菜单
Use when an IC wants to understand their current level, close gaps to the next level, and build a promotion-ready evidence portfolio. Triggers on: "what does senior mean in practice", "how do I get to staff", "promotion conversation with manager",
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/newkayak12/claude-skills --skill leveling-ic命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | leveling-ic |
| effort | high |
| description | Use when an IC wants to understand their current level, close gaps to the next level, and build a promotion-ready evidence portfolio. Triggers on: "what does senior mean in practice", "how do I get to staff", "promotion conversation with manager", |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"wondelai","version":"1.0.0"} |
| scenarios | ["What does operating at Staff level actually look like — and how far am I from it?","Help me build an evidence log for my Senior to Staff promotion","I want to have a promotion conversation with my manager — help me prepare","시니어 → 스태프 레벨업 어떻게 준비해야 해?","승진 근거 자료 만드는 법 알려줘"] |
| compatibility | {"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":[],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 경험 사례가 실제로 해당 레벨의 증거인지 아니면 현재 레벨의 우수 성과인지 구분하는 판단 품질이 높아집니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."} |
Use when:
Not for:
Evidence log entry format:
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Situation: [context — what was happening, what was the problem?]
Task: [what was your specific responsibility?]
Action: [what did YOU do? — first person, specific decisions]
Result: [measurable outcome — numbers preferred]
Dimension: [Technical Execution / System Design / Project Leadership / Collaboration / Impact]
Proactive: [Yes / No — did someone ask you to do this, or did you identify it yourself?]
| Claude | You |
|---|---|
| Explains what each level looks like in practice per dimension | Has the actual conversations with your manager |
| Writes STAR-format evidence entries from examples you describe |
| Identifies and pursues opportunities to close gaps |
| Diagnoses which evidence dimension is thinnest | Decides when to push for promotion vs. wait for more evidence |
| Drafts promotion conversation talking points | Builds the relationship that makes advocacy possible |
| Scores your current 5-phase readiness | Makes the final call on timing |
../1-on-1-ic/SKILL.md — drive career and promotion conversations in your 1-on-1s../leveling-manager/SKILL.md — understand what your manager is building the case withPromotion is a recognition of work already done at the next level — not a reward for time served or a bet on potential. The engineer who says "I've been doing great work for two years and deserve a promotion" is making a performance argument. The engineer who says "here are six months of evidence that I'm already operating at the next level" is making a leveling argument. Only the second one works in calibration.
The foundation: Most ICs have two blind spots. First: they don't know what the next level actually looks like in practice (rubrics are opaque or theoretical). Second: they assume good performance will be noticed and rewarded automatically. Both assumptions are wrong. You need to understand the criteria, actively work on the gaps, collect evidence as you go, and have an explicit conversation with your manager about timing and readiness.
Before applying the framework, establish context with three questions:
Then use the Quick Diagnostic (at the bottom of this skill) to identify which of the five phases is most relevant. Focus the conversation on the highest-leverage phase — don't walk through all five sections unless the IC explicitly wants a full review.
Core concept: Before thinking about the next level, get clear on what your current level actually means and whether you're fully operating at it. Engineers who are "performing" at their level are still developing within it — fluency, speed, and consistent reliability at current-level scope. Most engineers are at different points of development even within a level.
Why it works: ICs who jump straight to "how do I get to Senior" without understanding what "Mid" requires often have gaps they're unaware of. Understanding your current level gives you baseline clarity and helps you have a more productive conversation with your manager about where you actually are.
Key insights:
Practice applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment | Rate yourself per rubric dimension | "Technical execution: I'd say I'm solid Senior. System design: I'm still Mid — my designs get significant feedback before they're approved." |
| Manager conversation | Ask for honest assessment | "I'd like your honest read: where on the Senior rubric am I strongest? Where am I still developing?" |
| Rubric access | Get the actual document | "Do we have a published career ladder? I'd like to understand what each level looks like on each dimension." |
| Level fluency check | Are you fully Senior or growing into it? | "I can own a project independently — but I still check in frequently to validate my direction. That's probably 'developing Senior', not 'operating Senior'." |
| Gap within level | Identify before chasing next | "I'm technically strong at Senior level but I haven't mentored anyone consistently. That's a gap within the current level, not just a next-level requirement." |
Core concept: Get specific about what the next level requires — by rubric dimension, not as a general feeling. "Senior means more autonomy" is not a criterion. "Senior means independently delivering multi-sprint projects with minimal direction, influencing the team's technical approach, and being the reference point for peers on design decisions" is a criterion.
Why it works: Specific criteria let you self-assess against them, identify gaps with precision, and seek out opportunities that close those specific gaps. Vague criteria produce vague development — you work hard but in the wrong directions.
Key insights:
Practice applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Criteria extraction | Dimension by dimension | "For Staff — System Design, what does 'operating at Staff level' look like? Can you give me an example of someone who does this well?" |
| Self-assessment grid | Rate each dimension | Create a 2x4 grid: dimensions vs. (Current, Next Level Required, My Gap); fill it in honestly |
| Key shift identification | Understand the inflection | "The biggest shift from Senior to Staff seems to be: moving from 'solve the problem I'm given' to 'identify the problems worth solving'" |
| Gap prioritization | Ask manager to rank | "Of all the dimensions, which one do you think is my biggest gap for Staff? I want to focus there." |
| Criteria examples | Ask for concrete instances | "Can you describe a recent situation where someone on the team demonstrated Staff-level impact? I want to understand what it looks like in practice." |
Core concept: Keep a running log of evidence — specific examples of work that demonstrates next-level behavior. Write entries throughout the year, not just before promotion conversations. The log serves three purposes: countering recency bias, building the promotion case, and giving you a clear picture of where your evidence is strong and weak.
Why it works: When promotion time comes, managers need specific examples to present in calibration. If you don't have them — or your manager doesn't — the promotion case is weak regardless of how good your work was. Engineers who proactively keep evidence logs give their managers the raw material for a compelling case.
Key insights:
Practice applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Entry writing | STAR + dimension tag | "S: Auth service was creating a latency bottleneck for 3 dependent teams. T: No one had assigned this to me. A: Designed and proposed a decoupling approach, got buy-in from all 3 teams, led implementation. R: 40% latency reduction; pattern adopted by the data team. Dimension: Staff/Cross-team influence + System Design." |
| Proactive evidence | Flag unsolicited work | "I wasn't asked to do this — I identified it independently. This is the kind of proactive behavior I understand is characteristic of Staff." |
| Quantified impact | Add numbers | "Not just 'improved performance' — 'reduced P99 latency from 800ms to 120ms, enabling the SLA upgrade that closed the enterprise deal'" |
| Dimension audit | Quarterly review | "I have 5 entries for Technical Execution, 3 for System Design, but only 1 for Cross-team Influence — that's my thinnest dimension for Staff" |
| Manager share | Give them the material | "Here's my evidence log for the last 6 months — I've organized it by rubric dimension. I'd love your feedback on whether the Staff-level evidence is strong enough." |
Core concept: Once you know your specific gaps, actively seek opportunities to close them. Don't wait for your manager to create these opportunities — propose them. The engineer who says "I want to work on cross-team influence — can I take the lead on the API design that affects the mobile and data teams?" is more promotable than the engineer who waits to be assigned that work.
Why it works: Opportunities don't always come to you on the right timeline for your promotion readiness. Creating your own opportunities — by understanding what you need and asking for it — compresses the timeline and demonstrates the proactivity that's characteristic of the next level.
Key insights:
Practice applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Volunteer for gaps | Propose, don't wait | "I noticed the platform team is designing the new event streaming architecture. I'd like to participate — it would help me work on the cross-team influence dimension we identified." |
| Proactive problem identification | Write the doc | "I wrote a short doc identifying a potential bottleneck in our queue system as we scale to 10M events/day. I want to share it with the team and get feedback on whether it's worth pursuing." |
| Mentoring initiation | Offer before being asked | "I'd like to help onboard the new engineer joining in March — I think it would be good for me and for them." |
| Cross-team contribution | Find the leverage point | "The mobile team's API review is happening Thursday — can I join and contribute the backend perspective? It's the kind of cross-team work I'm trying to demonstrate." |
| Progress check | Quarterly self-review | "Three months ago, cross-team influence was my weakest dimension. Since then: 2 cross-team contributions, 1 design review. Is the gap closing? What does my manager think?" |
Core concept: Don't wait for your manager to raise the promotion topic — bring it yourself. The conversation has two parts: establishing shared understanding of timing and criteria (before you're ready), and presenting your case (when you believe you're ready). Both conversations should be explicit, evidence-based, and documented.
Why it works: Managers are managing many engineers across many priorities. Your promotion is your highest priority — it may not be theirs. By driving the conversation explicitly, you ensure the topic doesn't fall off the agenda and you create accountability for the timeline and criteria.
Key insights:
Practice applications:
| Context | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Opening the conversation | Explicit and early | "I want to talk about my path to Staff. I'm thinking about an 18-month timeline. Can we align on what I need to demonstrate?" |
| Presenting your case | Evidence-first | "I've organized my last 6 months of work by the Staff rubric dimensions. I'd like to walk you through what I think is the strongest evidence — and hear where you think the gaps are." |
| Getting explicit commitment | Ask directly | "Are you planning to put me in for promotion this cycle? If not, what would change that?" |
| Specific gap ask | After a "not yet" | "I understand — I want to make sure I'm developing in the right direction. What specific evidence would make you confident submitting me next cycle?" |
| Timeline pressure | Name it if needed | "I've been at Senior for 3 years. I want to understand: is there a realistic path to Staff here, or should I be thinking about what Staff looks like elsewhere?" |
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Waiting to be noticed | Managers are busy; good work doesn't automatically produce promotion conversations | Drive the conversation explicitly; share your evidence log; ask for specific feedback |
| Vague growth goals | "I want to grow" doesn't help your manager create opportunities | Write specific gap statements: "My gap for Staff is cross-team influence — I need 3+ examples of driving outcomes across teams" |
| No evidence log | Manager has to reconstruct your case from memory; recency bias dominates | Start a STAR-format evidence log today; write an entry from this week |
| Closing performance gaps instead of leveling gaps | Good Senior performance ≠ evidence of Staff behavior | Understand the difference: more performance at current level vs. different scope and influence |
| Assuming tenure matters | Years of service is not evidence of leveling readiness | Promotion requires evidence of operating at the next level — time served doesn't count |
| Avoiding the direct question | "Am I being submitted?" is awkward but critical | Ask explicitly; vague optimism leads to surprise at promotion decisions |
| Taking a "not yet" without specifics | You can't close a gap you don't know about | Ask: "What specific evidence is missing? What would make you confident?" |
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Do you know your company's level rubric for each dimension? | Criteria are opaque | Ask your manager for the rubric or career ladder; if it doesn't exist, ask them to describe next-level criteria per dimension |
| Have you done a self-assessment by rubric dimension? | Your gap is a feeling, not a diagnosis | Rate yourself 1-3 on each dimension at your target level; find the weakest dimension |
| Do you have a running evidence log? | Your case depends on your manager's memory | Start today: write 3 STAR entries from work you've done in the last 3 months |
| Have you discussed your promotion timeline with your manager explicitly? | Promotion timing is vague and assumed | Ask in next 1-on-1: "I want to work toward [level] — what timeline is realistic, and what do I need to demonstrate?" |
| Are you actively seeking opportunities that close your specific gaps? | You're doing good work, but not the right work for next-level evidence | Identify one opportunity in the next sprint that directly addresses your weakest dimension |
| Do you know whether you're being submitted this promotion cycle? | You're uncertain and hoping | Ask directly: "Are you planning to submit me this cycle? If not, what's the gap?" |