agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/service-blueprint/SKILL.md

service-blueprint

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when improving service delivery, handoffs, operational reliability, or customer-facing execution. Use when applying the Service Blueprint consulting method and when a user asks for Service Blueprint, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Service Blueprint as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Start from a specific customer journey.

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not use when the service boundary and customer scenario are undefined or when backstage activities would have to be invented from a …

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 86

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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

Service Blueprint

Use this skill to run Service Blueprint as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Start from a specific customer journey.
  • Map customer actions, frontstage, backstage, support processes, systems, and evidence.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • service scope
  • customer journey
  • roles
  • systems and process evidence

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when the service boundary and customer scenario are undefined or when backstage activities would have to be invented from a frontstage complaint. Mark missing customer and process evidence explicitly.

Adjacent Methods

  • user-journey-mapping: user experience without backstage operations.
  • jobs-to-be-done: demand and switching logic.
  • empathy-map: perceptions of one actor.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Select service scenarioCustomer journey, service scope, user goal.Choose one journey scenario and outcome.Blueprint scope.
Map customer actionsJourney stages and touchpoints.Write customer-visible actions in sequence.Customer action row.
Map frontstage and evidencePeople, channels, scripts, forms, physical/digital evidence.Add visible service interactions and artifacts.Frontstage/evidence rows.
Map backstage and supportInternal teams, systems, policies, handoffs.Add backstage work, support processes, systems, and dependencies.Backstage/support rows.
Diagnose failuresCompleted blueprint.Identify handoff gaps, wait states, rework, missing ownership, and system constraints.Service improvement plan.

Output Template

### 1. Service Scope
Customer / segment:
Journey start / end:
Service outcome:
Evidence:

### 2. Blueprint
| Stage | Customer action | Frontstage | Evidence | Backstage | Support system |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Failures And Handoffs
| Point | Failure / delay | Cause | Owner | Customer impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 4. Improvement Plan
| Intervention | Owner | Timing | Service signal | Guardrail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Service Scope, Blueprint, Failures And Handoffs; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

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.