| name | carta-compensation-scorecard |
| description | Carta Total Compensation scorecard — shows how a corporation's employees compare to market. Two lenses: corporation-level rollup (band distribution — what % of employees are below / at / above market) and per-employee scorecard (each employee's compa-ratio + percentile + market band). Triggered by queries like: "scorecard", "how is our comp positioned", "who's below market", "which employees are below P50", "show me the roster", "are we paying market", "comp posture", "employee compa-ratios", "is [employee] underpaid", "pay adjustment analysis", "our internal pay bands vs benchmarks", "score these employees". Operates on the corporation's already-ingested CTC roster (HRIS-synced employees). Do NOT use for market-rate lookups for a role (use carta-compensation-benchmarks). Do NOT use for job classification (use carta-compensation-rolematcher). Do NOT use for fund performance scorecards or portfolio-level metrics.
|
| version | 0.1.0 |
| model | sonnet |
| allowed-tools | ["mcp__carta__call_tool","mcp__carta__search_tools","mcp__carta__list_accounts","AskUserQuestion","Skill","Read"] |
`_instrumentation_v2` is anonymous Carta skill-usage telemetry. ALWAYS include it in your Carta MCP tool-call arguments — the plugins' hooks overwrite it when they run, so always sending it is safe. Shape:
`_instrumentation_v2: {"skills": [":", ...], "model": ""}`
`skills` is cumulative for the session: list every Carta skill loaded so far, not only the one driving this call. Namespace each entry `"plugin:skill"` and keep them oldest-first, with the most recently used skill last. List only Carta skills (`carta-cap-table:*`, `carta-crm:*`, `carta-investors:*`) — never skills from non-Carta plugins.
CTC Scorecard
Show how a corporation's compensation stacks up against market — at the corp level (band distribution rollup) or at the employee level (per-employee compa-ratio table) — using Carta Total Compensation data.
This skill calls compensation-service's scorecard endpoints (the same endpoints the CTC in-product UI uses) and renders the result in chat. By construction, the output matches what the customer sees in their CTC product surface.
CRITICAL — Casing rule for ALL user-facing CTC values.
Render CTC taxonomy values in Title Case display form, never the UPPER_SNAKE_CASE API enums. Matches the carta-compensation-rolematcher and carta-compensation-benchmarks convention so the plugin's voice is consistent across skills.
| Field | Use in user-facing text | Never |
|---|
| Job area | Engineering, Sales, Customer Success, Project Management, Human Resources | ENGINEER, SALES, CUSTOMER_SUCCESS, PROJECT_MANAGEMENT, HR |
| Focus | DevOps and Site Reliability, Account Executive, FP&A | devops and site reliability, account executive, fp&a |
| Level | Entry, Mid 1, Senior 1, Staff 2, VP 1, C-Level, CEO, Unknown | ENTRY, MID1, SENIOR1, STAFF2, VP1, C_LEVEL, UNKNOWN |
| Track | IC, Manager, Executive, Unknown | ic, manager, executive, UNKNOWN |
| Band | Low, Mid, High | low, mid, high |
The UPPER_SNAKE_CASE enums are only for machine handoff to MCP commands (the job_filters, leader parameters). Switch to Title Case before any value reaches the user.
Band enum — the API uses LOW / MID / HIGH, NOT BELOW_MARKET / AT_MARKET / ABOVE_MARKET. This is the single source of truth:
| API value (filter + response) | Display | Maps to user phrasing |
|---|
LOW | Low | "below market", "below P50" |
MID | Mid | "at market" |
HIGH | High | "above market", "above P50" |
Pass LOW / MID / HIGH (not BELOW_MARKET) as the score filter value, and parse LOW / MID / HIGH from response score fields. Display the actual band value (Low / Mid / High) in tables — do not relabel it to "Below market". When the user asked for a band by market phrasing (e.g. "show me below-market employees"), echo their phrasing in the surrounding prose AND map it to the real enum, e.g. "Here are your below-market (Low) employees:" — but the per-row Band column still shows Low.
See carta-compensation-rolematcher → "Display → API enum tables" for the full mapping.
Use MCP, not CLI. Every API call in this skill goes through the carta MCP. Do not shell out to the carta CLI — that bypasses the formatters, the 403 handler, and the attribution requirement.
⚠️ Two different invocation paths in this skill — do not conflate them.
| Command | Invoke with | Why |
|---|
subscription_status, plan | mcp__carta__call_tool({"name": "compensation__get__…", "arguments": {…}}) | Registered as flat call_tool tools (the plugin-wide convention, same as the benchmarks skill). |
employee-scorecard, corporation-scorecard | mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:…", "params": {…}}) | Registered only as MCP commands. They are NOT flat call_tool tools — call_tool({"name": "compensation__get__employee_scorecard"}) returns "Unknown tool" and silently wastes calls. |
The scorecard commands are the trap: an LLM carrying call_tool muscle memory from the benchmarks skill will call the wrong tool. In this skill, the call_tool(...) shorthand is used ONLY for subscription_status and plan. Every employee-scorecard / corporation-scorecard example below is written out in full as mcp__carta__fetch(...) — invoke it exactly as written, do not "translate" it back to call_tool.
For the fetch commands, note the shapes that trip agents up: the command name is hyphenated/colon (compensation:get:employee-scorecard), the argument key is params (not arguments), and page_size is snake_case.
Showing employee names is correct.
CTC customers viewing their own corporation's scorecard already see every employee's name, title, and pay in the CTC product UI. The general "never show PII" rule applies to Carta staff browsing customer data, not to a customer browsing their own roster. Surface employee names verbatim in tables — redacting them would be a regression from the product.
When to Use
Corporation-level rollup (derive from compensation:get:employee-scorecard — see Step 4a)
- "How is our compensation positioned overall?"
- "Show me our comp scorecard"
- "Are we paying market?"
- "What's our market posture?"
- "Give me the band distribution for our employees"
The corp-level band distribution is derived from the employee endpoint (matching the CTC product). Use compensation:get:corporation-scorecard only to compare a draft plan against the active plan — see Step 4a.
Per-employee scorecard (use compensation:get:employee-scorecard)
- "Show me which employees are below P50"
- "Who's below market?"
- "Show me the roster scorecard"
- "Which engineers are below market?" (job-filtered roster)
- "Show me the compa-ratios for our managers" (leader-filtered)
- "List employees at market" (band-filtered)
Ambiguous
If the question is just "show me our scorecard" with no further qualifier, default to the corporation-level rollup (cheaper, faster, summary-shaped). Offer a follow-up:
Ask me to "show employees" or "show employees below market" if you want the per-person table.
Prerequisites
- A corporation — resolved automatically from your accounts (see Step 1).
- An active CTC subscription with HRIS-synced employees. If the corp has no subscription, the skill stops with a plain-English message (see Subscription gating).
Workflow
Step 1 — Resolve corporation (REQUIRED before anything else)
Do this ONCE, upfront, before calling any compensation endpoint. Do not start fetching subscription status or plan data until you have a confirmed corporation_id.
Resolve in this priority order — stop as soon as one path succeeds:
Path 1 — Explicit numeric ID in the prompt (highest priority, no API call needed)
If the user mentioned a numeric corporation ID anywhere (e.g. "corp 7", "corp id 7", "corporation_id=7", "for company 728"), use that exact integer. Do not call list_accounts. Do not search for it. Do not substitute a similar-looking ID.
Anti-patterns:
- ❌ User says "corp 7" → agent calls
list_accounts(search="7") — list_accounts searches by name substring, not ID.
- ❌ User says "corp 7" → agent picks a corp from a previous turn. Each prompt's corp ID overrides any prior context.
Path 2 — Company name in prompt
If the user named a company (e.g. "scorecard for Acme"), call list_accounts(search="Acme"). Filter results to entries where id starts with corporation_pk:. If exactly one match, use it. If multiple, proceed to Path 4.
Path 3 — Single account (auto-select, no question needed)
If the user gave no corp hint at all, call list_accounts() with no search. Filter to corporation_pk: entries. If exactly one corporation is returned, use it automatically — do not ask the user to confirm something they have no choice about.
Path 4 — Multiple accounts (ask once, cleanly)
If multiple corporations are found, use AskUserQuestion immediately:
- Question: "Which company's scorecard should I show?"
- Options: corporation names from the list (cap at 10; offer "Other" if more)
Do not show the user a raw JSON dump of accounts. Do not attempt any compensation call before they answer.
HARD STOP — user dismissed the question:
If the user closed the prompt, said "cancel", "never mind", or otherwise did not select an option — STOP. Do not guess a corp. Do not call any compensation endpoint. Reply:
"No problem — let me know which corporation's scorecard to look up (name or numeric ID) when you're ready. If there's something else I can help with in the meantime, just ask."
Path 5 — No corporations at all (Fund-Admin-only user — STOP, do not ask)
If Paths 2/3/4 returned zero corporation_pk: entries, the user may have no cap table access at all — a Fund Admin user whose access is fund accounting only. Confirm before doing anything else:
call_tool({"name": "context_tools__get__profile", "arguments": {}}) — returns corporations[], the corporations the user holds a cap-table role on (it excludes NO_ACCESS roles, and returns [] for a user with no corporation roles).- If
corporations[] is empty → the user has no cap table. Send the no-cap-table CTC message from Subscription gating below (the "your firm" variant) and STOP. Do not ask them to name a corporation — they don't have one. Do not call any compensation endpoint.
- If
corporations[] is non-empty → the user does have cap tables; the name search just missed. Do not send an upsell. Ask them to confirm the exact company name or numeric corp ID and re-resolve.
Why profile and not list_accounts for this check: list_accounts groups corporations and funds under the same corporation_pk: prefix, so a Fund Admin user's funds can read as cap table access. context_tools:get:profile returns corporations only.
Extract the numeric corporation_pk (the integer after corporation_pk:) for all subsequent calls.
Step 2 — Verify CTC subscription (REQUIRED)
call_tool({"name": "compensation__get__subscription_status",
"arguments": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>}})
If is_subscribed is False, stop here and surface the subscription message (see Subscription gating below). Do not call any scorecard endpoint — they will return empty data and waste a round-trip.
Step 3 — Decide which lens to query
Pick exactly one based on the user's intent:
| User intent | Lens | Continue to |
|---|
| Corp-level question (positioning, posture, distribution) | Corporation rollup | Step 4a |
| Employee-level question (who, list, roster, individual compa-ratios) | Per-employee | Step 4b |
| Ambiguous "show me the scorecard" | Default to corporation rollup | Step 4a |
Both lenses read from the employee endpoint; the difference is whether you present a band rollup (Step 4a) or the per-employee table (Step 4b). If you've already fetched the roster for one and the user asks for the other, reuse the rows you have rather than re-fetching.
Step 4a — Corporation-level rollup
The active-plan rollup is derived from the employee endpoint — NOT from corporation-scorecard. The corporation-scorecard endpoint is comparison-only (draft plan vs. active plan) and rejects the active plan id with "Cannot compare active plan to itself" — so it is the wrong tool for a plain "how are we positioned" question. Use corporation-scorecard only for the draft-comparison case (note at the end of this step).
First fetch the active plan (for the data citation footer), then pick a derivation path based on what the user actually asked for:
call_tool({"name": "compensation__get__plan",
"arguments": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>}})
Capture plan.id and benchmark_version metadata (for the citation later).
CRITICAL — the employee endpoint oversizes. A full-roster fetch fails: compensation:get:employee-scorecard returns "response too large (limit 40000 chars)" at page_size ≥ ~25. Only page_size ≈ 10 reliably fits. Do not request page_size: 500 or try to pull the whole roster in one call. Pagination also returns overlapping rows across pages — always dedupe by ids.external_id before counting. Never estimate or extrapolate a distribution from a partial sweep — that fabricates financial data. Either complete the sweep or use the counts path below.
Path 1 — Counts only (the user wants the distribution / positioning)
For "how are we positioned", "what's the band distribution", "are we paying market" — where the user wants counts, not a per-person table — get the overall-band counts directly with three filtered calls. Read only total_results from each (you don't need the rows):
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>, "score": "LOW", "page_size": 1}}) → total_results = Low count
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>, "score": "MID", "page_size": 1}}) → total_results = Mid count
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>, "score": "HIGH", "page_size": 1}}) → total_results = High count
Plus one unfiltered call (page_size: 1) to read the roster total_results, for reconciliation.
MANDATORY reconciliation — the score filter keys on the OVERALL benchmark.score, which is nullable. Employees with a null overall band are excluded from ALL three filtered counts, so Low + Mid + High is often less than the roster total. (Verified on a real corp: Low 66 + Mid 20 + High 0 = 86, but roster total = 134 → 48 employees had no overall band, and HIGH was 0 even though many were salary_rating.score: HIGH.) You MUST:
- Report this as the overall band distribution, explicitly labeled as such.
- State the uncounted remainder: e.g. "86 of 134 employees have an overall band; 48 aren't yet scored on the combined measure." Never present the three counts as if they cover the whole roster.
- Do NOT label Path-1 counts as a salary / equity / total-cash breakdown. The overall band is a combined measure and routinely differs from every per-metric band (an employee can be overall Low while Mid on salary and High on equity). For a per-metric breakdown the user must use Path 2.
This path is cheap (4 calls, no paging) and exact for the overall band. Continue to Step 5a (counts rendering).
Path 2 — Per-metric details (the user wants the breakdown or the table)
For "give me the salary / equity / total-cash breakdown", or whenever you also need the per-person rows, sweep the roster at the safe page size and count each metric's own band:
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>, "page_size": 10, "page": 1}})
# fetch successive pages 2,3,… until you have collected total_results unique rows
- Dedupe collected rows by
ids.external_id before counting.
- Gate the render: only produce the distribution once
unique_rows == total_results. If the sweep can't complete, do not render a partial distribution (see the hard page cap below).
- Count each metric by its own per-metric band (these are populated even when the overall
benchmark.score is null):
- Salary →
salary_rating.score
- Equity (NTM) →
ntm_equity_rating.score
- Total cash →
total_cash_rating.score
You are reading the band the API already returns per row — never recompute a ratio. Continue to Step 5a (per-metric rendering).
🛑 HARD PAGE CAP — at most 25 page fetches per sweep. This is a ceiling you may not exceed.
At page_size: 10, 25 pages covers 250 employees — larger than any expected CTC roster. If you reach 25 page fetches and still have not collected total_results unique rows, STOP. Do not fetch page 26. Do not render a partial or estimated distribution. Tell the user the roster is too large to sweep through chat and offer to narrow with a filter (job area / level / leader), then stop and wait for their reply.
Do not try to slip past this cap. Specifically forbidden: raising page_size above ~10 to cover more per call (it oversizes and 400s), "just a few more pages" past 25, restarting the sweep from page 1 to reset the counter, or switching to a different command to grab the rest. Each of those is the same unbounded loop wearing a disguise. The cap counts total page fetches for this sweep, including retries of a failed page.
A single page that errors (oversize / transport) counts as one attempt against the cap — retry that page at most once, then if it still fails, STOP and surface the failure with the partial count collected so far; do not keep hammering it.
Optional filters (either path) — pass through verbatim if the user specified them:
job_filters: narrow by job area and/or level — a list of comma-delimited strings "JobArea,Level,LimitingLevel" (e.g. ["ENGINEER"], ["ENGINEER,SENIOR1"]). See the job_filters format box in Step 4b for the exact encoding — it's the #1 thing agents get wrong.leader: true for managers/executives only, false for ICs only- There is no
location or top-level level filter (level only via job_filters). For location, filter the fetched rows client-side and say so.
When to use corporation-scorecard instead. Only when the user is comparing a draft / in-flight plan against the active plan ("how would our positioning change under the new plan?"). It requires the draft plan's plan_id (a non-active plan), never the active plan's id:
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:corporation-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>,
"plan_id": <DRAFT_plan.id>}})
It returns {active_plan_counts_per_band, current_plan_counts_per_band} for the side-by-side comparison in Step 5a. If you only have the active plan (no draft is being modeled), this endpoint is the wrong tool — use the employee-derived rollup above. If you pass the active id and get "Cannot compare active plan to itself", do not surface that error — fall back to Path 1.
Step 4b — Per-employee scorecard
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>,
"page_size": 10}})
The param is page_size (snake_case) — camelCase pageSize is silently dropped by the tool layer, leaving you on the default page size. And keep page_size small (~10): the endpoint returns "response too large" at page_size ≥ ~25 on larger rosters.
Optional filters (pass through verbatim — translate user phrasing to enums):
| User phrasing | Param | Value |
|---|
| "below market" (overall) | score | LOW |
| "at market" (overall) | score | MID |
| "above market" (overall) | score | HIGH |
| "engineers", "engineering team" | job_filters | ["ENGINEER"] |
| "senior 1 engineers" (job + level) | job_filters | ["ENGINEER,SENIOR1"] |
| "everyone at senior 1" (level only) | job_filters | [",SENIOR1,"] |
| "managers", "leaders", "people managers" | leader | true |
| "ICs", "individual contributors" | leader | false |
| a specific person by name ("show me Ada Lovelace's scorecard") | name | "Ada Lovelace" |
| a specific person by employee UUID | employee_id | <uuid> |
Use Title Case in narration even when passing the raw enum to the API. Example: "Pulling the Engineering roster scorecard for Acme — filtering to Below market employees."
job_filters format — read this; it's the #1 thing agents get wrong. Each element is a comma-delimited STRING "JobArea,Level,LimitingLevel", NOT an object and NOT colon-delimited. The whole param is a list of such strings.
| Intent | Pass | ✗ Do not pass |
|---|
| Engineers (any level) | ["ENGINEER"] | ❌ [{"job":"ENGINEER"}] ❌ "ENGINEER" (bare, unwrapped) |
| Engineers at exactly Senior 1 | ["ENGINEER,SENIOR1"] | ❌ ["ENGINEER:SENIOR1"] ❌ [{"job":...,"level":...}] |
| Anyone at exactly Senior 1 | [",SENIOR1,"] | — |
| Anyone at level ≤ VP 2 (3rd slot = limiting level) | [",,VP2"] | — |
| Multiple job areas | ["ENGINEER", "SALES"] | — |
The 2nd CSV slot is exact level; the 3rd is a "≤ this level" cap. JobArea is a JobType enum (ENGINEER, SALES, …); Level/LimitingLevel are LevelCode enums (ENTRY, MID1, SENIOR1, … C_LEVEL, CEO). Passing an object or job:level with a colon returns HTTP 400 "… is not a valid selection for type JobType".
Use the enum NAME, and don't guess it. Pass ENGINEER, not "Engineering"; CUSTOMER_SUCCESS, not "Customer Success"/"Customer Support"; SENIOR1, not "Senior 1" — the Title-Case forms are user-facing only and 400 as API values. If you're unsure of a valid JobType/LevelCode name, read the full list from search_tools({"query": "compensation get benchmark"}) (its help enumerates every job area and level). There is no compensation:list:job_types / list:jobs / list:levels command — do not invent one; it returns Unknown tool.
There is NO top-level level filter and NO location filter on this endpoint — level is only reachable through the job_filters CSV (above), and a top-level level param is silently ignored. Location cannot be filtered server-side at all. If the user asks to filter by location (e.g. "show me below-market employees in Austin"), fetch the roster and filter client-side on location.home_location / location.work_location, and tell the user you filtered locally.
CRITICAL — the score filter keys on the OVERALL band only, and it is nullable.
The score filter param matches against benchmark.score (the combined equity+salary overall band) — not salary_rating.score or any per-metric band. Two consequences:
- It does not answer metric-specific questions. For "who's below market on salary" / "above market on equity", the
score filter is the wrong tool — it filters the overall band, not the salary or equity band.
- Employees with a null overall
score are silently excluded. Any score=... filter only returns rows whose overall band is non-null. An employee can have salary_rating.score: HIGH but a null benchmark.score — they will be invisible to score=HIGH. This is why band-filtered counts can fall short of the unfiltered total.
To answer a metric-specific band question: do not pass the score filter. Sweep the roster using the capped procedure in Step 4a → Path 2 (page at page_size ≈ 10, dedupe by ids.external_id, hard cap of 25 page fetches, then STOP and offer to narrow), and read the relevant per-metric band client-side — salary_rating.score for salary, ntm_equity_rating.score for equity, total_cash_rating.score for total cash. You are reading a field that is already in each response — you are not recomputing the ratio. The compa-ratio and band are returned by the API; never recompute them from salary ÷ target.
Sorting a list. When the user asks for an ordered roster ("worst compa-ratios first", "sort by name"), pass sort_field (e.g. SCORE, NAME, LEVEL, EQUITY_COMPARATIO) plus reverse_sort (true/false). Sorting orders a list the user wants to see — it is never a substitute for filtering to a specific person (see Single-employee lookup).
Single-employee lookup
There is no single-employee scorecard endpoint — an individual's compa-ratio and percentile only exist as a row inside the corporation's batch-computed scorecard, scored relative to the whole roster. To answer "show me [person]'s scorecard", query the same employee_scorecard endpoint filtered to that one person:
- If you have their employee UUID, pass
employee_id (exact match — returns at most one row).
- Otherwise pass
name (substring match against full / first / last name — may return more than one person).
mcp__carta__fetch({"command": "compensation:get:employee-scorecard",
"params": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>,
"name": "Ada Lovelace"}})
Then:
- Exactly one match → render that single row (you can use the per-employee table with one row, or narrate the fields inline).
- Multiple matches (common with a partial/common name) → list the matches and ask which one with
AskUserQuestion; do not assume the first.
- Zero matches → "No employee named '[name]' is in this corporation's scorecard. Check the spelling, or ask for the full roster."
Anti-pattern — never sort-and-pick to answer an individual question. Do NOT pull the unfiltered roster, sort by NAME, and read off the top row — that returns whoever sorts first alphabetically (e.g. "A Robot"), not the person asked about. Always filter by name or employee_id. sort_field is for ordering a list the user asked to see, not for locating one person.
Also fetch the active plan once (for the citation footer):
call_tool({"name": "compensation__get__plan",
"arguments": {"corporation_id": <corporation_pk>}})
Continue to Step 5b to render.
Step 5a — Render the corporation-level rollup
Path 1 — overall-band counts (from the three filtered calls). Render a single overall-band row, and always disclose the uncounted remainder:
## Compensation Scorecard: [Company Name]
Overall band (combined salary + equity):
| Band | Employees | Share of scored |
|------|-----------|-----------------|
| Low | 66 | 77% |
| Mid | 20 | 23% |
| High | 0 | 0% |
86 of 134 employees have an overall band; 48 aren't yet scored on the combined measure.
Want the salary / equity / total-cash breakdown, or the per-person table? Just ask.
---
*Data source: Companies with post money valuations between [peer_group_label]. Benchmarks released [Month YYYY].*
Percentages on this path are a share of the scored population (Low+Mid+High), not the full roster — say so. Never imply the three counts cover everyone.
Path 2 — per-metric breakdown (from the deduped roster sweep). Render one row per metric:
## Compensation Scorecard: [Company Name]
| Rating | Low | Mid | High | Total |
|-----------------|----------|-----------|-----------|-------|
| Salary | 12 (24%) | 28 (56%) | 10 (20%) | 50 |
| Equity (NTM) | 5 (10%) | 35 (70%) | 10 (20%) | 50 |
| Total cash | 8 (16%) | 30 (60%) | 12 (24%) | 50 |
50 employees in scope. 12 employees are Low (below market) on salary.
Ask me to "show employees below market" if you want the per-person table.
---
*Data source: Companies with post money valuations between [peer_group_label]. Benchmarks released [Month YYYY].*
The per-metric total is the number of rows with a non-null band for that metric — it can differ slightly per metric. Compute each percentage as count / total * 100 rounded to the nearest integer; if total == 0, render — instead of 0%.
Draft-vs-active comparison (only when you called corporation-scorecard with a draft plan id). That endpoint returns:
{
"active_plan_counts_per_band": {
"salary": {"LOW": N, "MID": N, "HIGH": N},
"ntm_equity": {"LOW": N, "MID": N, "HIGH": N},
"total_cash": {"LOW": N, "MID": N, "HIGH": N}
},
"current_plan_counts_per_band": { ... same shape, the draft plan ... }
}
Show both blocks side by side with "Current plan" (the draft) and "Active plan" labels, plus a one-line note: "Current plan reflects in-flight modeling; active plan is what's in force today."
Step 5b — Render the per-employee scorecard
Response shape per employee:
{
"ids": {"external_id": "0e5177ee-..."}, // dedupe key for paging
"personal_info": {"first_name": "...", "last_name": "...", "full_name": "..."},
"title": {"role": {"level": "MID2", "job": "ENGINEER",
"leader": false, "focus": "DevOps and Site Reliability"},
"official_title": "Software Engineer, Business Systems",
"external_id": "..."},
"salary": {"pay_unit": "YEARLY", "amount": "114645.00", "currency": "USD"},
"total_cash": {"pay_unit": "YEARLY", "amount": "114645.00", "currency": "USD"},
"equity_v2": { "initial_grant": {...}, "total_grant": {...}, "vested": {...},
"annualized_ntm": {...}, "next_12_months": {...} }, // may be absent
"location": {"home_location": {"city": "Tulsa", "state": "OK", "country": "US"},
"work_location": {"city": "Austin", "state": "TX", "country": "USA"}},
"tenure": {"start_date": "2018-12-31", "end_date": null},
"benchmark": {
"score": "LOW", // OVERALL — nullable AND may be absent entirely
"salary_rating": {"percentile": "43.00", "compa_ratio": "0.96",
"score": "MID",
"target": {"yearly_amount": "119000.00"},
"difference_from_mid": {"yearly_amount": "-4355.00", "percentage": "-3.66"},
"currency_code": "USD"},
"total_cash_rating": { ... same shape, total-cash target ... },
"ntm_equity_rating": { ... equity target, fully_diluted_percentage/shares ... }, // may be absent
"total_equity_rating": { ... equity ... }, // may be absent
"unvested_equity_rating": { ... equity ... }, // may be absent
"paybands_salary_rating": { ... payband salary target ... },
"paybands_ntm_equity_rating": { ... payband equity target ... } // may be absent
}
}
The response shape varies per employee. Not every row carries every field. Observed on real data: some rows have no top-level benchmark.score at all, and equity ratings (ntm_equity_rating, total_equity_rating, unvested_equity_rating, paybands_ntm_equity_rating) are present only when the employee has equity data. Read defensively — treat a missing rating the same as a null one. Identity is under personal_info; classification is under title.role.{level, job, leader, focus} with the human title in title.official_title.
CRITICAL — there is no single "the score". There are SIX distinct ratings, and they are independent.
| Field | What it means | Compares against |
|---|
score | Overall quick-glance band — a combined view of how the employee is doing on equity and salary together. Nullable. | (rollup of the below) |
salary_rating | Market Salary ratio — salary vs market | benchmark |
total_cash_rating | Total Cash ratio — total cash comp vs market | benchmark |
ntm_equity_rating | Market Equity ratio — equity vs market | benchmark |
paybands_salary_rating | Payband Salary ratio — salary vs the corp's own payband | payband |
paybands_ntm_equity_rating | Payband Equity ratio — equity vs the corp's own payband | payband |
Each rating has its own score (band), compa_ratio, and percentile. benchmark.score (overall) is NOT the same as salary_rating.score — an employee can be salary_rating.score: HIGH while benchmark.score is null or a different band. Never treat one as a proxy for the other. Always tell the user which source a number came from (e.g. "Market Salary ratio" vs "Payband Salary ratio" vs "overall score").
Classification. Read the saved classification from title.role.{level, job, focus, leader}, and the human-readable title from title.official_title. Render the level/job in Title Case per the casing rule (e.g. MID2 → Mid 2, ENGINEER → Engineering).
Table format — six columns, per Carta UX rules:
## Roster Scorecard: [Company Name] [— filtered to Low / Engineering / Managers]
| # | Name | Title | Level | Salary compa-ratio | Band |
|---|------------------|------------------------------|-----------|--------------------|-------|
| 1 | Ada Lovelace | Senior Software Engineer | Senior 1 | 0.81 | Low |
| 2 | Grace Hopper | Staff Software Engineer | Staff 1 | 0.94 | Mid |
| 3 | … | … | … | … | … |
**50** employees checked. **12** Low, **28** Mid, **10** High.
---
*Data source: Companies with post money valuations between [peer_group_label]. Benchmarks released [Month YYYY].*
Which band to show for a bare "who's below/above market?" (no metric named). Prefer the overall score when it's available — it's the combined equity+salary quick-glance band. Label it explicitly as the overall score, and offer a follow-up to drill into a specific ratio:
Banding by overall score (combined salary + equity). Want me to break this out by Market Salary ratio, Market Equity ratio, or Total Cash instead?
If benchmark.score is null for an employee (overall not computed), fall back to the most relevant per-metric band — salary_rating.score for a pay question — and say so in that row's source, rather than dropping the employee or showing a blank. Never silently mix overall-banded and salary-banded employees in one column without flagging which is which.
Compa-ratio formatting. The API returns it as a decimal string (e.g. "0.81"). Render with two decimals, no % sign. A compa-ratio of 1.00 means at-target; below 1.0 is below-target, above is above-target.
Gap formatting. Whenever you show a "Gap" column — Salary Gap or TCC Gap — always render BOTH the currency amount AND the percentage together, from that rating's difference_from_mid:
{sign}{currency_symbol}{abs(yearly_amount)} ({percentage}%)
yearly_amount is already signed (e.g. "-4355.00") — the sign goes in front of the currency symbol, not between the symbol and the digits. Extract the sign first (empty string for positive/zero, - for negative), then render the symbol, then the absolute value. Do NOT put {currency_symbol} before an unmodified signed yearly_amount — that produces $-4355.00, which is wrong; the correct form is -$4,355.
Format the absolute value with locale comma separators and no decimal places (drop the .00): "4355.00" → 4,355, not 4355.00 or 4,355.00. percentage is already two-decimal-place (e.g. "-3.66") — render it as-is with a trailing %, keeping its own sign.
difference_from_mid has no currency of its own — derive {currency_symbol} from the parent rating's currency_code (e.g. salary_rating.currency_code), mapped to a symbol (USD→$, EUR→€, GBP→£, CAD→C$, etc.). Never hardcode $ — international corps report in EUR, GBP, and other currencies, and assuming USD misrepresents their pay.
e.g. -$4,355 (-3.66%) for a USD salary gap; -€4,355 (-3.66%) for a EUR salary gap.
- Salary Gap ← amount/percentage from
salary_rating.difference_from_mid.{yearly_amount, percentage}, symbol from salary_rating.currency_code
- TCC Gap ← amount/percentage from
total_cash_rating.difference_from_mid.{yearly_amount, percentage}, symbol from total_cash_rating.currency_code
total_cash_rating has the same shape as salary_rating, so the percentage is always available — never drop it for TCC. Salary Gap and TCC Gap must use the identical {sign}{currency_symbol}{amount} (±%) format; showing the amount alone for one but not the other is inconsistent and wrong. If difference_from_mid is absent for that rating, render — for the whole Gap cell rather than a partial value.
Pagination — fetching is NOT the same as displaying. Don't make the user "next page" through a list you already have.
page_size ≈ 10 is a fetch-side constraint (the API oversizes at larger sizes) — it is not how much to show the user. Once you've collected the rows for the result the user asked for, render all of them in one table. A 19-row below-market list is one table of 19 rows, not "showing 1–10, ask for the next page." Mirroring the fetch page size into the display is a bug.
-
Collected ≤ 50 rows → show them all. Page the fetches under the hood (dedupe by ids.external_id, respect the 25-page cap), then render the full collected set as a single table. Do not split it across "pages" in chat.
-
More than ~50 rows in the result → this is too long to dump in chat. Do not offer manual "next page" paging through dozens of fetches. Instead show the first 50 and tell the user to narrow with a filter (job area / level / leader / band):
Showing 50 of 87. That's a lot to scroll — narrow with a filter (e.g. by job area, level, or band) and I'll show the focused list.
-
The 25-page fetch cap (Step 4a) still governs how far you sweep; it is unrelated to how many rows you display.
Equity / total-cash columns. The default table shows salary compa-ratio because that's the most common scorecard lens. If the user explicitly asked about equity ("equity compa-ratios", "show equity scorecard"), swap the column for ntm_equity_rating.compa_ratio and rename the column header to "Equity compa-ratio (NTM)". Same for total cash: column header "Total cash compa-ratio". If the user asked for Gap instead of compa-ratio ("total cash gap", "TCC gap"), swap in "TCC Gap" using the same {sign}{currency_symbol}{amount} (±%) format as Salary Gap — see Gap formatting above; never render TCC Gap as an amount-only value when Salary Gap shows both, and never hardcode $ for either column. Don't try to fit all three rating types in one table — it blows the 6-column limit and reads as noise.
Empty roster. If count == 0 but total_results == 0 for the corp, surface:
No employees in scope for this scorecard. This usually means HRIS sync hasn't yet imported employees for this corporation — check the Carta CTC product UI or contact the CTC team.
Empty filter result. If count == 0 because a filter excluded everyone (e.g. score=LOW returned nothing):
No employees match that filter. Try a different band, or drop the filter to see the full roster.
Band-filter undercount (null overall score). If a score=... filtered query returns fewer employees than the unfiltered roster total, do not report the filtered count as complete. Some employees likely have a null overall benchmark.score and are excluded by any score filter (see the CRITICAL note in Step 4b). If the user's question is metric-specific (salary / equity / total cash), re-fetch the roster without the score filter and read the per-metric band per employee instead. Only the overall-score filter has this null-exclusion behavior; the per-metric bands inside each row are always present when that metric was benchmarked.
Data citation
Every response that includes scorecard data MUST end with the citation footer in italics below a horizontal rule:
---
*Data source: Companies with post money valuations between [peer_group_label]. Benchmarks released [Month YYYY].*
peer_group_label: from compensation:get:plan → peer_group.label (e.g. "$50M-$100M").Month YYYY: derived from benchmark_version.created ISO timestamp (e.g. "2026-05-06T..." → "May 2026"). Not a version number.
This is the same citation contract as carta-compensation-benchmarks — keep it consistent across the plugin.
Subscription gating
If compensation:get:subscription_status returns is_subscribed: false, OR a scorecard call returns HTTP 403, OR compensation:get:plan returns 403, stop and reply with one of the two messages below.
Choose between them by whether the user has cap table access: call_tool({"name": "context_tools__get__profile", "arguments": {}}) and check whether corporations[] is non-empty. Treat a non-empty list as "has cap table access" — the endpoint already excludes NO_ACCESS roles, so presence is the signal. Do not match on the role label: those strings are raw and unnormalized ('Admin' and 'Administrator' both occur), so an allowlist would misclassify real admins. Do not test whether this specific corp is in the list — the list is capped server-side, so a large-portfolio admin can be a false negative.
This call runs only on this failure path, after the gate has already decided to stop — it costs nothing on the happy path. If it errors or returns an unreadable response, use the "your firm" variant (it promises nothing you can't deliver) and do not retry.
If corporations[] is non-empty:
"That's a Carta Total Compensation (CTC) question — CTC runs on Carta's private market salary and equity data. The data can be segmented by level, function, stage, and geography, directly in Claude. It's not active for your company yet. Reach out to your account team or request a demo to unlock it.
I can pull cap table data — grants, vesting, round history — in the meantime."
If corporations[] is empty — a Fund-Admin-only user, or the corp came from a hand-typed numeric ID (Path 1) that they hold no cap-table role on:
"That's a Carta Total Compensation (CTC) question — CTC runs on Carta's private market salary and equity data. The data can be segmented by level, function, stage, and geography, directly in Claude. It's not active for your firm yet. Reach out to your account team or request a demo to unlock it."
Do not retry. Do not surface the raw HTTP status, stack trace, or error body. Do not list workarounds — there are none at the MCP layer; this is a billing/subscription gate.
Error handling
| Condition | What to do |
|---|
compensation:get:plan returns no active plan | "No active CTC plan for this corporation. The scorecard needs an active plan to compute against — ask the corp's CTC admin to activate one in the product UI." |
corporation-scorecard errors with "Cannot compare active plan to itself" | You passed the active plan id to a comparison-only endpoint. Expected — don't surface it to the user. Fall back to the employee-derived rollup (Step 4a, Path 1). Only use corporation-scorecard with a draft plan id. |
Scorecard regeneration is in flight (response carries task_status.state: PENDING / RUNNING) | Surface the partial data if present, append: "The scorecard is currently regenerating in the background. Numbers may shift in the next few minutes." |
| Unknown band value (anything other than LOW / MID / HIGH) | Render verbatim in chat; don't substitute. The API enum may have grown. |
| Network/transport error | One retry. If it fails again, surface: "Couldn't reach compensation-service. Try again in a moment — if this keeps happening, contact Carta support." |
| Response too large ("response too large (limit 40000 chars)") | Drop page_size to ~10 and page through. Never estimate a distribution from a partial sweep — complete it or tell the user it couldn't be completed. |
Anti-patterns
- ❌ Calling
corporation-scorecard with the active plan id to get a plain rollup — it's a comparison-only endpoint and rejects the active plan with "Cannot compare active plan to itself." Derive the rollup from the employee endpoint (Step 4a); reserve corporation-scorecard for draft-vs-active comparisons.
- ❌ Estimating or extrapolating a band distribution from a partial roster sweep ("~55% Low", "roughly half"). If you can't collect every row (oversize/transport errors), say so — never fabricate a distribution. Use Path 1 (filtered counts) or complete the Path 2 sweep.
- ❌ Counting paged rows without deduping by
ids.external_id — pages overlap, so a naive count double-counts. Always dedupe first.
- ❌ Paging past the 25-page hard cap on a Path 2 sweep — raising
page_size, fetching "just a few more" pages, restarting from page 1, or switching commands to grab the rest are all the same unbounded loop in disguise. At 25 fetches, STOP and offer to narrow with a filter.
- ❌ Showing both salary AND equity AND total cash compa-ratio columns in the same table — exceeds 6 columns and reads as noise. Default to salary; let the user ask for a different lens.
- ❌ Hiding employee names — customers see them in the CTC product already.
- ❌ Re-classifying titles via the rolematcher — the scorecard endpoint already reads the corp's saved classifications. Don't second-guess them.
- ❌ Using
pageSize (camelCase) or a large page_size (≥25) — camelCase is silently dropped, and ≥25 oversizes. Use page_size ≈ 10 and page.
- ❌ Mirroring the fetch
page_size into the display — e.g. showing "1–10 of 19, ask for the next page" when you've already collected all 19 rows. page_size ≈ 10 is a fetch constraint, not a display limit. Render the full collected set (≤ 50 rows) in one table; only for >50 rows show the first 50 and ask the user to narrow.
- ❌ Treating
benchmark.score (overall) and salary_rating.score as interchangeable — they are independent fields. The overall is a combined equity+salary band and is nullable; the salary band is metric-specific.
- ❌ Using the
score=... filter to answer a metric-specific question ("below market on salary") — it keys on the nullable overall band and silently drops employees with a null overall score. Fetch the roster and read the per-metric band instead.
- ❌ Reporting a band-filtered count as the full answer when it's lower than the unfiltered total — the gap is usually null-overall-score employees the filter excluded. Re-fetch unfiltered for metric-specific questions.
- ❌ Recomputing a compa-ratio or band from salary ÷ target — the API already returns
compa_ratio and score per rating. Read them; never compute them.
What this skill does NOT cover
Two categories here — read carefully, they behave differently at the routing layer:
Route to a different skill (the router should pick these up, not this one):
- Market-rate lookups for a hypothetical role (e.g. "what's the market rate for a Senior 1 engineer?") — that's
carta-compensation-benchmarks.
- Job classification for a free-text title — use
carta-compensation-rolematcher.
If the user asks for either of those, route them to the right skill in one sentence and stop.
In-scope by routing intent, but not yet implemented (this skill IS the right skill; it just tells the user the feature isn't ready):
- Fresh-CSV roster scoring (e.g. "score these 200 employees from this spreadsheet") — not supported in Phase 0. Coming in a later phase.
- Adjustment-range suggestions ("to reach P50, increase by $X") — not in Phase 0.
For these, load the skill, acknowledge the ask, explain the Phase 0 limit, and offer the closest supported alternative (e.g. per-employee scorecard for an existing HRIS-synced roster). Do NOT bounce them to a different skill — nothing else covers roster-level pay positioning.
