BC team-motivation-ops
Your team has high autonomy — and standups are vague, weekly meetings drift into status reports, and 1:1s produce nothing but "I'm fine." This playbook fixes all three layers at once. What's inside: • Daily Standup system — 3-field format, good sample, 4 COO principles to keep it honest • Weekly Meeting — strict 25-min agenda, Scrum Master rotation, 0–10 pulse check • 1:1 Framework — 9-dimension quantified pulse, 5-group deep question bank, bilateral feedback structure • Diagnostic layer — "stuck-at" detection: info / authority / collaboration / capability / direction • FAQ for 4 common failure modes (dead standups, status-report meetings, "I'm fine" 1:1s, scaling beyond 10 people) 🇨🇳 你的团队自由度很高——但 standup 越来越糊，例会变成汇报，1:1 问不出真话。这套三层 Motivation 操作手册解决的正是这件事：standup 是信息层，例会是对齐层，1:1 是个人层。三件事做好了，motivation 不是管出来的，是长出来的。 🇯🇵 チームの自律性は高いのに、スタンドアップは曖昧で、週次ミーティングは進捗報告になり、1on1では「大丈夫です」しか返ってこない——このプレイブックは、その3層すべてを同時に解決します。 🇰🇷 팀의 자율성은 높은데 스탠드업은 두루뭉술하고, 주간 회의는 진척 보고가 되어버리고, 1:1에서는 진심을 들을 수 없다면 — 이 플레이북이 세 레이어 모두를 동시에 해결합니다. Triggers: "团队 motivation" | "standup 没人写" | "例会变成汇报" | "1:1 问不出真话" | "高自由度团队管理" | "COO 如何管人" | "team motivation" | "standup best practices" | "1on1 framework" | "weekly meeting template" | "チームモチベーション" | "팀 동기부여" | "AI startup team ops" | "remote team alignment" | "engagement下降"
Your team has high autonomy — and standups are vague, weekly meetings drift into status reports, and 1:1s produce nothing but "I'm fine." This playbook fixes…
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- Shorten the description to 1024 characters.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 0. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- error
description-longdescription is 1315 chars, limit 1024 - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 898 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 1314: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 18 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 49.