version: "1.0.1" name: ceos-people description: Use when evaluating team members — Core Values alignment and GWC (right people, right seats) file-access: [data/people/, templates/people-analyzer.md, data/vision.md, data/accountability.md] tools-used: [Read, Write, Glob]

ceos-people

Evaluate whether team members are the right people (Core Values alignment) in the right seats (GWC: Get it, Want it, Capacity to do it). Manage people evaluations, run quarterly reviews, and flag below-the-bar situations for action.

When to Use

• "Evaluate [person]" or "run the people analyzer for [name]"
• "Are we right people, right seats?" or "show our people evaluations"
• "Quarterly people review" or "let's review the team"
• "Is [person] in the right seat?" or "GWC check on [name]"
• "Who's below the bar?" or "show below-bar team members"
• Any discussion about team fit, Core Values alignment, or seat assignment

Context

Finding the CEOS Repository

Search upward from the current directory for the .ceos marker file. This file marks the root of the CEOS repository.

If .ceos is not found, stop and tell the user: "Not in a CEOS repository. Clone your CEOS repo and run setup.sh first."

Sync before use: Once you find the CEOS root, run git -C <ceos_root> pull --ff-only --quiet 2>/dev/null to get the latest data from teammates. If it fails (conflict or offline), continue silently with local data.

Key Files

Person File Format

Each person is a markdown file at data/people/firstname-lastname.md with YAML frontmatter:

name: "Brad Feld"
seat: "Visionary"
core_values:
  # Each Core Value from vision.md, rated +, +/-, or -
status: right_person_right_seat  # right_person_right_seat | below_bar | wrong_seat | evaluating
gwc:
  get: true       # true | false | null
  want: true
  capacity: true
last_evaluated: "2026-01-15"
created: "2026-01-02"
departed: false

File naming: firstname-lastname.md — lowercase, hyphenated. Person-centric (survives role changes).

Status Values

Core Values Rating

Three strikes rule: Three or more +/- or - ratings = "wrong person" (Core Values misalignment). This is a critical flag that requires action.

GWC Dimensions

All three must be true for "right seat." Any single false = wrong seat.

Process

Mode: Evaluate

Use when evaluating a specific person against Core Values and GWC.

Step 1: Identify the Person

Ask for the person's name. Check if data/people/firstname-lastname.md already exists.

• Exists: Read the file, show current evaluation, ask: "Re-evaluate or update notes?"
• New person: Create from templates/people-analyzer.md

Step 2: Core Values Evaluation

Read Core Values from data/vision.md. For each Core Value, ask the user to rate: +, +/-, or -.

Display a rating table as you go:

Core Values Evaluation — [Person Name]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 
| Core Value    | Rating | Notes           |
|---------------|--------|-----------------|
| Integrity     | +      | Consistently    |
| Innovation    | +/-    | Room to grow    |
| Transparency  | +      |                 |
| Grit          | -      | Avoids hard work|

Step 3: Three Strikes Detection

After all Core Values are rated, count +/- and - ratings:

• 3+ negative ratings (`+/-` or `-`): Flag immediately:

`` ⚠️ THREE STRIKES — Core Values misalignment detected. [Person] has 3+ values rated +/- or -. This signals "wrong person." Action required: coaching conversation, role change, or exit plan. ``

• 1-2 negative ratings: Note but continue: "Some values need attention. Continue to GWC."
• All `+`: "Strong Core Values alignment. Right person."

Determine right_person: All or mostly + ratings = yes. Three strikes = no.

Step 4: GWC Evaluation

Read the person's current seat from data/accountability.md. If the person owns multiple seats, evaluate GWC for each seat separately.

For each seat, ask three binary questions:

1. Get it? Does [person] truly understand the [seat] role? (yes/no)
2. Want it? Does [person] genuinely want to do [seat] work? (yes/no)
3. Capacity? Does [person] have the capacity to excel at [seat]? (yes/no)

Display the result:

GWC — [Person Name] as [Seat Name]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 
Get it:     ✓ Yes
Want it:    ✓ Yes
Capacity:   ✗ No — struggling with volume
 
Right seat? No (Capacity gap)

Determine right_seat: All three must be true. Any false = wrong seat.

Step 5: Suggest Status

Based on the evaluation:

Present the suggestion: "Based on this evaluation, I'd suggest [status]. Do you agree, or would you set it differently?"

Always let the user confirm or override. Status is a leadership judgment call, not a formula.

Step 6: Write the File

Show the complete evaluation file before writing. Ask: "Save this evaluation?"

Update last_evaluated to today's date. Add a dated entry to the Evaluation History section.

Step 7: Below-Bar Action

If status is below_bar or wrong_seat, offer:

"[Person] is below the bar. Would you like to create an issue for a 30-day action plan? This will create a file in data/issues/open/ for IDS discussion."

If yes, use the issue template pattern from data/issues/open/ to create an issue with:

• Title referencing the person and the gap
• 30-day timeline
• Specific actions from the evaluation

Mode: Review

Use when reviewing the current state of all people evaluations.

Step 1: Read All Evaluations

Read all files from data/people/ (exclude alumni/ subdirectory). Parse the YAML frontmatter for each person.

If no files exist: "No people evaluations found. Run an Evaluate for your first team member."

Step 2: Display Summary Table

People Analyzer — Team Overview
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 
| Name          | Seat        | Status                  | Last Evaluated | Flag    |
|---------------|-------------|-------------------------|----------------|---------|
| Brad Feld     | Visionary   | right_person_right_seat | 2026-01-15     |         |
| Sarah Chen    | Integrator  | right_person_right_seat | 2026-01-15     |         |
| Mike Torres   | VP Sales    | wrong_seat              | 2025-12-01     | ⚠️ Seat |
| Alex Kim      | VP Eng      | below_bar               | 2025-11-15     | 🔴 Bar  |
| Jamie Lee     | Marketing   | evaluating              | 2026-01-28     | 🆕 New  |
 
The Bar: 3/5 (60%) at or above — Target: 80%+

Step 3: Highlight Issues

Flag the following:

• Below bar: 🔴 — requires action plan
• Wrong seat: ⚠️ — person is right, seat is wrong (find a better fit)
• Stale evaluation: If last_evaluated is > 120 days ago, flag: 📅 Overdue
• Evaluating: 🆕 — new hire or incomplete evaluation

Step 4: Bar Percentage

Calculate: (right_person_right_seat count) / (total evaluated, excluding "evaluating").

If below 80%: "Below the 80% target. Consider bringing people discussions to the next L10."

Step 5: Drill Down

Ask: "Want to drill into any person, or run a new Evaluate?"

Mode: Quarterly

Use for the formal quarterly review of all seats against the Accountability Chart.

Step 1: Read the Accountability Chart

Read data/accountability.md to get all seats and their current owners.

If the file doesn't exist or is empty: "No accountability chart found. Create one first with ceos-vto or manually at data/accountability.md."

Step 2: Map Seats to People

For each seat in the accountability chart:

• Has an owner with a person file: Load the evaluation
• Has an owner without a person file: Flag: "No evaluation on file. Evaluate now?"
• Empty seat (no owner): Flag: "Empty seat — [Seat Name]. Hire or reassign?"

Display the seat map:

Quarterly People Review
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 
| Seat        | Owner         | Status                  | Action Needed?  |
|-------------|---------------|-------------------------|-----------------|
| Visionary   | Brad Feld     | right_person_right_seat | No              |
| Integrator  | Sarah Chen    | right_person_right_seat | No              |
| VP Sales    | Mike Torres   | wrong_seat              | Re-evaluate GWC |
| VP Eng      | Alex Kim      | below_bar               | Action plan due |
| Marketing   | (empty)       | —                       | Hire needed     |

Step 3: Walk Through Each Seat

For each filled seat, ask: "Re-evaluate, update notes, or skip?"

• Re-evaluate: Run the full Evaluate mode (Step 2-6 from Evaluate)
• Update notes: Just add a dated note to the Evaluation History
• Skip: Move to next seat

Track progress:

Progress: 3/5 seats reviewed [████████░░░░] 60%

Step 4: Handle Empty Seats

For each empty seat, offer:

"The [Seat Name] seat is empty. Would you like to create an issue for hiring? This will go to data/issues/open/ for IDS discussion."

Step 5: Quarterly Summary

After reviewing all seats, display:

Quarterly People Review — Complete
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 
Seats filled:    4/5 (80%)
Right People, Right Seats: 2/4 (50%)
Below the bar:   1
Wrong seat:      1
Empty seats:     1
Evaluating:      0
 
Action items created: 2
Next quarterly review: [quarter-end date]

If any seats are below bar or empty: "These should be discussed at the next L10. Bring them to the Issues List."

Output Format

Evaluate: Show the complete evaluation file before writing. Display Core Values table and GWC results inline.

Review: Summary table with status flags, bar percentage. Offer drill-down.

Quarterly: Seat-by-seat walkthrough with progress tracker. End with quarterly summary.

Guardrails

• Always show diff before writing. Never modify a person file without showing the change and getting approval.
• Three strikes rule. If 3+ Core Values are +/- or -, always flag it prominently. Do not minimize.
• All three GWC required. Don't allow partial GWC evaluation. All three (Get, Want, Capacity) must be answered.
• Don't delete person files. For departed team members, set departed: true and move to data/people/alumni/.
• Core Values come from vision.md. Always read Core Values from data/vision.md — never ask the user to list them (they're already defined in the V/TO).
• Status is judgment, not formula. The skill suggests a status based on scores, but the user always confirms. Leadership judgment matters more than a mechanical calculation.
• Sensitive data warning. On first use, remind the user: "People evaluations contain sensitive performance data. Use a private repo, not a public one."
• Cross-reference accountability.md. When evaluating GWC, always check the person's seat from data/accountability.md rather than asking the user to recall it.
• Don't auto-invoke other skills. Mention ceos-vto, ceos-quarterly, and ceos-ids when relevant, but let the user decide when to switch workflows.
• Quarterly cadence. Flag if no quarterly review has been run in > 100 days. People evaluations are meant to be regular, not ad-hoc.

Integration Notes

V/TO (ceos-vto)

• Read: ceos-people reads Core Values from data/vision.md for the Core Values evaluation. It does not write to the V/TO file.
• Suggested flow: If Core Values are updated via ceos-vto, existing people evaluations may need refreshing.

Accountability Chart (ceos-accountability)

• Read: ceos-people reads data/accountability.md for the person's seat(s) during GWC evaluation. It does not write to the accountability file.
• Suggested flow: If a person's seat changes in the accountability chart, their GWC evaluation should be re-run for the new seat.

Quarterly Conversations (ceos-quarterly)

• Read: ceos-quarterly references People Analyzer evaluations from data/people/ during quarterly conversations. Core Values and GWC ratings serve as reference points, not re-evaluations.
• Suggested flow: If quarterly conversation ratings differ significantly from People Analyzer, suggest updating via ceos-people.

IDS (ceos-ids)

• Related: Below-bar situations may create Issues for action plans. When a person's status is below_bar or wrong_seat, ceos-people offers to create an issue in data/issues/open/.
• Suggested flow: Use ceos-ids for formal issue tracking of people-related action plans.

Annual Planning (ceos-annual)

• Read: ceos-annual references People Analyzer evaluations during the Organizational Checkup section (Section 4) of the annual planning session.

Write Principle

Only `ceos-people` writes to `data/people/`. Other skills read person evaluations for reference. The quarterly conversation skill references evaluations but directs updates back to ceos-people.