Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› working-agreements
working-agreements
GitHub用于将团队隐性冲突转化为6-10条显式行为准则，通过摩擦推导、可观测表述及分歧协议，建立可执行的协作规范并定期回顾。
Trigger Scenarios
创建团队协作约定
为新团队设定规范
解决工作习惯冲突
新人入职引导
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill working-agreements -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "working-agreements",
"description": "Write a team's working agreements — the small set of explicit norms (communication, meetings, decisions, conflict) that replace the assumptions people were silently violating, built from the team's actual frictions and revisited on a cadence. Use when asked create team working agreements, set norms for our new team, we keep clashing over how we work, or onboard people into how this team operates. Produces the friction-derived agreement set, the specific-behavior phrasing, the disagreement protocol, and the review cadence."
}
Working Agreements Skill
Teams run on invisible rules — response-time expectations, camera norms, how decisions happen, whether 6pm messages demand answers — and every clash between two people's invisible rules gets misread as a character flaw ("he's unresponsive," "she's pushy"). Working agreements make the rules visible: a small set (6–10, not a constitution), derived from the team's actual frictions (not copied from a blog), phrased as observable behaviors ("we respond to non-urgent messages within one working day" — checkable) rather than values ("we communicate respectfully" — vibes), and revisited quarterly, because teams change and dead agreements poison live ones.
What This Skill Produces
- The agreement set — 6–10 norms across the friction zones: communication, meetings, decisions, availability, conflict
- The friction derivation — each agreement traces to a real clash it resolves (the trace is what makes it stick)
- The disagreement protocol — the one agreement every set needs: how we disagree, escalate, and commit
- The living rules — where the set lives, how newcomers meet it, and the quarterly revisit
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The frictions, honestly — the recurring clashes ("half the team answers at 10pm and expects the same," "decisions reopen weekly," "meetings start five minutes late, always") — agreements are friction-shaped or they're decoration
- The team's shape — size, time zones, remote/hybrid, the seniority spread; norms about availability and meetings are geometry-dependent
- What's already tacit-and-working — the good invisible rules worth writing down before someone violates them innocently
- The authority reality — is the lead imposing this or the team building it? (Built beats imposed by miles; the skill's process assumes a session, and the workshop-designer silent-first mechanics run it)
Framework: The Agreement Rules
- Derive from friction, not from ideals: each candidate agreement answers "which real clash does this resolve?" — the 10pm-message norm exists because of the 10pm-message resentment. Agreement sets copied from elsewhere describe someone else's frictions and get politely ignored.
- Phrase as observable behavior: "we respond to non-urgent asks within one working day; urgent is marked 🔴 and means today" is checkable; "we respect each other's time" is unfalsifiable. The test: could a newcomer tell whether the team kept the agreement this week?
- Small set, ranked frictions: 6–10 agreements maximum — the set covers the top frictions, and the rest stay unlegislated on purpose. Twenty agreements is a policy manual nobody consults; the small set gets memorized by osmosis.
- The disagreement protocol is the keystone: every set includes how conflict runs — "disagree openly in the room/thread, not after it · escalate to [lead] when stuck after one real attempt · once decided, commit outwardly" (decision-meeting-format dissent rules, socialized). Teams with this one agreement survive the failure of the others.
- Living or dead: the set lives where work happens (pinned, in the handbook page), newcomers get walked through it in week one (it's the onboarding-buddy-plan's best artifact), and the quarterly revisit asks two questions — which agreement did we break most (fix it or change it), and which friction is new (draft for it). An agreement violated freely for a quarter must be amended or re-committed; enforced-nowhere sets teach that all norms are theater.
Output Format
Working Agreements: [team] — v[N], next review [date]
The Set
| # | Agreement (observable) | The friction it resolves |
|---|---|---|
| [6–10 · the disagreement protocol among them, always] |
The Disagreement Protocol (spelled out)
[Openly, where · the escalation path · the commit norm]
Living Rules
[Where it's pinned · the newcomer walkthrough · the quarterly two-question revisit, calendared]
Quality Checks
- Every agreement traces to a named real friction
- Every agreement passes the newcomer-could-check test
- The set is ≤10 with the disagreement protocol included
- The team built it (or amended it) rather than receiving it
- The revisit is calendared with its two questions
Anti-Patterns
- Do not copy another team's agreements — their frictions, their fixes
- Do not write values — behaviors check; values decorate
- Do not legislate everything — the small set governs; the constitution gathers dust
- Do not skip the conflict agreement — it's the one that carries the team when the others crack
- Do not let violations ride silently — amend it or recommit to it; a dead agreement infects the set
Version History
- 471c606 Current 2026-07-22 14:06
