Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

bookforge-product-team-health-diagnosticbookforge 产品团队健康诊断

Agent Skill

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。

总安装

2,546

周安装

102

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

824
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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

简介

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。

SKILL.md

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

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills