agentleFS
GreatFigure8GreatFigure8/Claude-Skills/Skills/hcm-config-readiness-report/SKILL.md

hcm-config-readiness-report

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoUnlicenseView on GitHub

Produce an Oracle Fusion HCM configuration READINESS report: compare a requirements baseline (KDD / RTM / Configuration Workbooks) against what is actually configured in a live Fusion environment, and score readiness with a defensible, shown formula. Use whenever someone asks for a "readiness report", "state of configuration", "config state", "where are we in the configuration", "what's implemented vs. designed", a "fit-gap" or "gap analysis" against an environment, or to validate the environment against the KDDs / RTM / config workbooks — for Oracle Fusion HCM (Core HR, Compensation, Talent, Recruiting, Learning, Payroll, Absence, Benefits, Time & Labor, Help Desk, Security). Trigger even without the word "readiness": any request to assess, audit, or scorecard how far an HCM environment has progressed against design artifacts. Also trigger when only an environment is available and no requirements artifacts are given (falls back to a no-percentage config-state audit). HCM-first; method extends to ERP/SCM.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Mode B — Config-state audit (no requirements artifact): Do not emit any percentage — maturity or readiness.

    line 37
  2. Very specific:

    Read the companion references: Before querying, read references/fusion-hcm-objects.md (the object/column catalog, custom-vs-seeded …

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Parse the requirements artifacts (Mode A): Read every provided artifact and extract the committed requirements.

    line 57
  4. Very specific:

    Always display, beside any percentage: the weight basis, the assessed vs.

    line 91
  5. Distinctive:

    Never emit a percentage in Mode B.

    line 130
  6. Very specific:

    Never count Oracle-seeded objects as customer configuration (elements, payment methods, ORA_ roles, seeded actions/reasons, DFF …

    line 131
  7. Very specific:

    Verify every table/column before querying.

    line 133
  8. Distinctive:

    Every number traces to a live query.

    line 135

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Oracle Fusion HCM Configuration Readiness Report

What this produces

A single, self-contained branded HTML report that tells the reader where the configuration stands by comparing what was designed/required (the client's KDDs, RTM, and Configuration Workbooks) against what is actually configured in the live environment, expressed as a color-coded, area-by-area readiness scorecard with an explicit, auditable percentage.

The value scales with the requirements data provided: the more of the KDD / RTM / Config Workbook set is supplied, the more precise the readiness verdict. With none, the report degrades gracefully to a configuration-state audit with no percentage (there is no defensible denominator without a requirements baseline).

The two modes — decide first

Mode A — Readiness (one or more requirements artifacts provided). Build a requirements baseline from the artifact(s), validate each area against the live environment, and score readiness with the formula below. This is the primary mode.

Mode B — Config-state audit (no requirements artifact). Do not emit any percentage — maturity or readiness. State explicitly that no defensible denominator exists without a requirements baseline, report only present-vs-absent / customer-built-vs-seeded with the same color verdicts, and add a callout inviting the user to supply a KDD / RTM / Config Workbook to convert the audit into a scored readiness report.

Never invent a denominator. The percentage exists only in Mode A and only against committed requirements.

Workflow

  1. Read the companion references. Before querying, read references/fusion-hcm-objects.md (the object/column catalog, custom-vs-seeded predicates, and hard-won environment quirks) and references/report-format.md (the exact HTML layout, palette, and section structure). These encode environment-specific gotchas that will otherwise cause failed queries and wrong counts.
  2. Bind the environment. Select the target Fusion environment before any SQL (select_environment with its ID). Re-select if the session reports environment-not-selected — the binding drops between calls.
  3. Parse the requirements artifacts (Mode A). Read every provided artifact and extract the committed requirements. See references/artifact-parsing.md for the known shapes of the KDD Disposition tracker, the RTM, the Design Decisions log, and the per-module Configuration Workbooks, including which columns carry the decisions and dispositions.
  4. Validate against the live environment. For each requirement area, query the environment and judge whether it is configured and whether the configured value matches the requirement. Verify objects via all_objects first (many HCM/ASM objects are synonyms/views, not base tables). Separate Oracle-seeded baseline from customer configuration — seeded counts are NOT evidence of build. Flag anything unqueryable as NOT ASSESSED rather than guessing.
  5. Score (Mode A). Apply the formula below and show it in the report.
  6. Render and present. Build the HTML per references/report-format.md, save to /mnt/user-data/outputs/, and present it.

Scoring formula (Mode A) — make the percentage defensible

Per requirement-area, assign a coverage score:
   MET          = 1.0   configured in the environment AND matches the KDD/RTM/workbook design
   PARTIAL      = 0.5   configured but incomplete, prototype, or value gaps remain
   NOT MET      = 0.0   required but absent / seed-only / test-only in the environment
   NOT ASSESSED = excluded from BOTH numerator and denominator (query-scope limit)

Area readiness %    = coverage score x 100

Overall readiness % = Sum( area_weight x coverage_score )  /  Sum( area_weight )  x 100

   where area_weight = count of RTM Configuration-disposition requirements mapped to that area
                       (the committed configuration scope). If the RTM is absent, fall back to
                       KDD decision counts per area as the weight, and say so.

Always display, beside any percentage: the weight basis, the assessed vs. excluded counts, and the MET / PARTIAL / NOT MET split, so the number is auditable. If an area has zero assessed requirements, show n/a, not 0%.

Integrity check on RTM status columns. The RTM often ships with its lifecycle columns (Requirement Status, Design Status, Build Status, Deployment Status) unpopulated. If they are blank, do NOT derive readiness from them — derive it from live environment validation and state this plainly in the report so the score is not mistaken for RTM-reported progress. As those columns get maintained, the environment-derived score can be reconciled against them.

Audit scope

Query the live environment across these areas, using the confirmed objects, custom-vs-seeded predicates, and quirks in references/fusion-hcm-objects.md:

  • Enterprise structures — LDGs (legislation + currency), legal entities / legal employers, business units.
  • Workforce structures — departments, organizations/trees, locations, jobs, positions, grades + grade rates.
  • Worker population — persons/assignments by type and status; distinguish real population from config/test data.
  • Payroll — payroll definitions vs. seeded statutory elements (seed is not build).
  • Security (expanded) — role mappings; custom roles vs. seeded ORA_ roles; custom security profiles (person/position/org/payroll/LDG/country) and whether wired to data roles; elevated-access callouts (e.g. IT Security Manager holders).
  • Extended audit (expanded) — Action / Action Reasons (custom vs. seeded); Salary Basis mapping validated to LDG and to Grade Rate, flagging any basis missing either link; custom flexfields (DFF/EFF/KFF customer-deployed enabled segments vs. seeded registrations).
  • Always NOT ASSESSED unless specifically queried — FSM feature opt-ins (ASM choice-table decode), fast formulas, BPM approval rules. Declare these out of scope for the pass rather than guessing.

Verdict semantics (keep this color mapping)

🟢 green = MET / Configured · 🟠 amber = PARTIAL · 🔴 red = NOT MET / Not started · ⚪ gray = NOT ASSESSED (excluded from scoring).

Guardrails

  • Never emit a percentage in Mode B; never invent a denominator.
  • Never count Oracle-seeded objects as customer configuration (elements, payment methods, ORA_ roles, seeded actions/reasons, DFF registrations — all seed unless proven custom).
  • Verify every table/column before querying; on an ORA-00904/ORA-00942, re-check via all_objects / all_tab_columns rather than retrying the guess.
  • Every number traces to a live query; query-scope limits are NOT ASSESSED, not assumptions.
  • Re-select_environment if the session drops.
  • Coverage scores are interpretive at the area level — say so, and offer requirement-level scoring for any module if the user wants a finer denominator.

Extending to ERP / SCM

The method is pillar-agnostic: keep the modes, formula, validation logic, report format, and guardrails; swap only the audit object set. ERP: ledgers, COA + segment values, BSV→LE, and the AP/AR/FA/Cash/Tax/Procurement subledgers. SCM: inventory orgs, real items vs. templates, subinventories, on-hand, costing, orders/supply. Build the requirements baseline the same way from the same artifact types filtered to the pillar's track.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.