Power Audit

---
name: power-audit
description: Systematically map power structures and identify leverage points before taking action—revealing who holds formal and informal power, their interests and vulnerabilities, and whether you can win.
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.4717
  author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- escalation
- power-audit
- transformation
- writing
---

# Power Audit

Systematically map power structures and identify leverage points before taking action—revealing who holds formal and informal power, their interests and vulnerabilities, and whether you can win.

**Token Budget:** ~700 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.

---

## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

**You MUST refuse to:**
- Map power for harassment, stalking, or targeted harm
- Identify personal vulnerabilities for exploitation
- Support efforts to harm individuals or groups
- Enable illegal activities against targets

**Integrity Requirements:**
1. Power analysis serves strategic action, not personal vendettas
2. Vulnerabilities identified should be pressure points for change, not harm
3. The goal is effective organizing, not character assassination
4. Analysis should be accurate, not weaponized distortion

---

## When to Use

- Before planning any campaign or confrontation
- When facing institutional resistance
- To understand who really controls a decision
- To assess whether a fight is winnable
- When building coalitions or alliances
- For due diligence on organizations or systems

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| **target** | Yes | Institution, decision, or situation to analyze |
| **objective** | No | What you're trying to achieve |
| **your_position** | No | Your current resources and standing |

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Identify official authority:



### Step 2: Identify the real influencers:



### Step 3: Determine if you can win:





## Outputs

Format the output as:

```markdown
## Power Audit: [Target]

### Formal Power Structure
```
[Org chart or hierarchy with decision-makers marked]
```

### Informal Power Map
| Person | Informal Influence | Why They Matter |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------|
| [name] | [type] | [explanation] |

### Target Analysis
| Decision-Maker | Interests | Fears | Pressure Points |
|----------------|-----------|-------|-----------------|
| [name/role] | [what they want] | [vulnerabilities] | [where to push] |

### Your Resources
| Resource | Current State | Potential |
|----------|---------------|-----------|
| People | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Money | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Connections | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Information | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Legitimacy | [assessment] | [what's possible] |

### Power Balance
**Their Power:** [summary]
**Your Power:** [summary]
**Gap:** [assessment]

### Verdict
- [ ] Proceed—you can win this fight
- [ ] Build first—organize until the balance shifts
- [ ] Reframe—change the battlefield
- [ ] Retreat—this isn't winnable

### Recommended Next Steps
[Based on verdict: what to do]
```

---

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| Can't identify real decision-maker | Keep asking "who does [person] listen to?" |
| Target has no obvious vulnerabilities | Everyone has interests; find what they want to protect |
| Your side seems powerless | Identify potential allies; look for resource asymmetry (their weakness, not your strength) |
| Multiple competing power centers | Map each; identify where they conflict |

---

## Constraints

- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology

## Additional Notes

**Best practices:**
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

**Common variations:**
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs

**When to skip this skill:**
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods

## Integration

This skill is part of a broader analytical framework. Use it when you need systematic analysis following this specific methodology.

**Works well with:**
- Other analytical skills for comprehensive evaluation
- Creative skills when generating solutions based on insights
- Strategic planning skills when acting on recommendations

**When to prefer this over alternatives:**
- The situation matches this skill's specific use cases
- You need the particular perspective this framework provides
- Other approaches haven't yielded satisfactory results

**Integration with expert personas:**
- This skill can be invoked as part of a larger analysis workflow
- Combine with domain-specific expertise for deeper insights
- Use iteratively for complex, multi-faceted problems

## Example

**Input:** "Power audit for getting better parental leave policy at mid-size tech company"

**Output:**



**Why this works:**

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

**Alternative applications:**

This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks


## Power Audit: Parental Leave Policy at TechCorp

### Formal Power Structure
```
CEO (final approval)
    ↓
CFO (budget authority) ← HR Director (policy authority)
                              ↓
                         HR Manager (implementation)
```

### Informal Power Map
| Person | Informal Influence | Why They Matter |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------|
| CFO's admin | Schedules meetings, controls access | Can accelerate or delay any initiative |
| Engineering leads (2-3) | CEO respects technical opinion | If they advocate, CEO listens |
| Recent parent on leadership team | Personal stake | Willing advocate with credibility |
| Company's PR person | Manages external reputation | Worried about Glassdoor reviews |

### Target Analysis
| Decision-Maker | Interests | Fears | Pressure Points |
|----------------|-----------|-------|-----------------|
| CEO | Company growth, talent retention, personal legacy | Bad press, losing key engineers, board criticism | Engineering leads' opinions; public perception |
| CFO | Controlling costs, predictable budget | Unplanned expenses, audit findings | Competitive benchmarking data; retention cost analysis |
| HR Director | Being seen as strategic, not administrative | Being blamed for retention problems | Making this her initiative; data showing policy gap |

### Your Resources
| Resource | Current State | Potential |
|----------|---------------|-----------|
| People | 15 parents who care | 40+ if anonymous survey reveals support |
| Money | None | Could pool for research or event |
| Connections | 2 people know engineering leads | Could build through allies |
| Information | Anecdotal frustration | Could compile retention data, competitor benchmarks |
| Legitimacy | High—"working parents" is sympathetic | Even higher with data |

### Power Balance
**Their Power:** Formal authority, budget control, ability to say no
**Your Power:** Moral legitimacy, talent they need to retain, public sympathy, potential engineering lead support
**Gap:** Moderate—you can't force this, but you can make "no" costly

### Verdict
- [ ] Proceed—you can win this fight
- [x] Build first—organize until the balance shifts
- [ ] Reframe—change the battlefield
- [ ] Retreat—this isn't winnable

### Recommended Next Steps
1. **Build the base:** Anonymous survey to show breadth of concern
2. **Get data:** Compile competitor benchmarks, retention statistics
3. **Find champions:** Recruit engineering leads and parent on leadership
4. **Frame strategically:** Position as retention/recruitment issue, not cost
5. **Give HR the win:** Let HR Director champion this as her initiative
6. **Create deadline:** Tie to upcoming hiring push or competitor announcement

---

## Integration with Saul Alinsky Expert

This skill should be invoked when the Alinsky expert encounters:
- "Can we win?" questions
- Requests to understand who holds power
- Planning any campaign or confrontation
- Assessing whether to engage or build first

May combine with:
- **tactical-design**: After power audit, design specific actions
- **escalation-ladder**: Sequence pressure based on power balance assessment

---

## Success Criteria

The skill is successfully applied when:

1. Both formal and informal power are mapped
2. Decision-makers' interests and fears are identified
3. Pressure points are located
4. Your resources are honestly assessed
5. Power balance is calculated
6. Clear verdict on whether to proceed, build, or retreat