Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

strategic-alignment(战略调整)

strategic-alignment 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。

strategic-alignment 是待分类类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为权限未标注;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 2,934。

总安装 1,273周安装 51GitHub Stars 103下载 412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
unknown

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:strategic-alignment(战略调整)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/strategic-alignment
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill strategic-alignment
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 strategic-alignment

这个 Skill 是做什么的

这个 Skill 的分类还没最终确定,用法以来源仓库的说明为准。

用于检测战略执行中的 misalignment 问题并构建对齐保障机制。可识别 orphan OKRs、部门间目标冲突及局部优化导致的战略偏离。通过 cascade mapping 将高层战略连接至个体 contributor 层面。适用于中大型组织战略落地场景,需配合具体的 OKR 体系使用。

strategic-alignment 属于待分类类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/strategic-alignment

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 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;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 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill strategic-alignm…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

strategic-alignment 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill strategic-alignment。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

strategic-alignment 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。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。

strategic-alignment 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

strategic-alignment 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

strategic-alignment 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,273 次,近一周安装 51 次,下载 412 次,GitHub 103 星。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。

strategic-alignment 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

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 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

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 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 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理待分类类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

待分类类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
infsh-cli

infsh CLI · Codex、Claude

4,374,576382权限未标注未明确未收录
ai-video-generation

AI 视频生成 · Codex、Claude

4,313,376382调用外部服务未明确有提醒
lark-openapi-explorer

云雀 OpenAPI 浏览器 · Codex、Claude

2,064,1209,011需要联网未明确有提醒
lark-workflow-standup-report

Lark 工作流程站立报告 · Codex、Claude

2,041,6328,978需要联网未明确通过
use-my-browser

使用我的浏览器 · Codex、Claude

1,848,49140操作浏览器未明确未通过
strategic-alignment

战略调整 · 本页

1,273103权限未标注未明确通过

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

Strategic Alignment Engine

Strategy fails at the cascade, not the boardroom. This skill detects misalignment before it becomes dysfunction and builds systems that keep strategy connected from CEO to individual contributor.

Keywords

strategic alignment, strategy cascade, OKR alignment, orphan OKRs, conflicting goals, silos, communication gap, department alignment, strategy articulation, cross-functional alignment, goal cascade, misalignment, alignment score, local optimization, strategy communication, cascade mapping


The Alignment Problem

The further a goal gets from the strategy that created it, the less likely it reflects the original intent.

This is the organizational telephone game. It happens at every stage. The question is how bad it is and how to fix it.

CEO says: "We need to win the mid-market healthcare segment"
VP hears: "Healthcare is the priority"
Director translates: "Build healthcare features"
Team executes: "Add HIPAA compliance checkbox to the roadmap"
IC works on: "HIPAA feature that nobody asked for and doesn't close deals"

Result: Effort spent, strategy not advanced.

Step 1: Strategy Articulation Test

Before checking cascade, check the source.

The 5-Person Test

Ask five people from five different teams:

"What is the company's most important strategic priority right now?"
ResultScoreDiagnosis
All 5 give the same answer10/10Clear articulation. Check cascade.
4 give similar answers7-8/10Close. Clarify the outlier.
3 agree5-6/10Loose alignment. Re-communicate.
2 agree2-4/10Strategy is unclear. Fix before cascade.
No agreement0-1/10No shared strategy exists. Start here.

Strategy Format Test

The strategy must be statable in one sentence.

FormatScore
One clear sentenceGood
Two sentencesAcceptable
A paragraphToo complex to cascade
A documentToo complex to internalize

Examples:

BadWhyGood
"Focus on growth while maintaining enterprise relationships and expanding internationally and investing in platform"Four priorities = no priority"Win the mid-market healthcare segment in DACH before Series B"
"Be the best at what we do"Not falsifiable"Reach $5M ARR by Q4 with 110%+ NRR"
"Customer-first approach to innovation"Sounds nice, means nothing"Ship the workflow automation feature that our top 10 prospects asked for"

Step 2: Cascade Mapping

Map the flow from company strategy through every organizational level.

Cascade Visualization

Company Level:  Strategy Statement
                    |
                Company OKR-1    Company OKR-2    Company OKR-3
                    |                 |                 |
Dept Level:    Sales OKRs       Eng OKRs         Product OKRs
                    |                 |                 |
Team Level:    Team A OKRs      Team B OKRs       Team C OKRs
                    |                 |                 |
Individual:    Personal goals    Personal goals    Personal goals

Cascade Validation Questions

For each goal at every level:

QuestionPurpose
Which company goal does this support?Tests upward connection
If achieved 100%, how much does it move the parent goal?Tests impact significance
Is the connection direct or theoretical?Tests proximity of impact
Who else is working on the same parent goal?Tests coverage and overlap

Step 3: Alignment Failure Detection

Three failure patterns to detect:

Pattern 1: Orphan Goals

Goals that don't connect to any company-level objective.

SymptomRoot CauseFix
"We've been working on this all quarter and nobody cares"Goals set bottom-up without reconciliationConnect or cut. Every goal needs a parent.
Team proud of achievement, leadership unawareMisaligned definition of successExplicit cascade mapping before quarter starts
Individual goals from last quarter carried forwardInertia, not intentionFresh cascade each quarter

Pattern 2: Conflicting Goals

Two teams' goals, when both succeed, create a worse outcome.

ExampleConflictFix
Sales: maximize new logos / CS: maximize NPSSales closes bad-fit customers, CS suffersShared goal: qualified new logos that retain
Product: ship fast / Security: no vulnerabilitiesSpeed vs. quality tensionShared SLA: ship within X days with Y security checks
Marketing: maximize leads / Sales: close enterpriseMarketing optimizes for volume, sales needs qualityShared metric: qualified pipeline $, not lead count

Pattern 3: Coverage Gaps

Company has 3 OKRs. 5 teams support OKR-1, 2 teams support OKR-2, 0 teams support OKR-3.

DetectionImpactFix
Company OKR consistently misses while others hitNobody actually owns the failing OKRExplicit team assignment to every company OKR
Resource allocation does not match priorityTop priority underfundedAlign resources to stated priorities
Strategy says X is important but no team's goals reflect itStrategy is aspirational, not operationalTranslate strategy to owned team goals

Step 4: Silo Diagnosis

Silos exist when teams optimize for local metrics at the expense of company metrics.

Silo Detection Matrix

SignalScore (1-5)Weight
Department hits goals while company misses5 = always25%
Teams don't know other teams' priorities5 = never20%
"That's not our problem" is common5 = daily20%
Cross-functional escalations only flow up5 = always15%
Data not shared between dependent teams5 = never shared10%
Cross-functional projects take 3x expected time5 = always10%

Score 30+: Severe silos. Immediate intervention required. Score 20-29: Moderate silos. Address in next quarter. Score 10-19: Minor friction. Monitor and address specific hot spots. Score < 10: Healthy cross-functional operation.

Silo Root Causes and Fixes

Root CauseFixOwner
Incentive misalignmentCreate shared goals where teams interactCEO + COO
No shared goalsAdd 1 cross-functional OKR per interacting team pairCOO
No shared languageCross-functional show-and-tell monthlyCulture Architect
Geography/timezoneIntentional async overlap + quarterly in-personCOO + CHRO
Org designConsider restructuring to reduce handoffsCEO + CHRO

Step 5: Communication Gap Analysis

What the CEO says is not what teams hear. The gap grows with company size.

Message Decay Model

CEO communicates strategy
  |
  v [10-20% loss]
VP interprets through their lens
  |
  v [10-20% loss]
Manager translates for team
  |
  v [10-20% loss]
IC receives modified version
  |
  v [10-20% loss]
IC interprets further based on daily work

Total signal loss: 40-80% from CEO to IC

Communication Gap Sources

SourceDetectionFix
AmbiguityDifferent teams interpret differentlyMake strategy specific enough to be wrong
FrequencySaid once, expected to stickRepeat strategy 7x through different channels
Medium mismatchWritten doc for visual thinkersUse multiple formats (written, visual, verbal)
Trust deficitTeam doesn't believe strategy is realShow resource allocation that proves it
FilteringManagers edit the messageSkip-level communication + all-hands

Step 6: Realignment Protocol

How to fix misalignment without creating fear.

Realignment Decision Tree

START: Misalignment detected
  |
  v
[Is the problem at the strategy level or the cascade level?]
  |
  +-- STRATEGY (Step 1 failed)
  |     --> CEO rewrites strategy as one sentence
  |     --> Re-communicate through all channels
  |     --> Re-run 5-person test after 2 weeks
  |
  +-- CASCADE (Step 2-3 failures)
  |     |
  |     v
  |   [Which failure pattern?]
  |     |
  |     +-- Orphan goals --> Connect or cut workshop
  |     +-- Conflicting goals --> Cross-functional OKR review
  |     +-- Coverage gaps --> Assign explicit ownership
  |
  +-- SILOS (Step 4)
  |     --> Fix incentives first
  |     --> Add shared metrics
  |     --> Consider org design change
  |
  +-- COMMUNICATION (Step 5)
        --> Increase frequency (weekly, not quarterly)
        --> Add skip-level communication
        --> Show resource proof (money follows words)

Realignment Workshop (Half-day)

Agenda:
  1. CEO restates strategy (15 min)
  2. Each dept maps their goals to strategy (45 min)
  3. Identify orphans, conflicts, gaps together (30 min)
  4. Fix orphans: connect or cut (30 min)
  5. Fix conflicts: shared metrics or priority resolution (30 min)
  6. Fix gaps: assign ownership (15 min)
  7. Communication plan (15 min)

Alignment Score

Quick health check. Score each area 0-10.

AreaQuestionScore
Strategy clarityCan 5 people from different teams state strategy consistently?/10
Cascade completenessDo all team goals connect to company goals?/10
Conflict detectionHave cross-team OKR conflicts been reviewed and resolved?/10
CoverageDoes each company OKR have explicit team ownership?/10
CommunicationDo teams' behaviors reflect the strategy?/10

Score Interpretation

Total (/50)StatusAction
45-50ExcellentMaintain the system. Quarterly check is sufficient.
35-44GoodAddress specific weak areas in next OKR cycle.
20-34Misalignment costing youImmediate attention. Workshop within 2 weeks.
< 20Strategic driftCrisis-level intervention. CEO-led realignment.

Quarterly Alignment Check

Prevent recurrence with a quarterly check:

ActivityWhenWhoDuration
5-person articulation testWeek 1 of quarterRandom selection across levels15 min
Cascade map reviewWeek 1Leadership team1 hour
Conflict scanWeek 1COO + department leads30 min
Coverage auditWeek 1COO30 min
Silo pulse checkWeek 2Cross-functional survey5 min survey
Report to CEOWeek 2COO or Chief of Staff15 min presentation

Red Flags

  • Teams consistently hit goals while company misses targets -- local optimization
  • Cross-functional projects take 3x longer than expected -- coordination failure
  • Strategy updated quarterly but team priorities don't change -- cascade is broken
  • "That's a leadership problem" at team level -- ownership gap
  • New initiatives without connecting to existing OKRs -- strategy drift
  • Department heads optimize for headcount/budget, not company outcomes -- incentive misalignment
  • Same alignment problems reappear quarter after quarter -- systemic issue, not a one-time fix
  • No one can name the company's top priority -- strategy is not communicated

Integration with C-Suite

When...Work With...To...
New strategy setCEO + COOCascade into rocks before announcing
OKR cycle startsCOO (coo-advisor)Cross-team conflict check before finalizing
Team misses goalsCHRO (chro-advisor)Diagnose: capability gap or alignment gap?
Silo identifiedCOODesign shared metrics or cross-functional OKRs
Post-M&ACEO + Culture ArchitectDetect strategy conflicts between merged entities
Quarterly planningCompany OS (company-os)Integrate alignment check into planning rhythm
Change rolloutChange Management (change-management)Ensure change aligns with strategy

Output Artifacts

RequestDeliverable
"Check our alignment"Full 6-step diagnostic with alignment score
"Are our OKRs aligned?"Cascade map with orphans, conflicts, and gaps identified
"We have silos"Silo diagnosis with root causes and specific fixes
"Strategy isn't translating to execution"Communication gap analysis + fix plan
"Run an alignment workshop"Workshop agenda + facilitation guide
"Quarterly alignment check"Quarterly check process + report template

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseResolution
5-person test scores below 5/10 despite strategy existingStrategy too complex, too vague, or communicated only onceRewrite strategy as one falsifiable sentence; communicate through 7+ channels; repeat weekly for 4 weeks then re-test
Cascade map shows orphan goals but teams resist cutting themTeams emotionally attached to work-in-progress; sunk cost fallacyFrame as "connect or cut": every goal must have a parent OKR; if no parent exists, either create the connection or stop the work
Conflicting goals identified but no resolution reachedDepartment heads unwilling to compromise; incentive misalignmentEscalate to CEO for priority decision; create shared metric that both teams own; use balanced scorecard perspective alignment
Silo score above 30 but no one acknowledges the problemEach silo operates well internally; pain is only felt at interfacesShow cross-functional project data: 3x expected timeline; present customer impact of handoff failures; use strategy map visualization
Communication gap persists despite increased frequencyWrong medium, wrong messenger, or message too abstractVary communication format (written, visual, verbal); use skip-level conversations; show resource allocation as proof of strategy ("money follows words")
Alignment workshop produces action items that are never implementedNo follow-up mechanism; workshop treated as event not processAssign every action item an owner and deadline during the workshop; review at next weekly leadership meeting; track completion rate
Quarterly alignment check becomes a checkbox exerciseNo consequences for misalignment; diagnostic not connected to decisionsTie alignment score to OKR cycle planning; Red alignment areas must be addressed before new OKRs are finalized

Success Criteria

  • 5-person articulation test scores 8/10 or higher within 30 days of strategy communication
  • Zero orphan goals remain after quarterly cascade mapping review
  • All identified goal conflicts have documented resolution with shared metrics within 2 weeks
  • Silo detection score below 20 (minor friction or healthy) maintained across 3 consecutive quarters
  • Communication gap analysis shows < 30% signal loss from CEO to IC level (measured by strategy comprehension survey)
  • Alignment score (5 areas, /50) at 35 or above and trending stable or improving
  • Quarterly alignment check completed within first 2 weeks of every quarter

Scope & Limitations

  • In scope: Strategy articulation testing, cascade mapping and validation, orphan goal detection, conflicting goal identification, coverage gap analysis, silo diagnosis, communication gap analysis, realignment protocols, alignment scoring, quarterly check cadence
  • Out of scope: OKR writing and goal-setting methodology (use project management or Company OS skills); individual performance management (use CHRO Advisor); strategy formulation (use CEO Advisor -- this skill assumes strategy exists and tests its cascade)
  • Limitation: Alignment diagnostics are point-in-time assessments; alignment degrades continuously and requires quarterly maintenance
  • Limitation: The 5-person test is a heuristic, not a statistically rigorous survey; for organizations > 200 people, supplement with broader pulse survey
  • Limitation: Silo detection matrix relies on self-reported data; supplement with objective measures (cross-functional project timelines, escalation patterns)
  • Limitation: Framework assumes a hierarchical OKR cascade; matrix organizations and flat structures may need adapted cascade mapping

Integration Points

SkillIntegrationData Flow
ceo-advisorStrategy must exist before alignment can be testedCEO strategy statement → Alignment articulation test
coo-advisorOperations owns the alignment cadence and cross-functional OKRsAlignment conflicts → COO shared metric design
company-osAlignment check integrates into planning rhythmAlignment cadence → Company OS quarterly cycle
chief-of-staffCoS facilitates alignment workshops and tracks follow-throughAlignment action items → CoS tracking
culture-architectSilos are both structural and cultural problemsAlignment silo diagnosis → Culture intervention
change-managementStrategy changes require alignment cascade updateChange plan → Alignment re-cascade
org-health-diagnosticOperational Health dimension reflects alignment qualityHealth operations score → Alignment priority
internal-narrativeStrategy communication depends on narrative clarityAlignment communication gaps → Narrative improvement

Python Tools

ToolPurposeUsage
scripts/okr_cascade_validator.pyValidate that team OKRs connect to company OKRs, detecting orphans, conflicts, and coverage gapspython scripts/okr_cascade_validator.py --company-okrs company_okrs.csv --team-okrs team_okrs.csv --json
scripts/strategy_map_generator.pyGenerate a balanced scorecard strategy map linking financial, customer, process, and learning perspectivespython scripts/strategy_map_generator.py --objective "Win mid-market healthcare in DACH" --financial "5M ARR by Q4" --customer "NPS > 40" --process "Ship workflow automation" --learning "Hire 3 healthcare domain experts" --json
scripts/alignment_scorer.pyCalculate alignment score across 5 dimensions with trend tracking and recommendationspython scripts/alignment_scorer.py --clarity 8 --cascade 6 --conflicts 7 --coverage 5 --communication 6 --previous-score 28 --json

平台分布

Codex

36.35%
按下载量换算150

Claude

31.09%
按下载量换算128

Cursor

20.45%
按下载量换算84

Gemini CLI

10.01%
按下载量换算41

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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