← 返回 Skills 市场
quochungto

Product Team Health Diagnostic

作者 Hung Quoc To · GitHub ↗ · v1.0.0 · MIT-0
cross-platform ✓ 安全检测通过
81
总下载
0
收藏
0
当前安装
1
版本数
在 OpenClaw 中安装
/install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic
功能描述
Diagnose why a product team or organization is slow, not innovative, or delivering poor outcomes. Use when a leader or team observes slow velocity, lack of i...
使用说明 (SKILL.md)

Product Team Health Diagnostic

When to Use

Use this skill when you are:

  • New to a leadership role — need a structured baseline assessment of product team health before making changes
  • Responding to CEO/board concerns — told teams are "too slow" or "not innovative" and need to diagnose root causes
  • Running an org health review — periodic check on whether teams are operating in a strong or weak product model
  • Preparing a remediation plan — need to prioritize which problems to fix first and justify the investment
  • Onboarding a coach or consultant — need a common diagnostic language to align on what's broken

Preconditions: you have at least one of:

  • Direct observations of team behaviors over at least a few weeks
  • A written description of how teams operate (processes, rituals, structure)
  • Interview notes or survey data from team members
  • Access to team artifacts (roadmaps, sprint boards, release logs, design files)

Agent: Clarify the scope before beginning — are you assessing one team, a portfolio of teams, or the entire engineering/product organization? The scoring applies per team; an org-level report aggregates across teams.


Assessment Process

Step 1 — Gather Observations

Collect evidence for each of the 4 diagnostic categories. WHY: each category targets a distinct failure mode — behavioral dysfunction (Ch64), structural innovation blockers (Ch65), process velocity killers (Ch66), and design integration failures (Ch11). Mixing them obscures root cause.

For each category, ask the assessor (or yourself) the following:

Category A — Team Behaviors (18 criteria) Source: Ch64. These contrast what strong teams do vs. what weak teams do. Ask:

  • What drives the team's ideas — vision and customer insight, or stakeholder requests and sales?
  • How does the team relate to engineers — do they co-discover, or do engineers only see designs at sprint planning?
  • Does the team engage real customers weekly, or do they rely on internal assumptions?
  • How does the team measure success — business impact achieved, or features shipped?
  • See full criteria: references/diagnostic-criteria.md#category-a

Category B — Innovation Capacity (10 criteria) Source: Ch65. These are organizational attributes that determine whether consistent innovation is even possible. Ask:

  • Is there direct, frequent customer contact at the team level?
  • Does the organization have a compelling, current product vision?
  • Are product managers strong and capable, or weak and order-takers?
  • Are engineers included from the beginning of ideation?
  • See full criteria: references/diagnostic-criteria.md#category-b

Category C — Velocity Killers (10 criteria) Source: Ch66. These are the structural and process causes of slowness. Ask:

  • What is the current release cadence? (Benchmark: minimum every 2 weeks; great teams release multiple times per day)
  • Is there significant accumulated technical debt impeding the architecture?
  • Is there a delivery manager role actively removing impediments?
  • Are priorities stable, or do they shift frequently?
  • See full criteria: references/diagnostic-criteria.md#category-c

Category D — Design Integration (4 criteria) Source: Ch11. These identify whether design is integrated as a discovery partner or treated as a service. Ask:

  • Who produces wireframes or interaction designs — a trained product designer, or the PM?
  • Are designers embedded with the product team, or do they operate as an internal agency?
  • Is design involved from the inception of each idea, or does it come in after requirements?
  • See full criteria: references/diagnostic-criteria.md#category-d

Step 2 — Score Each Criterion

WHY: Scoring converts qualitative observations into a comparable signal, making it possible to prioritize and track improvement over time.

For each of the 42 criteria, assign one of three scores:

Score Meaning
2 Healthy — the team clearly exhibits the strong behavior
1 Partial — the behavior is inconsistent or only sometimes present
0 Absent — the weak behavior is the norm

Scoring rules:

  • Score what you observe, not what the team says they do. WHY: teams frequently describe aspirational practices.
  • When evidence is ambiguous, default to 1 (partial), not 2. WHY: over-scoring masks real problems.
  • For Category C, Item 4 (release cadence): score 2 if releases happen at least every 2 weeks, 0 if monthly or less, 1 if inconsistent.

Step 3 — Calculate Category and Composite Scores

For each category, calculate:

Category score = (sum of item scores) / (max possible score) × 100
Category Items Max Score
A — Team Behaviors 18 36
B — Innovation Capacity 10 20
C — Velocity Killers 10 20
D — Design Integration 4 8
Composite 42 84

WHY: Keeping categories separate prevents a strong score in one area from masking a critical failure in another. A team can be fast (good C score) but consistently build the wrong things (low A score).


Step 4 — Classify Severity

WHY: Not all scores below 100% require equal urgency. This classification focuses remediation effort.

Per-category thresholds:

Score Severity Interpretation
80–100% Healthy Maintain; minor tuning only
60–79% Caution Targeted improvements needed
40–59% Degraded Structural issues present; prioritize fixes
0–39% Critical Fundamental dysfunction; urgent intervention required

Red flags — any single criterion scoring 0 in these areas triggers automatic Critical classification for that dimension, regardless of category average:

  • Team behaviors: engineers excluded from discovery (criterion A9)
  • Innovation: no customer-centric culture (criterion B1), no compelling vision (criterion B2)
  • Velocity: infrequent releases — monthly or less (criterion C4)
  • Design: design not involved in discovery (criterion D4)

WHY: These specific items represent systemic dysfunctions that a higher average cannot compensate for.


Step 5 — Produce the Diagnostic Report

Structure the output as follows:

## Product Team Health Diagnostic Report

**Organization/Team:** [name]
**Assessment Date:** [date]
**Assessor:** [role]

---

### Composite Score: [X/84] — [XX%] — [SEVERITY]

| Category | Score | % | Severity |
|----------|-------|---|----------|
| A — Team Behaviors | X/36 | XX% | [label] |
| B — Innovation Capacity | X/20 | XX% | [label] |
| C — Velocity Killers | X/20 | XX% | [label] |
| D — Design Integration | X/8 | XX% | [label] |

---

### Red Flags (Criteria scoring 0 that require immediate attention)
[List each, with one sentence describing the observed symptom]

---

### Category Findings

#### A — Team Behaviors
**Strengths:** [criteria scoring 2]
**Gaps:** [criteria scoring 0 or 1, with observed evidence]

#### B — Innovation Capacity
[same format]

#### C — Velocity Killers
[same format]
Note: Release cadence benchmark — minimum every 2 weeks; great teams release multiple times per day.

#### D — Design Integration
[same format]

---

### Prioritized Remediation Plan

Ordered by: (1) Critical severity first, (2) within severity by cross-category impact

| Priority | Issue | Category | Current State | Target State | Estimated Effort |
|----------|-------|----------|---------------|--------------|-----------------|
| 1 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

### Summary Narrative
[3–5 sentences: what is working, what is broken, and the single most important thing to fix first and why]

Step 6 — Validate the Assessment

Before delivering the report, verify:

  • Every scored criterion has supporting evidence, not assumption
  • Red flags are confirmed, not inferred
  • The prioritized remediation plan addresses root causes, not symptoms
  • The summary narrative is actionable — it tells the reader what to do, not just what is wrong

WHY: Diagnostic reports are only useful if they drive decisions. Vague findings ("culture needs improvement") create no action. Specific findings ("engineers first see features at sprint planning — exclude from discovery") point to a concrete fix.


Interpreting Results

Common misread — high velocity, low innovation: A team can score well on Category C (velocity) while scoring poorly on Category B (innovation). This is the "feature factory" pattern — teams ship fast but build the wrong things. The fix is upstream (discovery and vision), not downstream (process acceleration).

Common misread — blaming individuals: Low PM capability scores (B4, C2) often reflect structural issues — PMs who are order-takers because leadership treats them as such. Diagnose whether the PM is weak, or whether the PM has been structurally prevented from being strong.

Common misread — design as optional: Category D scores are frequently rationalized ("we're a B2B company, design matters less"). The book is explicit: strong design is a competitive differentiator in B2B, and companies that treat it as optional are being displaced.

The innovation/velocity relationship: Chapters 65 and 66 share several root causes (weak PMs, engineers excluded, no vision). Fixes to these shared causes yield compound improvements across both dimensions.


Reference

Full 42-criterion reference table with good/bad behavior descriptions: references/diagnostic-criteria.md

License

This skill is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Source: BookForge — Inspired How To Create Tech Products by Unknown.

Related BookForge Skills

This skill is standalone. Browse more BookForge skills: bookforge-skills

安全使用建议
This skill is coherent and appears safe from a technical footprint perspective (instruction-only, no installs or credentials). Before using it, consider: (1) only provide non-sensitive or anonymized team data (avoid PII and protected HR information); (2) treat the output as diagnostic guidance, not HR or legal advice—follow up people issues with HR or external experts; (3) scoring is subjective—review results with multiple stakeholders to avoid single-observer bias; (4) if you plan to share artifacts with the agent, ensure you control where those artifacts are stored and who can access them.
功能分析
Type: OpenClaw Skill Name: bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic Version: 1.0.0 The skill bundle is a structured diagnostic tool for assessing product team health based on Marty Cagan's 'Inspired'. It operates by analyzing user-provided observations against a set of 42 criteria defined in 'references/diagnostic-criteria.md' and generating a severity-ranked report. There is no evidence of malicious code, data exfiltration, or harmful prompt injection; the instructions in 'SKILL.md' are strictly aligned with the stated purpose of organizational assessment.
能力评估
Purpose & Capability
Name, description, and included reference criteria all align: the skill provides a structured, chapter-sourced checklist and scoring method for diagnosing product-team health. Nothing requested (no env vars, no binaries) is unexpected for this purpose.
Instruction Scope
SKILL.md instructs the agent to gather observations, score 42 criteria, and produce a prioritized remediation report. It refers only to assessor-provided artifacts (notes, roadmaps, interviews) and internal reference files; it does not instruct reading unrelated system files, contacting external endpoints, or exfiltrating credentials.
Install Mechanism
No install spec and no code files—this is instruction-only, so no downloads or executable installation occur on the host.
Credentials
The skill declares no required environment variables, credentials, or config paths. Preconditions ask for team artifacts and observations, which are proportionate to the diagnostic purpose.
Persistence & Privilege
Skill is not always-enabled, requests no elevated persistence, and does not modify other skills or system settings. It can be invoked by the agent but has no autonomous privilege beyond normal skill invocation.
如何使用
  1. 确保已安装 OpenClaw(本地或 Docker 部署)
  2. 在对话框中输入安装命令:/install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic
  3. 安装完成后,直接呼叫该 Skill 的名称或使用 /bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 触发
  4. 根据 Skill 的参数说明提供必要输入,即可获得结构化输出
版本历史
v1.0.0
Initial release of Product Team Health Diagnostic skill. - Diagnose root causes for slow, uninnovative, or dysfunctional product teams. - Scores 42 criteria across team behaviors, innovation capacity, velocity killers, and design integration. - Produces a severity-ranked report with category and composite health scores. - Provides prioritized remediation guidance based on diagnostic results. - Works from observations, descriptions, or team artifacts; no codebase access required.
元数据
Slug bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic
版本 1.0.0
许可证 MIT-0
累计安装 0
当前安装数 0
历史版本数 1
常见问题

Product Team Health Diagnostic 是什么?

Diagnose why a product team or organization is slow, not innovative, or delivering poor outcomes. Use when a leader or team observes slow velocity, lack of i... 它是一个面向 Claude Code / OpenClaw 的 AI Agent Skill 插件,目前累计下载 81 次。

如何安装 Product Team Health Diagnostic?

在 OpenClaw 或 Claude Code 对话框中运行命令「/install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic」即可一键安装,无需额外配置。

Product Team Health Diagnostic 是免费的吗?

是的,Product Team Health Diagnostic 完全免费,采用 MIT-0 许可证,可自由下载、安装和使用。

Product Team Health Diagnostic 支持哪些平台?

Product Team Health Diagnostic 跨平台运行,可在任意部署了 OpenClaw / Claude Code 的环境中使用(cross-platform)。

谁开发了 Product Team Health Diagnostic?

由 Hung Quoc To(@quochungto)开发并维护,当前版本 v1.0.0。

💬 留言讨论