Two Cities Assessment

---
name: two-cities-assessment
description: Analyze any organization, team, or project to determine whether it is built primarily on self-love (the Earthly City - serving itself) or mission-love (the Heavenly City - serving its stated purpos...
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.5238
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- transformation
- two-cities-assessment
- writing
---

# Two Cities Assessment

Analyze any organization, team, or project to determine whether it is built primarily on self-love (the Earthly City - serving itself) or mission-love (the Heavenly City - serving its stated purpose), following Augustine's framework from *City of God*.

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

---

## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

**You MUST refuse to:**
- Claim any earthly institution is purely "heavenly city" (none are; all are mixed)
- Use the framework to condemn individuals rather than examine patterns
- Imply that self-interest is always wrong (institutions must sustain themselves)
- Weaponize assessment for political or personal attacks

**If asked to misuse the assessment:** Refuse explicitly. Augustine's framework illuminates, not condemns. All earthly institutions are pilgrim mixtures.

---

## When to Use

- Organizational health check or culture assessment
- Sensing mission drift or institutional self-preservation
- Asking "Is this organization still about its purpose?"
- Leadership transitions where culture may shift
- Merger/acquisition cultural due diligence
- User asks "Why has our culture changed?" or "We've become about self-preservation"

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| **entity** | Yes | Organization, team, or project being assessed |
| **stated_mission** | Yes | The declared purpose of the entity |
| **observed_behaviors** | Yes | Patterns of decision-making, resource allocation, conflict resolution |
| **context** | No | History, pressures, competitive environment |

---

## Core Concepts

### The Two Cities

From *City of God*, Augustine describes two cities built by two loves:

| City | Latin | Built By | Orientation | Earthly Manifestation |
|------|-------|----------|-------------|----------------------|
| **Heavenly City** | *Civitas Dei* | *Amor Dei* (love of God/mission) | Serves transcendent purpose | Institutions that serve their mission, even at cost to themselves |
| **Earthly City** | *Civitas Terrena* | *Amor Sui* (self-love) | Serves itself | Institutions that use their mission to serve themselves |

**Critical insight:** No earthly institution is purely one or the other. They are intermingled until the end. The question is which predominates and which direction the institution is moving.

### Pilgrimage Status

Citizens of the heavenly city are "pilgrims and foreigners" who:
- **Use** earthly goods without setting hearts on them
- **Recognize** the institution as means, not end
- **Accept** that the institution may need to change or even end for the mission

Citizens of the earthly city:
- **Cling** to institutional survival as highest good
- **Confuse** the institution with its mission
- **Sacrifice** purpose to preserve structure

---

## Workflow
### Step 1: 1. Identify the Stated Mission

What does the entity claim as its transcendent purpose? What exists beyond itself that it serves?

### Step 2: 2. Assess Earthly City Indicators

Look for evidence that *amor sui* (self-love) predominates:

| Indicator | Description | Questions |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| **Self-preservation** | Survival prioritized over mission | Would the institution sacrifice itself for its mission? |
| **Defensive resource use** | Resources hoarded rather than deployed | Are resources used for mission or protection? |
| **Mission capture** | Mission language used to justify self-service | Is "for the mission" invoked to protect institutional interests? |
| **Criticism intolerance** | Dissent treated as disloyalty | Can people question whether the institution serves its purpose? |
| **Metric theater** | Appearance of mission without substance | Are metrics about reality or reporting? |

### Step 3: 3. Assess Heavenly City Indicators

Look for evidence that *amor Dei* (mission-love) predominates:

| Indicator | Description | Questions |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| **Mission willingness** | Would sacrifice institutional interest for purpose | Has the institution taken costly actions for mission? |
| **Resource generosity** | Resources deployed toward purpose | Does money/time flow to mission or administration? |
| **Truth tolerance** | Can acknowledge when it's failing | Are hard truths speakable? |
| **Succession thinking** | Could imagine the mission continuing without this institution | Is the mission bigger than the organization? |
| **Humble self-assessment** | Recognizes its limitations and mixed nature | Does it acknowledge imperfection? |

### Step 4: 4. Determine Pilgrimage Status

Are members:
- **Pilgrims:** Using the institution to serve the mission, ready to move on if needed
- **Citizens:** Invested in the institution itself, conflating it with the mission
- **Captives:** Serving the institution against their better judgment, mission-love suppressed

### Step 5: 5. Assess Trajectory

Is the entity moving toward greater heavenly city orientation or earthly city orientation? What forces are driving the movement?

---

## Outputs

**Two Cities Assessment Report:**

```markdown
## Two Cities Assessment: [Entity]

### The Stated Mission
[What transcendent purpose does the entity claim to serve?]

### Earthly City Indicators (*Amor Sui*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Severity |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Self-preservation | [specific examples] | Low/Medium/High |
| Defensive resources | [specific examples] | Low/Medium/High |
| Mission capture | [specific examples] | Low/Medium/High |
| Criticism intolerance | [specific examples] | Low/Medium/High |
| Metric theater | [specific examples] | Low/Medium/High |

### Heavenly City Indicators (*Amor Dei*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Strength |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Mission willingness | [specific examples] | Weak/Moderate/Strong |
| Resource generosity | [specific examples] | Weak/Moderate/Strong |
| Truth tolerance | [specific examples] | Weak/Moderate/Strong |
| Succession thinking | [specific examples] | Weak/Moderate/Strong |
| Humble self-assessment | [specific examples] | Weak/Moderate/Strong |

### Predominant Orientation
[Which city's love currently predominates?]

### Pilgrimage Status
- **Pilgrims:** [Who/what percentage are using institution for mission?]
- **Citizens:** [Who/what percentage are invested in institution itself?]
- **Captives:** [Who/what percentage are serving against their judgment?]

### Trajectory
[Which direction is the entity moving? What forces drive this?]

### Recommendations

**To strengthen heavenly city orientation:**
- [Specific actions]

**To resist earthly city drift:**
- [Specific actions]

### Augustine's Diagnosis

"[Relevant quote from City of God]"
```

---

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| No clear mission articulated | Help articulate purpose first; assessment requires a reference point |
| "We ARE our mission" defensiveness | Gently distinguish: the mission could continue without this specific institution |
| All indicators mixed | Normal; the question is which predominates and which direction movement goes |
| Institution is genuinely failing | Earthly city response: protect institution. Heavenly city response: serve mission, even if institution ends |
| Legitimate self-preservation | Institutions must sustain themselves to serve; question is whether survival serves mission or replaces it |
| Assessment used for attack | Redirect: framework illuminates, not condemns. All institutions are mixed. |

---

## 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

## Example

**Input:**
- **Entity:** Open source foundation originally created to steward a programming language
- **Stated mission:** "Promote and advance the X language for the benefit of all developers"
- **Observed behaviors:** Foundation grew; added staff, conferences, certifications; trademark enforcement increased; community complaints about "gatekeeping"; governance became less transparent
- **Context:** Foundation became self-sustaining financially; original creators less involved

**Two Cities Assessment:**

### The Stated Mission
"Promote and advance the X language for the benefit of all developers" - a transcendent purpose that exists beyond the foundation itself.

### Earthly City Indicators (*Amor Sui*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Severity |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Self-preservation | Foundation growth became a goal itself; staff defended expansion | Medium |
| Defensive resources | Trademark enforcement shifted from protection to revenue | Medium |
| Mission capture | "For the community" invoked to justify policies community didn't want | High |
| Criticism intolerance | Governance changes made dissent harder to surface | Medium |
| Metric theater | "Community health" metrics tracked that didn't match community experience | Medium |

### Heavenly City Indicators (*Amor Dei*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Strength |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Mission willingness | Still funds core language development; hasn't captured language itself | Moderate |
| Resource generosity | Conference proceeds support language work | Moderate |
| Truth tolerance | Some hard conversations happen; board acknowledged problems in annual report | Weak |
| Succession thinking | Acknowledged in theory that language could outlive foundation | Weak |
| Humble self-assessment | Defensive when challenged; rarely acknowledges failures | Weak |

### Predominant Orientation
**Mixed, trending Earthly City.** The foundation has drifted from servant to gatekeeper. Self-interest increasingly shapes decisions, wrapped in mission language.

### Pilgrimage Status
- **Pilgrims:** ~30% of staff and board - would prioritize language over foundation
- **Citizens:** ~50% - invested in foundation success, conflate it with language success
- **Captives:** ~20% - sense the drift but feel unable to speak

### Trajectory
**Toward Earthly City.** Financial self-sustainability removed accountability; governance opacity enabled drift. Without intervention, institution will continue to capture mission.

### Recommendations

**To strengthen heavenly city orientation:**
- Restore community governance voice (accountability to mission)
- Publish resource allocation (transparency)
- Create "mission above institution" explicit value with examples

**To resist earthly city drift:**
- Term limits and rotation in governance
- External mission audit (not foundation-appointed)
- Sunset clause consideration: "If we ever become obstacle to language, we dissolve"

### Augustine's Diagnosis

*"Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self."* The foundation was created in *amor Dei* - love of the language community that transcended any particular institution. It has drifted toward *amor sui* - love of itself, wrapping institutional interest in mission language. The remedy is not to condemn but to reorient: remember that the foundation exists to serve the language, not the reverse. If the foundation became an obstacle to the language's flourishing, love of the language would demand the foundation's transformation or dissolution.

---

## Integration

This skill is derived from **Augustine of Hippo's** *City of God* framework. When embodying Augustine, invoke this skill whenever:
- Organizational health is questioned
- Mission drift is suspected
- Institutions seem to serve themselves
- Cultural assessment is needed

The Augustinian voice adds: "No earthly institution is the heavenly city - all are mixtures, all are pilgrim. The question is not whether self-interest exists but whether it rules. Does the institution use the mission, or serve it? That question, asked honestly, reveals the city in which it dwells."

---

## Success Criteria

Two cities assessment is complete when:

- [ ] Stated mission clearly articulated
- [ ] Earthly city indicators assessed with evidence
- [ ] Heavenly city indicators assessed with evidence
- [ ] Predominant orientation determined
- [ ] Pilgrimage status of members assessed
- [ ] Trajectory identified with driving forces
- [ ] Recommendations serve mission reorientation, not blame