ra-stakeholder-mapper

name	ra-stakeholder-mapper
description	Tracks customer org charts, contact roles, engagement frequency, and relationship coverage across accounts. Maintains a structured stakeholder map that identifies champions, economic buyers, influencers, and coverage gaps. Use when asked to map stakeholders, track customer contacts, build an org chart, identify relationship gaps, assess stakeholder coverage, or when any workflow needs to know who matters at an account and how recently they have been engaged. Also triggers for questions about contact mapping, multi-threading assessment, stakeholder analysis, single-thread risk, or relationship breadth.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Stephen Rogan","version":"1.0.0","pillar":"relationship-architecture","category":"relationship-data"}

Stakeholder Mapper

Maintains structured stakeholder maps for all accounts. Tracks roles, influence, engagement history, and coverage gaps. Part of the Relationship Architecture pillar -- the data infrastructure that supports the most human-dependent pillar.

This is a data maintenance and analysis skill. It tracks who matters and how recently they have been engaged. It does not assess relationship quality (that is the CSM's read), develop relationships, or make contact strategy decisions.

When to Run

• Continuous: Updates stakeholder data as CRM contacts, activities, and engagement signals change
• Scheduled: Weekly coverage gap analysis across all accounts
• On-demand: When a CSM or manager requests a stakeholder map for a specific account

Core Execution Logic

Step 1: Build and Maintain Contact Map

For each account, maintain a structured record per contact:

Field	Source	Update Trigger
Name and title	CRM contact record	On any field change
Stakeholder type	CSM classification (see types below)	CSM updates manually; skill prompts for classification of untyped contacts quarterly
Influence level	CSM assessment: high / medium / low	CSM updates; skill prompts for review if engagement pattern contradicts classification
Sentiment toward product	CSM assessment: advocate / supportive / neutral / sceptical / detractor	CSM updates; NPS response may prompt reassessment
Last engagement date	CRM activity log, email, calendar, support	Continuous -- updates automatically from all connected channels
Primary engagement channel	Most frequent channel (email, call, meeting, support, community)	Computed from activity log
Engagement frequency	Average days between touchpoints (trailing 90 days)	Computed weekly
Coverage status	Computed from engagement frequency vs. expected cadence	Computed weekly

Step 2: Classify Stakeholder Types

Each contact is classified into one or more types:

Type	Definition	Why They Matter	Expected Engagement Cadence
Champion	Actively advocates for the product internally. Sponsors the relationship. Goes to bat for you	If they leave, the account is immediately at risk. The single most important relationship	Enterprise: every 2 weeks. Mid-market: monthly
Economic Buyer	Controls or directly influences the budget decision for your product	If not engaged, renewal is vulnerable to cost-cutting or competitive displacement	Enterprise: monthly. Mid-market: quarterly
Technical Lead	Owns the implementation, integration, or day-to-day technical relationship	If frustrated with the product, technical issues escalate and adoption stalls	As needed -- driven by product discussions and support interactions
Executive Sponsor	Senior leader who provides strategic air cover for the investment	If unaware of value being delivered, the budget is at risk in prioritisation discussions	Quarterly minimum. More frequently during renewal or expansion
End User	Uses the product daily but does not influence purchasing decisions	Their collective experience drives adoption metrics and organic sentiment	No direct cadence -- engagement measured through product usage
Influencer	Does not decide but shapes opinions within the organisation	An unmanaged negative influencer can poison the relationship without the CSM knowing	Varies -- identify and monitor, engage as needed
Detractor	Actively works against the product or the relationship	Must be identified and addressed, not ignored. Detractors who are not managed become the voice the economic buyer hears	Engage deliberately -- ignoring a detractor does not make them less influential

Classification responsibility: The CSM classifies contacts. The agent tracks engagement. If a contact has no classification after 30 days in the CRM, the skill prompts the CSM to classify them.

Step 3: Compute Coverage Status

For each contact, compare engagement recency to expected cadence:

Status	Criteria	Interpretation
Active	Engaged within expected cadence for their stakeholder type	Relationship is being maintained
Cooling	Last engagement is 1.5-2x the expected cadence	Relationship is drifting. Not yet a gap but heading there
Gap	Last engagement is >2x expected cadence	Contact is not being managed. Coverage has lapsed
Lost	No engagement in 90+ days across any channel	Contact may have left the company, changed roles, or fully disengaged

Step 4: Identify Structural Risks

Assess the stakeholder map for structural vulnerabilities:

Risk	Detection	Severity	Implication
Single-threaded	Only 1 contact with Active status. All others are Gap or Lost	Critical	Any change at the account (champion leaves, contact gets busy) puts the entire relationship at risk
No economic buyer	No contact classified as Economic Buyer, or Economic Buyer is in Gap/Lost status	High	The renewal decision will be made by someone the CSM has not spoken to
Champion cooling	Champion contact's status is Cooling or Gap	High	The primary relationship is weakening. Investigate before it becomes a departure
No executive coverage	No Executive Sponsor exists in the contact map, or all are in Lost status	Medium	Investment lacks strategic air cover. Vulnerable to budget reallocation
Detractor unmanaged	A contact classified as Detractor exists with no recent engagement and no strategy documented	Medium	Detractors do not become neutral through neglect. They become more vocal
Narrow coverage	All active contacts are in the same department or at the same level	Medium	Relationship is deep but not wide. A departmental reorg could sever the entire relationship

Step 5: Generate Stakeholder Map

{
  "account_id": "string",
  "map_date": "2026-03-10",
  "total_contacts": 6,
  "coverage_summary": {
    "active": 3,
    "cooling": 1,
    "gap": 1,
    "lost": 1
  },
  "structural_risks": [
    {
      "risk": "no_economic_buyer_engaged",
      "detail": "Sarah Kim (CFO) last engaged 85 days ago. Gap status",
      "severity": "high",
      "recommended_action": "Re-engage through champion introduction or executive-to-executive outreach"
    }
  ],
  "contacts" 
    
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
    
    
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
    
  
   
     
     
     
  
   
    
       
       
       
    
    
       
       
       
    
  

Handoff to Human

Decision Point	Context Provided	What the Human Decides
Contact classification	Contact name, role, engagement history	How to classify: Champion, Economic Buyer, Detractor, etc. Requires relationship judgment the agent cannot provide
Coverage gap response	Gap details, contact context, structural risk severity	How to re-engage: direct outreach, introduction through champion, executive-to-executive, or accept the gap
Multi-threading strategy	Current map, narrow coverage assessment	Which new contacts to develop, how to approach them, which existing contacts can facilitate introductions
Detractor management	Detractor identification, engagement history, influence level	Whether to engage directly, work around them, or escalate to neutralise their influence
Relationship quality assessment	Engagement frequency and recency data	The actual quality of each relationship. Frequent engagement does not equal a strong relationship -- the CSM provides the qualitative read

Confidence and Limitations

• High confidence for contact tracking and engagement recency -- structured data from CRM and activity logs
• High confidence for coverage status computation -- deterministic comparison of engagement dates to expected cadence
• Medium confidence for structural risk detection -- the risks are real patterns, but the severity depends on account context the agent may not fully capture
• Low confidence for stakeholder classification accuracy. Champion, Economic Buyer, and Detractor labels come from CSM input and may be outdated, optimistic, or incorrect. The skill prompts for review but cannot validate
• Cannot assess relationship quality. A contact touched last week may still be disengaged emotionally. A contact not touched in 45 days may still be a strong advocate. Engagement frequency is a proxy, not a measure, of relationship health
• Cannot detect contacts who matter but are not in the CRM (informal influencers, board members, procurement gatekeepers, executive assistants who control calendar access)
• Cannot account for relationship dynamics that happen outside observable channels (conversations at conferences, hallway chats, personal connections between executives)

Dependencies

Required:

• CRM API (contact records, activity logs)
• Calendar integration (meeting data)
• Email integration (email engagement data)

Strongly recommended:

• ra-engagement-tracker (detailed engagement metrics per contact)
• ra-stakeholder-change-detector (alerts on contact changes)
• bi-account-brief (stakeholder map feeds into account context for every human decision point)
• lo-check-in-scheduler (cadence alignment with stakeholder coverage expectations)

Downstream consumers:

• bi-account-brief (stakeholder section of account briefs)
• bi-risk-detector (single-thread and champion-at-risk as risk signals)
• lo-handoff-manager (stakeholder context for account transitions)
• cm-commercial-case-builder (stakeholder coverage for expansion readiness)
• All human decision points (who to engage, how to approach, who has influence)

References

• references/stakeholder-classification.md -- Type definitions, classification criteria, and review process