pm-workflow-planning

Files (19)

• INTERVIEW.md
• README.md
• SKILL-PROPOSAL.template.md
• SKILL.md
• WORKFLOW-CANVAS.template.md
• evidence-log.csv · assets/templates/
• run-log.csv · assets/templates/
• score-rules.csv · assets/templates/
• source-register.csv · assets/templates/
• PROCESS-BRIEF.example.md · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• SKILL-PROPOSAL.example.md · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• WORKFLOW-CANVAS.example.md · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• SKILL.md · examples/customer-background-investigation/customer-background-research/
• evidence-log.example.csv · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• run-log.example.csv · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• score-rules.example.csv · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• source-register.example.csv · examples/customer-background-investigation/
• browser-evidence.md · references/
• operational-data-contract.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# PM Workflow Planning

Turn one messy business process into a confirmed workflow and a Skill proposal.
This is an experiment: keep the run to planning artifacts. Execute the business
process, edit stable `skills/`, or promote a draft only after an explicit user
request.

## When to use

- A business owner can describe the work but not an agent-ready process.
- A team needs roles, handoffs, evidence, exceptions, and acceptance criteria
  clarified before building Skills.
- A live-research workflow needs explicit source-access and browser-evidence
  gates.

## When NOT to use

- Reviewing a finished Skill: use `skill-self-check`.
- Performing the proposed workflow immediately.
- Gathering private personal data, bypassing access controls, or storing client
  secrets in this repository.
- Combining several unrelated processes in one interview.

## Check axes

- Process scope and intended decision.
- Appropriate selection of L/S/V/R business-experience modules.
- Measurable target, formula, threshold, owner, and scoring version when L is selected.
- Runtime capability and evidence access.
- Source fitness (`S1–S3`) and verification strength (`V0–V3`).
- Roles, handoffs, approvals, and exceptions.
- Completion criteria and evidence produced by each step.
- Machine-readable run/evidence records when R is selected or an existing log is reused.
- Automation boundary and human decision ownership.
- Skill proposal contract and promotion gate.

## Operating contract

1. Ask one question at a time and wait for the answer.
2. For every decision question, give a recommended answer, the reason, and the
   main alternative. Let the user confirm or correct it.
3. Look up discoverable facts with available tools instead of asking the user.
   Treat business goals, risk tolerance, ownership, and approval as user
   decisions.
4. Record unsupported or inaccessible facts as `unknown — blocker`. Keep gaps
   open until evidence replaces model memory or “industry common sense.”
5. Draft the Skill proposal only after the user confirms the workflow summary.

## Inputs

- One target process.
- Company/industry lens.
- Desired business outcome or failure to prevent.
- Known systems, roles, source restrictions, and approval boundaries.

**Done when:** the target process is named narrowly enough to interview, or the
first one-question prompt is ready.

## Process

### Pass 0 — Scope and module-selection gate

Name the process and its intended decision or deliverable.

Read
[references/operational-data-contract.md](references/operational-data-contract.md).
Judge L/S/V/R applicability. If the decision is clear from the process, select
modules and explain why. If it is unclear, ask one question with a recommended
selection and wait.

Use `N/A — <reason>` for skipped modules. Skipping a module with a clear reason
is not a defect and must not be converted into a self-check finding.

**Done when:** L/S/V/R each has `Y`, `N`, or `Ask user`, with a reason.

### Pass 1 — Conditional measurable goal gate

When L is selected, require the user to confirm metric, formula, unit,
direction, owner, L1/L2/L3 thresholds, allowed action, and
`score_rule_version`. Propose numeric defaults when helpful, then wait for
confirmation. Keep business value L separate from verification strength V.

When L is skipped, write a qualitative completion criterion and the N/A reason.

**Done when:** L rules are reproducible, or L is explicitly N/A.

### Pass 2 — Conditional source and capability gate

When S or V is selected for live web research, read
[references/browser-evidence.md](references/browser-evidence.md). Test and
record whether the current environment can access each required source. Start
Google, LinkedIn, company websites, registries, and browser capabilities in the
`not tested` state.

When S is selected, create the source register. Assign S1/S2/S3 by claim
fitness, not prestige. Google search remains S1 discovery until the underlying
source is opened.

**Done when:** selected source/verification modules have their contracts, or
S/V is explicitly N/A.

### Pass 3 — Interview one branch at a time

Follow [INTERVIEW.md](INTERVIEW.md). Resolve 5W2H cells in dependency order:

1. What and Why.
2. Who and approval.
3. Trigger, deadline, and handoffs.
4. Systems, evidence, exceptions, and volume.

For each question:

1. Ask one question.
2. Provide a recommended answer based on confirmed context.
3. Explain what would change the recommendation.
4. Wait for confirmation or correction.

**Done when:** each 5W2H cell is concrete or has an explicit blocker, owner, and
follow-up time.

From xenos2025/Skill-Self-Check, MIT.

More from xenos2025/Skill-Self-Check