take a new hire to make their first meaningful commit? A long ramp is often the clearest signal that the engineering system is hard to navigate, not that the people are slow. A secondary check: does internal transfer onboarding take nearly as long as new-hire onboarding? If so, the tooling, docs, and context don't travel and have to be re-learned each time.
• Developer experience friction — where are the manual handoffs that look automated? What do developers say it feels like to do the work? The places where dashboards look fine but the lived experience is painful (approval bottlenecks, broken integrations between systems, repetitive setup) often don't surface without asking directly. If a deeper diagnosis is needed here, trigger engineering-health.

8. Culture and norms

The hardest to measure but the highest-leverage. Look for:

• Are juniors getting their say? Or being talked over? (Compose with stakeholder-reflect team questions.)
• Is psychological safety present? (Are people raising risks, or burying them until they explode?)
• Is feedback flowing? (Do peers give peers honest signal, or is feedback only top-down?)
• Is the team curious and learning, or in execution-only mode?
• Is there gallows humor in retros that points at unsaid problems?

Output format

Produce a team health one-pager:

# Team Diagnosis: [team] — [date]

## Top-line read
One paragraph: the most important thing the user should walk away knowing.
What's quietly fine, what's quietly degrading, what's flat-out broken.

## Dimensions (G/Y/R, with evidence)
| Dimension | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| Delivery cadence | 🟨 | [cite specific entries / events] |
| Attrition risk | 🟥 | [cite] |
| Dependency tax | 🟩 | [cite] |
| On-call burden | 🟨 | [cite] |
| Peer relationships | 🟩 | [cite] |
| Information flow | 🟨 | [cite] |
| Technical health | 🟥 | [cite] |
| Culture and norms | 🟩 | [cite] |

## Patterns
[Cross-cutting signals across people / dimensions. Often where the real diagnosis lives.]
- **[Pattern]** — what you're seeing across multiple dimensions / people. (Sources: ...)

## Top-3 risks worth acting on
[Specific, with the action and the owner.]

## What's working that you should protect
[Don't only diagnose problems. Name what's load-bearing and could be lost in a reorg or change.]

## Open questions
[Where the data is too thin to call. Often the most important section — surfaces what to investigate before next quarter's diagnosis.]

Forcing functions

Cite, don't claim

Same discipline as stakeholder-synthesize. Every claim cites specific entries or events. "Three people independently mentioned X is hard to work with this quarter (cited: 2026-03-12 entry on Priya, 2026-04-02 on Sam, 2026-04-18 on Nina)."

Patterns over people

The most useful insights aren't "Priya is unhappy" — they're "three of my reports independently described the same external blocker." Diagnose at the team layer, not just sum up individuals.

Surface what you're avoiding

Most managers have a quiet sense of where the problem is and avoid looking at it directly. The skill should ask: "What dimension are you most reluctant to look at right now? Why?" Often the avoidance is the diagnosis.

Name protective work

Diagnose-and-improve culture optimizes for finding problems and underweights protecting what works. A team's strong code review culture, or a specific senior's mentorship pattern, or a peer relationship that's load-bearing — those need naming so they don't get reorged away accidentally.

Honest about confidence

Rate each dimension's confidence: are you reading from real signal or guessing? Low-confidence reds and greens should both be marked — they're prep targets for the next month of observation.

Operating principles

• Diagnosis without action is theater. The output's value is what gets done after — the top-3 risks worth acting on with owners and dates.
• The user is in the team's culture, not outside it. A diagnosis should ask whether the user is part of the pattern being diagnosed. (Are they the bottleneck on information flow? Are they the source of pressure that's eroding psychological safety?)
• Patterns reveal blind spots. If a pattern keeps showing up across reflections but never shows up in retros, the team has a topic they're not safe raising. That's signal.
• A green dimension isn't "no work needed." Sometimes it's "we got lucky this quarter." Distinguish robust health from temporary calm.
• Don't over-diagnose. A team showing 3 yellows and 5 greens is doing well. Resist the urge to find a problem in everything.

Anti-patterns to flag

• Diagnosis as venting. If the output reads as "my team is failing in X ways," step back — that's frustration, not diagnosis. Real diagnosis is calibrated.
• Aggregating individual problems into team problems prematurely. One unhappy report is not a team morale issue.
• Conflating people problems with system problems. If three people leave because their manager is failing them, that's a system problem (the manager) not "attrition risk." The fix is different.
• Skipping "what's working." A diagnosis with no greens is wrong; some things are working, even on troubled teams.
• Action items without owners or dates. "We should improve information flow" is not an action item.
• Treating eng survey scores as ground truth. They're one data point. A team can score green on the survey and be quietly burning out, and vice versa.

Composition with other skills

• stakeholder-reflect (managing-down + teams) — primary source. The longitudinal entries on individuals and the team file are what the diagnosis is built on.
• stakeholder-synthesize — for the per-individual lens before zooming out to team patterns. They compose: synthesize first, then diagnose.
• leadership-os (Heat Shield, Diplomat, Triage Lead modes) — for the conversations that follow the diagnosis. The diagnosis is the artifact; leadership-os is the action.
• performance-management — when the diagnosis surfaces an individual underperformance issue, switch tools.
• one-on-one-prep — top-3 risks identified should land in specific 1:1 conversations.
• decision-log — log significant decisions arising from the diagnosis (e.g. "decided not to pursue X reorg because of Y dimension's fragility").
• the-research-synthesizer — useful as a parallel discipline for processing the team's qualitative data (retros, surveys) the way a research synthesizer would.