agentleFS
SkillMedevSkillMedev/remote-team-toolkit/skills/stakeholder-update/SKILL.md

stakeholder-update

Skill0 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub

Writes project stakeholder updates readable in under 60 seconds - honest RAG status, decisions made, explicit asks with owners and dates, next milestones - tiered to the audience. Use when someone asks "write my weekly project update", "how do I tell stakeholders we're at risk", "draft a status email for leadership", or "my updates get ignored, fix the format". Do NOT use for aggregating many teams' statuses into one engineering-wide report - use eng-status-rollup instead. For monthly investor letters with metrics and asks to VCs, use investor-update-writer; for customer-facing incident status, use status-page-update.

18 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use experiment-designer, launch-readiness and 4 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Dokkabei97Skill

    experiment-designer

    Designs A/B tests and product experiments with hypothesis structuring, sample size calculation, duration estimation, and result interpretation. Unified framework for both product and marketing experiments.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • pratikshadakeSkill

    launch-readiness

    Audits whether a feature or product is truly ready for launch with a structured checklist and readiness status (Ready/At Risk/Not Ready). Use before any product launch to catch critical gaps.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • RhyGSkill

    write-prd

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • OpenAISkill

    market-sizing

    Estimate market, segment, or opportunity size with transparent assumptions and uncertainty. Use for TAM/SAM/SOM, sizing scenarios, or comparing the scale of possible opportunities.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MetaSkill

    roadmap

    Build, continue, inspect, or visualize a source-grounded mathematical roadmap and theorem DAG in an existing Autoform Markdown blueprint. Use for source research, repository-wide inventories of existing and planned mathematics, scope, coverage, milestones, and roadmap articles; do not create repository infrastructure or prove Lean declarations.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • dillonluiSkill

    design-review

    Review a view or flow for UX and UI issues. Provides severity-ranked, actionable findings grounded in established design heuristics. Use when the user asks for design feedback, UX review, or UI critique.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every update has exactly these, in this order:

    line 33
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not bury a blocker below the fold - no one reads paragraph four, and an unread ask is an unmade ask.

    line 90
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not list activity instead of outcomes - meetings held is effort, not progress.

    line 91
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not surprise stakeholders with a red that was amber for weeks - the earlier flag was the cheap moment to ask for help.

    line 92
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not send the same wall of text to every tier - executives who scroll past detail once will skip the email entirely next time.

    line 93
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not write asks without a named owner and date - "leadership should be aware" produces awareness, not action.

    line 94
  7. Distinctive:

    Every ask has one name and one date.

    line 100

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Stakeholder Update

Stakeholders are busy and skim. A good update answers their questions before they ask them, in under 60 seconds of reading. The costly failure is the buried blocker: the ask that sat in paragraph four for three weeks, unread, until the project went red and the stakeholder's first question was "why am I hearing this now?"

Inputs to collect

  1. Audience tier (see below) - this decides length and vocabulary before anything else.
  2. Honest status: on track, at risk, or off track - and the one thing driving that call.
  3. Decisions made since the last update, with who made them.
  4. Asks: what is needed, from whom, by when. If there are none, confirm that is really true.
  5. Next 2-3 milestones with target dates.
  6. Cadence and send time - same day, same time, every time.

Audience tiering

One project, different updates. Write the core once, then tier it; sending the team-tier update to executives is how updates stop being read.

  • Executive tier (sponsors, VPs): status line + one sentence of context + asks only. 60 seconds max, under 100 words. They act on exactly two things: the RAG signal and the asks. Cut decisions and milestones to links unless a decision needs their sign-off.
  • Peer tier (adjacent leads, PMs, dependent teams): the full four-section format below, core under 150 words. They need decisions (which may affect them) and milestones (which they schedule against).
  • Team tier (the working group): the four sections plus the Details block - metrics, links, technical context. This is the source document the other two tiers are cut from, never the other way around.

Rule: write for the peer tier by default, compress upward for executives, expand downward for the team. If one email goes to all tiers, structure it so the executive can stop after "Help needed" and lose nothing they act on.

The four sections

Every update has exactly these, in this order:

  1. Status - one-line health signal + a sentence of context.
  2. Decisions made - what was decided since the last update, and by whom.
  3. Help needed - explicit asks, each with an owner and a deadline. This is what gets you unblocked; make it the most scannable section.
  4. Next milestones - what is coming and when.

Skeleton

Subject: [FILL: project] Update - [FILL: date] - [FILL: On track / At risk / Off track]

Status: [FILL: Green / Amber / Red]
[FILL: one sentence of context - the single most important thing this period]

Decisions made:
- [FILL: decision] - [FILL: decider] - [FILL: date]

Help needed:
- [FILL: specific ask] - owner: [FILL: named person] - needed by: [FILL: date]

Next milestones:
- [FILL: milestone] - [FILL: target date]

Details (optional - team tier only):
[FILL: links, metrics, deeper context]

The RAG status - the honesty rules

  • Green - on track, no help needed.
  • Amber - at risk; there is a specific, nameable thing that could derail it. Name it in the status sentence.
  • Red - off track; a decision or resource is needed now, and the "Help needed" section says exactly which.

Sandbagging - reporting green when it is amber - destroys trust the moment reality hits, and one surprise red erases a year of credible greens. Flagging amber early is the mark of a strong owner, not a weak one. If the status has been amber for two consecutive updates with the same cause, escalate it as an explicit ask; amber is a flag, not a parking spot.

Writing rules

  • Lead with the signal. Status first, context second - bottom line up front, always.
  • Make asks unmissable. Each ask names one person and one date. "We could use more support" is not an ask; "Need Priya's sign-off on the vendor contract by Friday the 14th" is.
  • Quantify when possible. "70% complete, 2 of 3 integrations done" beats "good progress" - the second is unverifiable, the first is a claim someone can check.
  • Keep the core under 150 words (under 100 for the executive tier). Push depth into Details or a linked doc.
  • Report outcomes, not activity. "Aligned on scope with legal" - not "had 5 meetings with legal."
  • Be consistent. Same format, same section order, same send time, so readers learn where to look - weekly for active projects, biweekly for slow-burn.

Worked contrast

Bad status line: "Things are moving along, some challenges but the team is working hard." (No signal, no cause, unverifiable, and the reader learns nothing they can act on.)

Good status line: "Amber - API migration is 1 week behind because the vendor sandbox arrived late; recoverable if we get security review scheduled by the 20th (see ask below)." (Signal, cause, recovery condition, and a pointer to the ask.)

Deliverable

Produce the tiered update: the filled skeleton at the correct tier, core under the word budget, at least the status line and every ask carrying a name and a date, sent on the standing schedule.

Do NOT

  • Do not bury a blocker below the fold - no one reads paragraph four, and an unread ask is an unmade ask.
  • Do not list activity instead of outcomes - meetings held is effort, not progress.
  • Do not surprise stakeholders with a red that was amber for weeks - the earlier flag was the cheap moment to ask for help.
  • Do not send the same wall of text to every tier - executives who scroll past detail once will skip the email entirely next time.
  • Do not write asks without a named owner and date - "leadership should be aware" produces awareness, not action.

Quality bar

  • Readable in under 60 seconds at the target tier; core within the word budget.
  • The RAG status matches what the sender would say privately - no sandbagging.
  • Every ask has one name and one date; every milestone has a target date.
  • A reader of the last three updates would not be surprised by this one's status.

Related skills

For rolling many teams' updates into one org-level report, use eng-status-rollup - it aggregates; this skill writes the single-project source it aggregates from. Investor letters have different anatomy (metrics, runway, asks to VCs) - use investor-update-writer. Customer-facing incident comms belong to status-page-update, and a one-off deep-dive summary for leadership is executive-summary territory.

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.