skill-pm-stakeholder-juggle

name	skill-pm-stakeholder-juggle
version	0.1.0
description	Three PM flows — render a stakeholder map for a feature, audit decisions on a project in temporal order, or shape a verdict-first exec summary within a word budget.
neurotypes	[]
status	stable
triggers	[{"phrase":"who cares about"},{"phrase":"stakeholder map for"},{"phrase":"audit my decisions on"},{"phrase":"audit decisions on"},{"phrase":"decision audit for"},{"phrase":"exec summary for"},{"phrase":"executive summary for"}]
mcp_dependencies	[{"server":"neurodock-cognitive-graph","tools":["recall_entity","recall_decisions"]},{"server":"neurodock-task-fractionator","tools":["decompose"]}]
profile_dependencies	["preferences.output_format","preferences.max_chunk_size"]
license	AGPL-3.0-or-later
authors	["NeuroDock contributors"]

skill-pm-stakeholder-juggle

Three flows a product manager actually does in a week: see the political shape of a feature (who proposed it, who is blocking it, who is endorsing it), audit the decisions already made on a project so you can stop re-litigating them, and shape a verdict-first exec summary that fits inside the word budget the exec actually gave you. Trigger phrases are PM-specific by design — they do not collide with skill-eng-manager-1on1's prep my 1:1 with or any general planning skill.

This is not a stakeholder-manipulation planner. It does not score stakeholders, rank their influence, or coach the user on how to "win them over". Stakeholder messiness is the job — the skill helps you see the shape of it, not pretend it isn't there. It is also not a performance tool: it never rates a stakeholder, never produces a "trust score", never feeds anything into HR.

When to activate

Activate when the user's message contains one of the trigger phrases verbatim. The trigger phrase determines which of the three flows runs:

• who cares about <feature> / stakeholder map for <feature> → Flow A: stakeholder map.
• audit my decisions on <project> / audit decisions on <project> / decision audit for <project> → Flow B: decision audit.
• exec summary for <topic>, max <N> words / executive summary for <topic>, max <N> words → Flow C: exec summary.

Do not activate on partial matches (I care about this, the exec wants a summary), past tense (I already audited that), or third-person reports about meetings the user is not running. Do not activate if a separate skill — for example audhd-context-recovery, adhd-daily-planner, or skill-eng-manager-1on1 — is already running its flow in this turn; let the more general skill finish.

Flow A — stakeholder map

The user says who cares about <feature> or stakeholder map for <feature>. Goal: a map of which people proposed, blocked, or endorsed the feature, with verbatim quotes from prior facts and dates.

1. Parse the feature name. Everything after about (or after for) is the feature reference. Trim. Treat the parsed string verbatim — do not normalise capitalisation, do not expand abbreviations.

2. Recall the entity. Call recall_entity({ "name_or_alias": "<parsed feature>" }).

3. Resolution check. If resolution.method is alias, fuzzy, or embedding, surface the resolved entity name and the resolution score before continuing. Ask one question: I read "<parsed feature>" as the entity "<resolved>" (<method> match, score <score>). Continue? Wait for confirmation. Do not assume.

4. If entity is null, say so plainly: No entity in the graph matches "<parsed feature>". I can still help you map stakeholders — who do you already know is involved? Stop and wait for the user.

5. Bucket the facts by predicate. Read facts[] and partition into three buckets based on the predicate and the subject/object types:

   • Proposed by — facts where the predicate is proposed, requested, or originated_in, with a person subject. Quote object.literal verbatim if present.
   • Blocked by — facts where the predicate is blocked_by, blocked, or contains an object.literal starting with blocking:. Quote object.literal verbatim.
   • Endorsed by — facts where the predicate is endorsed, approved, signed_off_on, or supports. Quote object.literal verbatim.

   If a fact does not match any bucket, place it under Other context. Do not invent buckets.

6. Pull related people from related_entities. Any related_entities[] entry with type == "person" that is not already in a bucket gets surfaced under Recent context, with the relationship inferred from the predicate of the first fact linking them.

7. Render the stakeholder map. See "Output format — Flow A" below.

8. Stop. Do not propose stakeholder strategy, communication plans, or "how do you usually handle Sarah?". The map is the deliverable.

Flow B — decision audit

The user says audit my decisions on <project> (or one of the equivalent triggers). Goal: a temporally ordered list of decisions already made on the project, ending with an explicit anti-rumination closing line that names the decisions as closed.

This flow exists for the OCD-prone PM who re-litigates already-made decisions in their head. The skill surfaces the closed calls; the closing line names them as closed. The user is the authority and can reopen any decision — the skill names that path too.

1. Parse the project name. Everything after on (or after for) is the project reference. Trim verbatim.

2. Recall decisions. Call recall_decisions({ "project": "<parsed project>" }). No since filter — the audit is over the full project history.

3. Resolution check. If the returned project field is null, say so plainly: No project in the graph matches "<parsed project>". I cannot audit decisions on a project the graph does not know about. Stop.

4. If decisions[] is empty, say so: Project "<resolved project>" exists in the graph, but no decisions are recorded against it. There is nothing to audit. Stop. Do not add the anti-rumination closing line — there are no decisions to close.

5. Render the audit in temporal order. The schema returns decisions ordered newest-first; render them newest-first. See "Output format — Flow B" below.

6. Add the anti-rumination closing line, verbatim. The final line of the output MUST be exactly:

   These decisions are closed. To reopen, open a new question.
   

   No paraphrase. No softening adjectives. No "but if you want to revisit". This line is the load-bearing piece of Flow B.

7. Stop. Do not propose new decisions, do not ask "shall I help you reopen any of these?", do not editorialise about whether the decisions were good ones. The audit is the deliverable.

Flow C — exec summary

The user says exec summary for <topic>, max <N> words (or the executive summary for variant). Goal: a verdict-first, 4-bullet exec summary that respects the word budget the user named.

1. Parse the topic and the word budget. Split on , max . Everything before is the topic, the integer after is the word budget. If the user does not specify a word budget, default to 150 words and surface that default explicitly: Defaulting to a 150-word budget. Override with "max <N> words" if you want a different cap. Then continue.

2. Validate the budget. Minimum 40 words (anything shorter is a tagline, not a summary). Maximum 400 words (anything longer is not an exec summary). If the user's budget is outside this range, say so: The exec summary budget should be 40–400 words. Restate with a budget in that range. Stop.

3. Call decompose. Use the topic as the goal and pass a time_budget that maps to a single working block: decompose({ "goal": "exec summary for <topic>: produce 4 atomic bullets in the order Why now / What changed / Decision needed / Risk if delayed", "time_budget": "PT30M" }). The decompose call shapes the 4-bullet structure; the word budget is applied at render-time, not by the tool.

4. Three outcomes from decompose:

   • Success — at least 4 tasks returned. Use the first 4 in declaration order as the bullet content. Continue to step 5.
   • Fewer than 4 tasks returned — the topic was too small to decompose into the 4-section structure. Surface: The topic "<topic>" did not decompose into a 4-section exec summary. Try a more specific topic, or write it freehand. Stop.
   • BUDGET_INFEASIBLE or DECOMPOSITION_UNAVAILABLE — surface the error code on one line. Stop.

5. Map the 4 tasks to the 4 sections in order:

   • Bullet 1 → Why now — the timing argument. Why is this decision-worthy this week and not last month or next quarter?
   • Bullet 2 → What changed — the new information. Without "what changed" there is no story.
   • Bullet 3 → Decision needed — the explicit ask of the exec. One sentence. No hedging.
   • Bullet 4 → Risk if delayed — the cost of not deciding now. The other side of "Why now".

6. Render the summary with a verdict-first opener. First sentence is the verdict — the punchline the exec should walk away with even if they read nothing else. Then the 4 bullets. See "Output format — Flow C" below.

7. Enforce the word budget at render-time. Count words in the verdict + 4 bullets (not counting the section labels). If the total exceeds the budget, tighten the bullets — drop adjectives, drop hedges, drop subordinate clauses — until the word count fits. Surface the actual word count in the closing line.

8. Stop. Do not propose follow-up materials ("want a deck?"), do not ask "shall I send this?". The summary is the deliverable.

Output format

Flow A — stakeholder map

Stakeholder map — <feature name>.

### Proposed by
- <person name>: "<verbatim fact>" (<recorded date>)

### Blocked by
- <person name>: "<verbatim fact>" (<recorded date>)

### Endorsed by
- <person name>: "<verbatim fact>" (<recorded date>)

### Recent context
- <person name> (<relationship>)

### Other context
- "<verbatim fact>" (<recorded date>)

This map shows the political shape of the feature as the graph remembers it. Stakeholder messiness is the job, not a failure.

Rules:

• Sections with no facts are omitted entirely. Do not render ### Endorsed by\n(none).
• Maximum five bullets per section. If a section has more than five facts, surface the five most recent and append one closing line (<M> further facts in the graph; ask for them if you want the full list.).
• Facts are quoted verbatim from recall_entity's facts[].object.literal. No paraphrase.
• The closing line is mandatory.

Empty-graph fallback (used when the entity is null):

No stakeholder map — <feature name>. No prior context in the graph.

I can still help. Who do you already know is involved? If you'd like me to capture anything for next time, say "record this" once we're done.

Flow B — decision audit

Decision audit — <project name>. <N> decisions on file.

1. <decision name> — decided <decided_on>. <attribution line>. <source line if non-null>.
2. <decision name> — decided <decided_on>. <attribution line>. <source line if non-null>.
3. ...

These decisions are closed. To reopen, open a new question.

Where:

• <attribution line> is Decided by <decided_by[*].name comma-separated> if decided_by is non-empty, else Attribution: unattributed.
• <source line> is Source: <source verbatim> if source is non-null, else the line is omitted.
• Decisions are numbered newest-first (matching the schema's ordering).

Rules:

• The closing line These decisions are closed. To reopen, open a new question. is verbatim and mandatory when at least one decision is rendered.
• Decision names are quoted verbatim from the graph. Do not paraphrase.
• If truncated == true, append one line before the closing line: (More than 200 decisions on file; older entries truncated. Ask for a date range to narrow.)

Flow C — exec summary

Verdict: <one-sentence punchline, verdict-first, no preamble>.

- **Why now.** <Bullet 1 content, one to three sentences.>
- **What changed.** <Bullet 2 content, one to three sentences.>
- **Decision needed.** <Bullet 3 content, one sentence, ends with a question mark or imperative.>
- **Risk if delayed.** <Bullet 4 content, one to three sentences.>

Word count: <actual>/<budget>.

Rules:

• The verdict is the first thing in the output. No "Here's the summary:" preamble, no greeting, no "as requested".
• Section labels are bolded inline (**Why now.**), not as headers — exec summaries fit on one screen.
• The word count line is mandatory and is the user's check that the budget was respected.
• The four sections appear in the order Why now / What changed / Decision needed / Risk if delayed. Do not reorder.

Distress signal handling

If the user's invoking message contains phrases like I'm furious, <name> is screwing me over, this person is the problem, the skill MUST acknowledge the feeling but MUST NOT shift the flow toward naming a stakeholder as the cause of anything. One sentence: Understood. The stakeholder map still surfaces facts from the graph, not judgements. We can route the interpersonal conversation separately if you want. Then continue with the requested flow as defined.

Do not

• Do not score, rank, or rate any stakeholder mentioned in any flow.
• Do not produce a "trust score", "influence map weighted by power", or any quantification of stakeholders.
• Do not coach the user on stakeholder strategy ("here's how to win Sarah over"). That is a different conversation.
• Do not use middle-management speak: synergy, rockstar, 10x, ninja, growth mindset, stretch goal, should have known, aligned, north star, circle back, actionable insights.
• Do not invent facts in Flow A. If the graph has no facts on the entity, say so.
• Do not paraphrase facts returned by recall_entity or decisions returned by recall_decisions — quote the literal text.
• Do not omit or soften the Flow B closing line. These decisions are closed. To reopen, open a new question. is verbatim or it does not appear.
• Do not propose new decisions in Flow B. Surfacing closed calls is the job; reopening them is the user's call.
• Do not exceed the word budget in Flow C. If you cannot fit, tighten — do not negotiate the budget.
• Do not call record_fact in any flow without explicit user opt-in. The cognitive graph is the user's notebook, not the skill's logbook.
• Do not activate inside another skill's flow. Let it finish first.

What this skill is not

• Not a stakeholder-management or "stakeholder engagement strategy" tool.
• Not a performance-review prep tool.
• Not a sentiment analyser. The skill does not infer anyone's mood from their facts.
• Not a clinical tool. The anti-rumination close on Flow B is a workflow shape, not a treatment claim. The skill makes no claims about the user's neurotype.

Examples

See tests/:

• tests/01-stakeholder-map.md — Flow A with proposers, blockers, endorsers, and one related person.
• tests/02-decision-audit.md — Flow B with three closed decisions and the verbatim anti-rumination closing line.
• tests/03-exec-summary.md — Flow C with an explicit word budget enforced at render-time.