manager-coach
Skill0 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Produce learning for department and function managers from a ProbeMatrix investigation export - maintenance, operations, engineering, integrity, HSE, procurement or training managers - focused on the systems, procedures, resources, priorities and leading indicators they own, with a 90-day improvement agenda per function. Use when someone asks what managers or department heads should change after an investigation, wants a management action agenda, departmental lessons, KPIs or leading indicators, or a management-review input from an incident.
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- auditor-assurance-packSkill
- barrier-learningsSkill
- board-briefSkill
- causal-mapSkill
- cluster-learning-dossierSkill
- emergency-response-learningsSkill
- engineering-integrity-learningsSkill
- frontline-learning-cardsSkill
- interface-learningsSkill
- investigator-coachSkill
- learning-clustersSkill
- learnings-coachSkill
- learnings-registerSkill
- organisation-learning-mapSkill
- precursor-timelineSkill
- report-comparisonSkill
- safety-committee-guideSkill
- site-leadership-coachSkill
- supervisor-coachSkill
- supply-chain-contractor-learningsSkill
- top-management-briefSkill
- training-designerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
If the user names a function, add --entity <F-id>.
- Very specific: line 33
Write the pack <run>/outputs/manager-coach.json (schema: learnings-coach/references/pack-schema.md), then:
≈ “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.
Files
Manager Coach
Audience: T3 function and department management. They own procedures, resources and priorities inside a function. Their learning is mostly at Supervision (L3) and Organisational (L4) level.
Engine: PMLC = python3 <skills-root>/learnings-coach/scripts/pmlc.py (this skill needs the learnings-coach skill installed alongside it). Read learnings-coach/references/learning-principles.md and the leading-indicator guidance in output-style.md.
Gather
PMLC select <ws> --tier T3 --brief
PMLC select <ws> --tier T3 --level 3 4 --top-rated
PMLC select <ws> --relation owner absent --brief # systems they own; functions that did not exist
PMLC interfaces <ws> --top 15If the user names a function, add --entity <F-id>; otherwise produce one section per function with T3 findings, largest first.
For each function, write
- What your system allowed: three to six system learnings (procedures missing or not used, schedules that slid, records that hid information, resources short, roles absent).
- Interfaces you share: from
interfaces, the seams with other functions and what to agree with them. - Recommendations: what should change, control tier, evidence.
- Leading indicators: two to four, measurable from systems the function already has (CMMS, permits, training records, audit tracker).
- 90-day agenda: first 30 days (verify the condition still exists, quick containment), 60 (system change drafted with the people who do the work), 90 (indicator in the monthly report). No names or dates unless asked.
Output
Write the pack <run>/outputs/manager-coach.json (schema: learnings-coach/references/pack-schema.md), then:
PMLC check-pack <ws> <run>/outputs/manager-coach.json # fix every problem it lists
PMLC pack <ws> <run>/outputs/manager-coach.json # -> manager-coach.html (primary) and manager-coach.mdSections → kinds. Write one section per function (id = the function, e.g. mechanical-maintenance), with each part as a group:
- What your system allowed:
learning×3–6 (owner= the function that owns the change, not who "was involved"; seelearning-principles.md). - Interfaces you share:
para. - Recommendations:
recommendation(change, hoc_tier, barrier, indicator). - Leading indicators:
indicator×2–4. - 90-day agenda:
table(Days, Action;row_cites).
End with a summary section: one table with columns Function, Top learning, Top recommendation and Indicator.
Set "scope": {"tiers": ["T3"]}. Put data-quality corrections in data_quality, findings left out on purpose in exclusions, and same-condition findings in supporting_cites.
{"kind": "learning", "group": "What your system allowed", "lesson": "Return to service relied on memory, not a checklist.",
"explanation": "…", "owner": "Maintenance function", "cites": ["FND-…"]}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
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.

