Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› manager-first-90-days
manager-first-90-days
GitHub为新晋或新任管理者制定前90天计划，涵盖倾听、决策、行动三阶段。提供1对1访谈问题、团队评估框架及关键交付物，帮助避免早期判断陷阱，平衡节奏以建立信任并推动变革。
Trigger Scenarios
我刚刚成为经理该做什么
规划我的管理首90天
接管现有团队
新经理30-60-90计划
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill manager-first-90-days -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "manager-first-90-days",
"description": "Plan a new manager's first 90 days — first-time or new-to-team — as listen\/decide\/move phases: the 1:1 listening tour with real questions, the early-judgment traps, the quick-wins filter, and the 30\/60\/90 artifacts. Use when asked I just became a manager what do I do, plan my first 90 days as a manager, taking over an existing team, or new manager 30-60-90 plan. Produces the phased plan, the listening-tour question set, the team assessment framework, and the day-one and week-6 artifacts."
}
Manager First 90 Days Skill
New managers fail in two symmetrical ways: moving too fast (reorganizing by week 3 on pattern-matching from their last job) and moving too slow (still "just listening" at day 80 while the team concludes nobody's driving). The 90 days have a shape — listen (0–30), decide (30–60), move (60–90) — and the discipline is doing each phase's work in its phase: no irreversible changes while listening, no more listening once it's time to call things. This skill builds that plan, tuned to the situation they're actually walking into.
What This Skill Produces
- The phased plan — 30/60/90 with each phase's job, its deliverable, and its forbidden moves
- The listening tour kit — 1:1 question set that surfaces reality instead of pleasantries, plus stakeholder-map interviews beyond the team
- The assessment framework — reading people, processes, and problems without the early-judgment traps
- The artifacts — day-one intro message, the week-6 "what I've heard and what we'll do" note, and the 90-day review against the plan
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The situation — first-time manager or experienced-but-new-team? Internal promotion (now managing former peers — its own minefield) or external hire?
- The team's state as advertised — size, tenure mix, why the role was open (predecessor promoted, quit, fired — each leaves different residue), known fires
- The mandate — hired to fix, to grow, or to not-break? What did their boss say success at 90 days looks like? (If they don't know, that conversation is week-1 item #1.)
- Inherited hazards — a flight-risk star, an open performance problem, a stalled critical project
Framework: The Phase Rules
- Days 0–30, listen — and defend the phase: 1:1s with every report using questions that fetch reality: "What should this team stop doing?" "What almost-broke recently?" "What would you fix with a magic wand?" "Who do you go to when stuck?" (that last one maps the real org chart). Interview peers, boss, and internal customers too — the team's self-image never matches its customers' experience. Forbidden: reorgs, process overhauls, public verdicts. Allowed: reversible paper cuts (fixing an obviously broken meeting buys credibility without spending judgment).
- Mistrust the first read on people: the person who impresses in week 2 is the best talker; the quiet one may be the load-bearer. Score on artifacts and peer-dependency patterns (who everyone routes through), not meeting charisma. Inherited reputations get verified, not adopted — the predecessor's "problem person" is sometimes just the person who disagreed with the predecessor.
- Day ~40, say what you heard: the week-6 note — "what I've heard, what I'm keeping, what we'll change and why" — is the hinge artifact. It proves the listening was real (people see their words in it) and openly spends the credibility earned on the first calls. Silence past week 8 reads as either no judgment or no courage.
- Quick wins must be real: the filter is visible + fast + actually wanted by the team + reversible-if-wrong. Killing a meeting everyone hates qualifies. A tooling migration is not a quick win; it's a slow project wearing a quick win's clothes.
- Move in 60–90, including the hard calls: the performance conversation being avoided, the stalled project needing a kill/commit, the mandate items. A new manager who ends the 90 days having changed nothing has told the team change isn't coming. Former-peers case: the awkward conversation ("our relationship changes, here's what stays and what can't") happens in week 1, once, explicitly — postponing it makes every 1:1 weirder.
Output Format
First 90: [role, team, situation]
The Mandate (verified with boss, week 1)
[What success at day 90 means, in their boss's words — or the plan to extract it]
Days 0–30 — Listen
[1:1 schedule · the question set · stakeholder interviews · allowed paper-cut fixes · forbidden list]
Days 30–60 — Decide
[Assessment: people (artifact-based), processes (keep/fix/kill), problems (ranked) · the week-6 note, drafted]
Days 60–90 — Move
[The 2–3 changes with reasons · the hard call being made, not deferred · quick-win ledger]
Artifacts
[Day-one intro message · week-6 note skeleton · 90-day self-review questions]
Quality Checks
- Each phase has explicit forbidden moves, not just to-dos
- Listening-tour questions fetch specifics ("what almost broke") not vibes ("how's morale")
- People-assessment cites artifacts and dependency patterns, not meeting impressions
- The week-6 note exists and quotes what people actually said
- At least one hard call is scheduled inside the 90 — not "after I settle in"
Anti-Patterns
- Do not reorganize in month one — pattern-matching from the last job is not knowledge of this team
- Do not adopt inherited reputations without verification — especially the "problem person"
- Do not let listening become hiding — the week-6 note is mandatory, discomfort included
- Do not pick quick wins the team didn't ask for — a win nobody wanted is a change nobody wanted
- Do not defer the former-peers conversation — week 1, explicit, once
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 13:07
