Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
待分类只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

chief-of-staff参谋长

Agent Skill

chief-of-staff 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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

1,513

周安装

65

GitHub Stars

103

下载量

530
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

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

unknown

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:chief-of-staff(参谋长)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/chief-of-staff
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill chief-of-staff
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 npx skills 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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill chief-of-staff

简介

作为创始人与高管层之间的协调中枢,负责问题路由与决策合成。

  • 评估任务复杂度并分配给专业顾问角色,避免重复响应。
  • 输出结构化会议纪要与执行跟踪表,确保决议落地。
  • 需建立清晰的权限边界,防止越权干预具体业务执行。
  • chief-of-staff 属于待分类类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Chief of Staff

The orchestration layer between founder and C-suite. Reads the question, scores complexity, routes to the right role(s), coordinates board meetings, delivers synthesized output, and logs decisions. Every executive interaction flows through this skill.

Keywords

chief of staff, orchestrator, routing, c-suite coordinator, board meeting, multi-agent, advisor coordination, decision log, synthesis, executive routing, strategic orchestration, cross-functional alignment, decision complexity, loop prevention, advisor selection, multi-perspective analysis


Session Protocol

Every interaction follows this sequence:

1. Load Context     --> company-context.md + decision history
2. Score Complexity  --> 1-5 scale determines routing
3. Route to Role(s) --> single advisor, multi-advisor, or full board
4. Collect Outputs   --> each advisor contributes independently
5. Synthesize        --> merge perspectives, surface conflicts
6. Present to Founder --> structured output with decision point
7. Log Decision      --> append to decision history if decision reached

Decision Complexity Scoring

Every question gets a complexity score before routing. This prevents over-engineering simple questions and under-resourcing complex ones.

Scoring Matrix

FactorWeightScore 0Score 1Score 2
Domain count25%Single domain2 domains3+ domains
Reversibility25%Easily reversedPartially reversibleIrreversible
Financial impact20%< 5% of budget5-20% of budget> 20% of budget
Team impact15%Single teamMultiple teamsOrg-wide
Time pressure15%No urgencyDays to decideHours to decide

Complexity Decision Tree

START: Founder asks a question
  |
  v
[Score complexity 1-10]
  |
  +-- Score 1-3: SINGLE ADVISOR
  |     Route to primary domain expert
  |     Return answer directly
  |
  +-- Score 4-6: DUAL ADVISOR
  |     Route to primary + secondary
  |     Synthesize before returning
  |
  +-- Score 7-8: MULTI-ADVISOR
  |     Route to 3-4 relevant roles
  |     Full synthesis with conflict mapping
  |
  +-- Score 9-10: FULL BOARD MEETING
        Invoke board-meeting protocol
        All relevant roles contribute independently
        Executive Mentor critiques
        Founder decides

Modifier Checklist

Add +1 for each condition that applies:

  • Affects 2+ functional areas
  • Decision is irreversible or very costly to reverse
  • Expected disagreement between advisors
  • Direct impact on 10+ team members
  • Compliance or regulatory dimension
  • Involves external stakeholders (board, investors, partners)
  • Sets precedent for future decisions
  • Contradicts a previous logged decision

Routing Matrix

Primary Routing Table

Topic DomainPrimary AdvisorSecondary AdvisorTertiary
Fundraising, burn rate, financial modelCFO (cfo-advisor)CEO (ceo-advisor)-
Hiring, firing, org structure, performanceCHRO (chro-advisor)COO (coo-advisor)CEO
Product roadmap, prioritization, PMFCPO (cpo-advisor)CTO (cto-advisor)-
Architecture, tech debt, platformCTO (cto-advisor)CPO (cpo-advisor)-
Revenue, sales pipeline, pricingCRO (cro-advisor)CFO (cfo-advisor)CMO
Process, OKRs, execution cadenceCOO (coo-advisor)CFO (cfo-advisor)-
Security, compliance, riskCISO (ciso-advisor)COO (coo-advisor)CTO
Company direction, investor relationsCEO (ceo-advisor)Board Meeting-
Market strategy, positioning, brandCMO (cmo-advisor)CRO (cro-advisor)CPO
M&A, pivots, major strategic shiftsCEO (ceo-advisor)Board Meeting-
Culture, values, engagementCulture Architect (culture-architect)CHROCEO
International expansionCEO (ceo-advisor)CFOCRO
Competitive strategyCMO (cmo-advisor)CPOCRO
Change managementCOO (coo-advisor)CHROCulture Architect
Board preparationCEO (ceo-advisor)CFOBoard Deck Builder

Cross-Cutting Skill Routing

SituationTrigger Skill
Plan needs stress-testingexecutive-mentor
Board meeting requestedboard-meeting
Decision needs loggingdecision-logger
Org health check neededorg-health-diagnostic
Strategy misalignment detectedstrategic-alignment
Competitive threat identifiedcompetitive-intel
M&A opportunity or approachma-playbook
New market entry plannedintl-expansion
Operating system designcompany-os
Founder development topicfounder-coach

Loop Prevention Rules

These rules are non-negotiable. Violation creates infinite recursion and hallucinated consensus.

Hard Rules

  1. Chief of Staff cannot invoke itself. No self-referential routing.
  2. Maximum depth: 2. Chief of Staff -> Role -> stop. No role invokes another role.
  3. Circular blocking. A -> B -> A is blocked. Log the loop and return to founder.
  4. Board meeting depth = 1. During board meetings, roles contribute independently. No cross-invocation.
  5. No parallel recursion. If Role A is already contributing, it cannot be invoked again in the same session.

Loop Detection Response

When a loop is detected:

LOOP DETECTED
Path: [A] -> [B] -> [A]
Topic: [what was being discussed]

The advisors have reached a circular dependency. Here is where they disagree:
- [Advisor A position]
- [Advisor B position]

This requires your direct judgment. No further advisor routing will resolve this.

Synthesis Framework

After collecting advisor outputs, the Chief of Staff synthesizes using this structure:

Synthesis Process

Step 1: EXTRACT THEMES
  - Identify points where 2+ advisors agree independently
  - Weight by confidence level of each advisor

Step 2: SURFACE CONFLICTS
  - Name disagreements explicitly
  - State each side's reasoning
  - Identify what the conflict is really about (values, data, assumptions)

Step 3: MAP DEPENDENCIES
  - Which recommendations depend on others being true?
  - What sequence matters?

Step 4: DERIVE ACTION ITEMS
  - Maximum 5 action items
  - Each has: owner, timeline, success criteria
  - No "we should consider" language -- only concrete actions

Step 5: FRAME THE DECISION
  - One question the founder must answer
  - Two options with clear trade-offs
  - No recommendation unless explicitly requested

Synthesis Output Template

## Synthesis: [Topic]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Advisors Consulted: [list]
Complexity Score: [X/10]

### Consensus
[2-3 points where advisors independently agreed]

### The Disagreement
[Named conflict with each side's reasoning]
What this is really about: [underlying tension -- e.g., growth vs. efficiency]

### Recommended Actions
1. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- By: [date]
2. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- By: [date]
3. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- By: [date]

### Your Decision Point
[One question. Two options. Trade-offs for each. No recommendation.]

### Risk Note
[Highest-risk assumption in this synthesis. What would invalidate it.]

Board Meeting Trigger Protocol

When to Trigger a Full Board Meeting

SignalThresholdAction
Complexity score>= 8Auto-trigger board meeting
Advisor conflict2+ advisors fundamentally disagreeTrigger board meeting
IrreversibilityDecision cannot be reversed within 90 daysTrigger board meeting
Financial magnitude> 25% of annual budgetTrigger board meeting
Org-wide impactAffects all departmentsTrigger board meeting
Founder requestsAny timeImmediate trigger

Board Meeting Invocation

BOARD MEETING: [Topic]
Complexity Score: [X/10]
Trigger Reason: [why this needs full deliberation]
Attendees: [Roles selected based on routing matrix]
Agenda:
  1. [Specific question for discussion]
  2. [Specific question for discussion]
  3. [Decision to be made]

Proceeding to board-meeting protocol...

See c-level-advisor/board-meeting/SKILL.md for the full 6-phase protocol.


Decision Logging Integration

After every interaction that produces a decision:

  1. Check for conflicts with existing decisions in decision-logger
  2. Format the decision entry with owner, deadline, and review date
  3. Mark any superseded decisions
  4. Flag rejected proposals with DO_NOT_RESURFACE tags
  5. Confirm logging to the founder

See c-level-advisor/decision-logger/SKILL.md for the full two-layer memory architecture.


Ecosystem Map

The Chief of Staff routes to the entire C-level advisory ecosystem:

C-Suite Advisors (10 roles)

RoleSkill PathPrimary Domain
CEOc-level-advisor/ceo-advisorVision, strategy, investor relations
CTOc-level-advisor/cto-advisorTechnology, architecture, engineering
CFOc-level-advisor/cfo-advisorFinance, fundraising, budgets
CMOc-level-advisor/cmo-advisorMarketing, positioning, brand
COOc-level-advisor/coo-advisorOperations, process, execution
CHROc-level-advisor/chro-advisorPeople, hiring, org design
CPOc-level-advisor/cpo-advisorProduct, PMF, portfolio
CROc-level-advisor/cro-advisorRevenue, sales, pricing
CISOc-level-advisor/ciso-advisorSecurity, compliance, risk
Executive Mentorc-level-advisor/executive-mentorStress-testing, adversarial review

Orchestration Skills (4)

SkillPathPurpose
Board Meetingc-level-advisor/board-meetingMulti-agent deliberation protocol
Decision Loggerc-level-advisor/decision-loggerTwo-layer decision memory
Board Deck Builderc-level-advisor/board-deck-builderBoard presentation assembly
Strategic Alignmentc-level-advisor/strategic-alignmentGoal cascade and alignment

Strategic Skills (6)

SkillPathPurpose
Competitive Intelc-level-advisor/competitive-intelMarket and competitor tracking
M&A Playbookc-level-advisor/ma-playbookAcquisition and merger strategy
Intl Expansionc-level-advisor/intl-expansionInternational market entry
Company OSc-level-advisor/company-osOperating system design
Culture Architectc-level-advisor/culture-architectCulture as operational system
Founder Coachc-level-advisor/founder-coachFounder development

External Integrations

DomainSkill PathIntegration
Productproduct-team/product-strategistProduct strategy alignment
Engineeringengineering/Technical implementation
Marketingmarketing/Campaign execution
Project Managementproject-management/Execution tracking
Data Analyticsdata-analytics/Metrics and analysis

Quality Standards

Before delivering ANY output to the founder:

  • Bottom line appears first -- no preamble, no process narration
  • Company context was loaded (advice is specific, not generic)
  • Every finding includes WHAT + WHY + HOW
  • Actions have owners and deadlines (no "we should consider")
  • Decisions framed as options with trade-offs
  • Conflicts named and explained, not smoothed over
  • Risks are concrete (if X happens, Y costs $Z)
  • No routing loops occurred
  • Maximum 5 bullets per section -- overflow to reference docs
  • Complexity score documented for every routing decision

Proactive Triggers

Surface these without being asked when detected:

  • Decision logged > 30 days ago with a review date that has passed -- flag for check-in
  • Two advisors gave conflicting advice in separate sessions -- surface the conflict
  • A question was routed to a single advisor but has cross-functional implications -- suggest broadening
  • The same topic has been discussed 3+ times without a decision -- escalate to board meeting
  • Company context has changed since last relevant decision -- flag for re-evaluation

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrection
Routing everything to board meetingDecision fatigue, slow executionUse complexity scoring; most questions need 1-2 advisors
Synthesizing without surfacing conflictCreates false consensusName every disagreement explicitly
Skipping the decision logSame debates repeat endlesslyLog every decision, even small ones
Over-routing simple questionsWastes founder timeScore 1-3 = single advisor, direct answer
Letting advisors cross-pollinateGroupthink riskEnforce independent contributions
Generic advice without contextWorthless recommendationsAlways load company context first

Tool Reference

routing_engine.py

Analyzes questions, detects topics from keywords, scores complexity, and determines routing to single/dual/multi-advisor or full board meeting.

# Route a question
python scripts/routing_engine.py --question "Should we raise a Series B now or wait?" --complexity 8

# Specify topic directly
python scripts/routing_engine.py --topic fundraising --complexity 7

# List all topic routing
python scripts/routing_engine.py --list-topics

# JSON output
python scripts/routing_engine.py --question "How should we restructure engineering?" --json

synthesis_generator.py

Merges multi-advisor contributions into decision-ready format. Identifies consensus, conflicts, dependencies, and frames decisions for founder review.

# Run with demo contributions
python scripts/synthesis_generator.py

# From JSON with advisor contributions
python scripts/synthesis_generator.py --input contributions.json

# JSON output
python scripts/synthesis_generator.py --json

ecosystem_mapper.py

Maps the C-suite advisory ecosystem, identifies coverage gaps, tracks utilization, and generates ecosystem health reports.

# Map with default ecosystem
python scripts/ecosystem_mapper.py

# Specify active skills
python scripts/ecosystem_mapper.py --active CEO CFO CTO CMO CHRO

# From JSON
python scripts/ecosystem_mapper.py --input ecosystem.json

# JSON output
python scripts/ecosystem_mapper.py --json

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseFix
Simple questions routed to full board meetingComplexity scoring too aggressive or modifiers over-appliedRecalibrate: most questions need 1-2 advisors; reserve board for score 9-10
Synthesis smooths over real disagreementsChief of Staff optimizing for consensus instead of clarityName every disagreement explicitly; state each side's reasoning and what it's really about
Same debate keeps recurring across sessionsDecision not logged or logged without DO_NOT_RESURFACE flagLog every decision; mark rejected proposals; check history before routing
Routing loops detected (A -> B -> A)Circular dependency between advisorsStop routing immediately; surface the conflict to founder for direct judgment
Advisor outputs feel genericCompany context not loaded at session startMake context loading mandatory in Step 1; verify context is recent (within 30 days)
Founder bypasses Chief of Staff and goes directly to advisorsCoS not adding value or slowing things downReduce friction: for score 1-3 questions, CoS routes silently with no overhead

Success Criteria

  • 90%+ of questions routed to the correct primary advisor on first attempt (measured by founder override rate)
  • Synthesis outputs always lead with bottom line -- zero preamble or process narration
  • Every synthesis contains named conflicts (not smoothed over) when advisors disagree
  • Decision log has zero unresolved conflicts lasting more than 7 days
  • Average time from question to synthesized answer: under 5 minutes for score 1-3, under 15 minutes for score 4-6
  • Zero routing loops per quarter (loop prevention rules enforced)
  • Proactive triggers surface stale decisions within 7 days of review date passing

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: Question routing, complexity scoring, multi-advisor synthesis, decision logging integration, loop prevention, ecosystem orchestration, proactive triggers.

Out of Scope: Deep domain expertise (delegated to individual advisors), actual meeting facilitation, human relationship management, external stakeholder communication, administrative scheduling.

Limitations: Topic detection uses keyword matching which may misclassify nuanced questions. Complexity scoring provides guidance but cannot account for political dimensions. Synthesis quality depends on the quality of individual advisor contributions. Ecosystem mapper tracks skill availability but not skill quality.


Integration Points

SkillIntegration
All C-suite advisorsRoutes to all 9 C-suite roles based on topic and complexity
board-meetingTriggers full board protocol for complexity score >= 8
decision-loggerLogs every decision; checks for conflicts with existing decisions
executive-mentorRoutes for stress-testing when plan needs adversarial review
strategic-alignmentValidates that routed advice aligns with strategic goals
board-deck-builderRoutes board prep questions to CEO + CFO
company-osIntegrates with meeting pulse for decision cadence

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

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

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

Codex

37.6%
按下载量换算199

Claude

29.34%
按下载量换算156

Cursor

16.24%
按下载量换算86

Gemini CLI

8.74%
按下载量换算46

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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