Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic(bookforge 产品团队健康诊断)

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 32,245。

总安装 2,546周安装 102GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 824核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic(bookforge 产品团队健康诊断)
来源仓库:https://github.com/quochungto/bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic
安装命令:
openclaw skills install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

分析产品团队速度慢、缺乏创新或成果不佳的根本原因。适用于管理者观察到低效或士气低落时的干预前诊断。提供结构化问卷与反馈收集模板辅助评估。结果具有主观性,需结合多方视角综合判断。建议定期使用以持续监控团队动态变化。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,546 次,近一周安装 102 次,下载 824 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
bookforge-product-team-health-diagnostic

bookforge 产品团队健康诊断 · 本页

2,546—需要联网MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
product-team-health-diagnostic
description
|
version
1.0.0
homepage
https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills/tree/main/books/inspired-how-to-create-tech-products/skills/product-team-health-diagnostic
metadata
{"openclaw":{"emoji":"📚","homepage":"https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills"}}
status
published
model
sonnet
context
200k
execution
tier
1
mode
full
inputs
description
Observations, notes, or description of the team/organization being assessed
description
Skill can work from a verbal description of what the assessor observes
tools-required
[Read]
tools-optional
[]
environment
No codebase access required; works from observations and descriptions
source-books
chapters
[11, 64, 65, 66]
depends-on
[]
tags
[product-management, team-assessment, product-teams]

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:

ScoreMeaning
2Healthy — the team clearly exhibits the strong behavior
1Partial — the behavior is inconsistent or only sometimes present
0Absent — 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
CategoryItemsMax Score
A — Team Behaviors1836
B — Innovation Capacity1020
C — Velocity Killers1020
D — Design Integration48
Composite4284

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:

ScoreSeverityInterpretation
80–100%HealthyMaintain; minor tuning only
60–79%CautionTargeted improvements needed
40–59%DegradedStructural issues present; prioritize fixes
0–39%CriticalFundamental 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

平台分布

OpenClaw

91.04%
按下载量换算750

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills