Install
$ agentstack add skill-ulises-jeremias-agent-toolkit-management-unit-assessment ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Management Unit Assessment (WHAT)
Use this skill to assess a management unit: project management, delivery execution, governance, stakeholder alignment, team collaboration, cultural health, and management-layer AI readiness.
Run project-assessment-evidence first and use project-assessment as the router when the assessment spans multiple units.
Default guardrails
- Apply
output-handshakebefore final scorecards or reports. - Ask where each evidence source lives before scoring.
- Score only indicators that match the assessment scope and available evidence.
- Mark every score with evidence links and confidence.
- Use Not assessed when evidence is missing or the indicator is out of scope.
- For subjective indicators, request validation from the appropriate reviewer or stakeholder.
Unit intake
Ask:
- What management scope is being assessed: whole project, squad, delivery stream, account, or another scope?
- What period should the assessment cover?
- Which methodology, workflow, and governance model is expected?
- Where are the board, backlog, planning artifacts, delivery reports, risks, retrospectives, decisions, agreements, and meeting notes?
- Where are stakeholder satisfaction, team satisfaction, and communication signals captured?
- Who should validate subjective scores?
Indicator groups
Governance and structure
- Methodology definition
- Workflow definition
- Issue definition
- Roles definition
- Risk management
- Progress tracking
- Continuous improvement initiatives
Delivery and execution
- Delivery
- Agile methodology implementation
- Sprint planning effectiveness
- Backlog management
- Retrospective process
- Adaptability to change
Collaboration and communication
- Business knowledge
- Client or stakeholder satisfaction
- Communication
- Stakeholder engagement
- Daily standup effectiveness
- Team satisfaction
Culture and values alignment
- Raise the bar
- Do what I say
- Geek out
These indicators are sensitive and subjective. Treat them as conversation-driven evidence unless there are structured feedback artifacts. Record who validated them.
AI-native management readiness
This does not measure AI tool usage. It measures whether management artifacts are structured enough for AI-assisted execution:
- Knowledge structure and documentation density
- Decision traceability and governance explicitness
- Workflow determinism and operational clarity
- Feedback loops and continuous learning signals
- Human signal and cultural transparency
Scoring rules
- Use the 1 to 5 maturity scale.
- Score 1 means low, reactive, implicit, undocumented, or highly variable.
- Score 3 means defined, observable, or partially mature with consistency gaps.
- Score 5 means explicit, repeatable, measurable, and evidence-driven.
- Do not treat score 3 as average performance; it means moderate structural maturity.
- Do not average subjective indicators without explaining weighting and validation.
- For low-confidence scores, record the missing evidence and who should validate it.
Output
Use references/default-template.md for the management unit scorecard.
References
references/default-template.md- default management unit templatereferences/example-team-assessment.md— example assessment for an engineering management unitproject-assessment-evidence- evidence mapproject-assessment- multi-unit routerplanning- planning and estimation evidencedevelopment-workflow- workflow, DoR, DoD, and validation evidencemeeting-minutes,decision-log,agreement,incident- common management evidence artifacts
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: ulises-jeremias
- Source: ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://ulises-jeremias.github.io/agent-toolkit-archive/
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.