菜单
This skill should be used when the user asks "are we ready for go-live," "assess change readiness," "what is the binding constraint on adoption," or needs a structured readiness scorecard before sponsor or steering decisions.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Check installed community skills for updates. Shows a diff and requires explicit approval before applying. Use when the user says "check for updates", "update my skills", "anything new for my installed skills", or when invoked from the registry-sync agent.
Engagement-profile interview that recommends and installs a starter pack of community strategy skills. This IS the practice setup for the whole ecosystem — it asks what kind of strategist you are and recommends what to install first. Use on fresh install, when the user says "get me started" or "what should I install", or to re-run the integration-availability check after adding or removing an MCP connector.
Install a community skill from a watched registry. Reads the allowlist first, fetches, shows the RAW SKILL.md (not just a summary), runs structural trust checks, runs skills-qa, and only writes files after explicit user approval. Use when the user says "install [skill]", picks install from browse, or provides a direct skill URL.
Evaluate a skill against the Strategy Skill Design Framework — thirteen design parameters (including trust-surface, freshness, schema validation, and conflict detection), three strategy-specific failure modes, and a three-band verdict (Ready / Some Concern / Material Concerns). Use when deciding whether to trust a community skill before installing it, before deploying a first-party skill to your team, or whenever the user asks "should I trust this?" or "is this skill well-designed?". Runs automatically as part of /strategy-builder-hub:skill-installer.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "review our resource allocation," "are we funding the right things," "build a portfolio allocation view," or needs current spend, headcount, or management attention checked against strategic priority for misallocation.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "stress-test these synergies," "is this deal's synergy case realistic," or has a deal or partnership's projected synergies that need cost/revenue separation, evidence checks, and a base-rate haircut.
| name | change-readiness-assessment |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks "are we ready for go-live," "assess change readiness," "what is the binding constraint on adoption," or needs a structured readiness scorecard before sponsor or steering decisions. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| metadata | {"version":"0.3.0","owner":"change-management practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"hypothesis-driven-analysis","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"} |
Assess people-side readiness across practice-defined dimensions; identify the binding constraint blocking adoption — not an average score.
/change-management:stakeholder-impact-map if segments are missing.| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Initiative context and timeline | Ask scope and target go-live |
| Stakeholder impact map (recommended) | Assess at highest level available; flag gap |
| Practice profile readiness dimensions | Use default set; [PROVISIONAL] |
Without stakeholder map: assess program-level readiness only; flag [review] on segment-specific claims.
hypothesis-driven-analysis):
Read practice profile — readiness dimensions, RAG definitions, past change history notes.
Score each dimension (from profile or defaults: leadership alignment, sponsor visibility, past change fatigue, capacity, skills/training, culture fit, resistance plan in place):
Run the willing-vs-able test on the lowest-scoring frontline-facing dimension — leadership often scores Amber on alignment while frontline scores Red on ability; the binding constraint is usually the latter.
Identify binding constraint — single dimension whose failure would block adoption even if others pass; explain the mechanism (e.g. training incomplete → revert to old process under pressure).
Recommend response type — sponsor, comms, training, structural, or timing — without picking a single mandated action; link to downstream skills.
INITIATIVE: [name]
TARGET GO-LIVE: [date or window]
OVERALL PEOPLE READINESS RAG: [R/B/G] — [one-line rationale]
DIMENSION: [name]
RAG: [R/B/G]
Evidence: [source-tagged]
Gap to next level: [specific]
Willing vs able: [willing | able | both at risk — note]
BINDING CONSTRAINT: [dimension] — [mechanism]
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TYPES: [sponsor | comms | training | structural | defer — options, not mandate]
UNSCORED / NEEDS EVIDENCE: [list, or "none"]
Input: Go-live in 3 weeks, leadership "aligned," no training delivered to call-center agents.
Expected output: Binding constraint = skills/training (able, not willing); overall Red; defer or narrow scope flagged [review].
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/change-management/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /change-management:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: sponsor-roadmap or resistance-diagnosis.