Claude Skills by jeffreytse

Use when a team is forming, after a significant membership change, or when a recurring dysfunction suggests the team lacks shared agreements on how to work together — to co-create explicit norms covering communication, decision-making, conflict, and accountability.

Use when a manager needs to deliver specific, in-the-moment developmental feedback to a direct report — separate from a formal performance review — to improve a behavior or reinforce a strength using observable evidence.

Use when a manager wants to acknowledge a direct report's specific contribution, achievement, or behavior in a way that reinforces it and builds engagement — separate from compensation and formal performance reviews.

Use when someone has just become a people manager for the first time — or when an experienced manager takes over a new team — to navigate the first 90 days in a way that builds trust, establishes authority through relationship rather than position, and avoids the most common new-manager failure modes.

Use when a manager wants to identify which roles on their team are critical, assess who is ready to fill them, and create development plans so the team is resilient when a key person leaves, is promoted, or is unavailable.

Use when a manager wants to reduce the risk of burnout on their team, or when they observe signs that a direct report may be approaching burnout — to identify contributing factors and intervene before the employee becomes disengaged, impaired, or leaves.

Use when two or more team members have an interpersonal or work-based conflict that is affecting collaboration, quality, or team morale — and the conflict has not resolved through normal working interaction.

Use when conducting a job interview — to ask structured behavioral questions using the STAR method so that candidate evaluation is based on demonstrated past behavior rather than self-reported traits or hypothetical answers.

Use when a manager wants to have a structured career development conversation with a direct report — separate from weekly one-on-ones and performance reviews — to understand their long-term aspirations, identify growth gaps, and create a concrete development plan.

Use when preparing for or facilitating a high-stakes conversation involving conflict, feedback, performance issues, or sensitive interpersonal topics

Use when a manager has a new direct report joining the team — to structure the first 30, 60, and 90 days so the new hire builds the right relationships, understands expectations, and achieves early wins before taking on full autonomous scope.

Use when a direct report is leaving the team — voluntarily or otherwise — to manage the knowledge transfer, team morale impact, departure announcement, and the departing employee's experience in a way that serves the team, the organization, and the relationship.

Use when preparing for or facilitating a regular manager-to-direct-report one-on-one meeting to build trust, surface blockers, and develop the employee

Use when preparing for or improving weekly one-on-one meetings between a manager and a direct report

Use when a group of managers needs to align their performance ratings across teams before finalizing reviews — to ensure consistent standards, surface bias, and produce fair compensation and promotion decisions.

Use when a direct report has a documented pattern of performance falling below role expectations — after informal feedback has not produced sustained change — to create a structured, time-bound plan with clear success criteria before making a continuation decision.

Use when evaluating a finalist candidate for a role — to conduct structured phone reference calls that surface specific performance evidence, development needs, and potential red flags that interviews cannot reveal.

Use when a senior manager wants candid feedback about team health, culture, and manager effectiveness from employees who report to their direct reports — to surface issues that would not otherwise reach them through normal reporting channels.

Use when a manager wants to proactively understand what keeps a valued direct report engaged and what might drive them to leave — before any sign of resignation appears — so that retention can be acted on before it becomes a crisis.

Use when a manager needs to communicate with their entire team at once — to share direction, context, decisions, or significant news — in a structured meeting that informs, aligns, and invites genuine dialogue rather than broadcasting in one direction.

Use when a manager wants to periodically assess team effectiveness across multiple dimensions — trust, clarity, collaboration, workload, and psychological safety — so that problems are identified through data before they surface as attrition, conflict, or missed delivery.

Use when a team needs to reflect on a completed period, project, or significant event — to extract what worked, what didn't, and what specific changes to make before the next cycle, rather than repeating the same patterns.

Use when a manager first observes that a direct report's performance is declining or falling below expectations — to have an early, direct, non-punitive conversation that names the gap and opens a path to correction before the situation requires formal process.

Use when writing or calibrating a performance review for a direct report at any level

Use when defining a role before hiring for it — to specify the outcomes the new person must achieve, the competencies required to achieve them, and the cultural requirements, so that interview questions target evidence of actual job performance rather than proxies like credentials or experience.

Use when a physical workspace, shared digital environment, or shop floor has accumulated clutter, unclear organization, or inconsistent upkeep that slows work down or hides problems — apply the five sequential steps (sort, set in order, shine, standardize, sustain) in order, because skipping ahead to standardization before sorting and organizing produces a workplace that looks disciplined on paper but reverts to clutter within weeks.

Use when misconduct, policy violation, or serious wrongdoing has been detected — to determine whether to act immediately or delay enforcement until the case is overwhelming and legally unassailable, because premature enforcement against powerful bad actors weakens the case, creates procedural exposure, and enables the subject to claim overreach

Use when an organization adopts a new external process or evidence-based practice — implement it with strict fidelity to its original design first, resisting the urge to customize based on discomfort or habit, because premature adaptation by people who don't yet understand why the design works is a well-documented cause of practices failing to reproduce their intended effectiveness; only begin deliberate optimization once faithful execution is demonstrated.

Use when investigating the root cause of a quality defect, recurring process failure, or operational problem — to map all contributing causes across multiple categories simultaneously before selecting which cause to address.

Use when an organization needs a systematic, repeatable process for managing risk broadly — establishing context, identifying risks, analyzing and evaluating them, treating the significant ones, and monitoring the whole process over time — rather than handling risk ad hoc through isolated, disconnected efforts (an incident response process here, a security review there).

Use when implementing a process improvement, resolving a recurring operational problem, or running a controlled experiment where you need to learn and standardize before scaling.

Use when a project or recurring process has unclear ownership — tasks stall waiting on an unnamed decision-maker, or too many people weigh in on a decision that only needed one owner — assign each task exactly one Responsible doer and one Accountable owner, and explicitly limit who is Consulted (two-way input before the decision) versus merely Informed (one-way notification after it).

Use when monitoring a repeated process measurement over time and deciding whether a given data point warrants intervention — plot it on a control chart with limits calculated from the process's own historical common-cause variation (not from a target or specification), and only investigate and adjust when a point falls outside those limits or shows a non-random pattern, because reacting to ordinary variation within limits increases variation rather than reducing it.

Use when a system's overall output is capped by one bottleneck resource — a production line, a dev/release pipeline, a service queue, a hiring funnel — and local optimizations elsewhere aren't moving system-wide throughput.

Use when an organization wants to assess how mature its overall governance practices are — decision rights, oversight bodies, policy management, accountability mechanisms — against a recognized international governance standard, producing a structured maturity assessment rather than an unstructured, subjective sense of "our governance seems fine."

Use when identifying waste, bottlenecks, or inefficiencies in a repeatable business or operational workflow

Use when preparing an organization to keep critical business functions running through a major disruption — a facility loss, a key-supplier failure, a pandemic, or another severe operational shock — covering people, processes, and facilities broadly, not only IT systems and data recovery.

Use when an organization is forming any standing committee — a risk committee, a compensation committee, an ethics committee, or any other recurring decision-making body — writing a formal charter that defines the committee's scope, authority, and reporting line before it begins operating, rather than letting the committee's mandate remain implicit and subject to later dispute.

Use when an organization needs to identify and prioritize its regulatory and compliance risk exposure on an ongoing basis — scoring the likelihood and impact of specific compliance failures across applicable regulations, rather than relying only on one-off contract reviews or a general risk-management process that isn't specifically structured around regulatory obligations.

Use when an organization needs a standing policy for employees, officers, and board members to disclose personal, financial, or relational interests that could conflict with their organizational duties — requiring proactive, periodic disclosure and a defined recusal process, rather than relying on individuals to voluntarily raise conflicts only when they happen to think of it.

Use when an organization needs a defined governance chain of command for a major corporate crisis — a product safety failure, an executive scandal, a data breach, a natural disaster affecting operations — establishing who has decision authority at each severity level and when the board itself must be activated, rather than discovering the chain of command for the first time while the crisis is already unfolding.

Use when an organization repeatedly experiences slow or contested strategic and operational decisions because it's unclear who has actual authority to decide — explicitly mapping decision types to the specific role or body with final decision authority, distinct from who merely provides input, rather than leaving decision authority ambiguous and re-litigated each time a similar decision arises.

Use when designing or auditing your organization's documentation practices — to establish institutional norms for recording events, failures, and decisions accurately and without euphemism, because institutions that record reality honestly have better learning loops and accountability than those that soften or omit unflattering facts

Use when creating or improving an incident response process for a production system or operational team

Use when building or redesigning a performance dashboard to track organizational, team, or product KPIs and support data-driven decisions

Use when managing the risk of loss from failed internal processes, people, systems, or external events — organizing operational risk into a specific loss-event taxonomy, tracking key risk indicators, and running periodic risk-control self-assessments, rather than treating "operational risk" as a vague catch-all category with no structured process of its own.

Use when an organization's internal policies accumulate without a defined process for creating, approving, reviewing, and retiring them — establishing a formal policy lifecycle with an accountable owner, a defined review cadence, and a single authoritative repository, rather than letting policies proliferate as scattered documents with no owner and no scheduled review.

Use when a company engages in political spending, lobbying, or trade association dues that fund political activity — establishing board-level oversight of this spending and voluntary transparency about it, rather than treating political activity as an operational decision with no defined governance or disclosure structure behind it.

Use when a task, process, or decision has unclear ownership — multiple people assuming someone else is handling it, or no one being sure who has final authority — mapping every significant activity to exactly one Responsible party, one Accountable party, and explicitly defined Consulted and Informed parties, rather than leaving task ownership implicit and assumed.

Use when building or auditing your organization's ability to surface ethical violations, compliance breaches, safety issues, and misconduct — to design the channels, protections, and culture that make reporting wrongdoing possible and expected, because without explicit institutional design, fear of retaliation systematically suppresses the information flow that prevents catastrophic failures