PM - Team Roster + Decision Rights

Agent mode (--agent)

Supports --agent: runs autonomously in a subagent, drafts the artifact from existing inputs, and returns a short summary + coverage note.

• No flag → interactive (default); if inputs are heavy, offer agent mode.
• --agent → obey. First check inputs are complete. Anything missing: do NOT invent it - mark [ASSUMED - what/why] in the output and summary. Never hallucinate to fill a gap.

Standalone run

Runs with or without a Pureinn workspace - it needs no other skill's artifact, so it works as a single tool from an install that never ran /pureinn.

• No workspace: create just the folder this skill writes into, or write to a path the user names, and say where the file went. Do not scaffold a project, do not invent a state.json, and do not send the user to /pureinn first.
• Read pureinn-variables.md / state.json where a value is actually used, not at the top of the run. Missing value: continue and name the capability it costs.

What this skill does

Generates three artifacts:

1. Team Roster - Core team members, roles, availability
2. Decision Rights Matrix - Who has final say on what
3. Skill Gap Assessment - What the team is missing and how to address it

Dependencies

Recommended before running:

• pm-project-charter - scope and constraints define team requirements
• pm-stakeholder-map - RACI context, decision authority already partially defined there

Produces artifacts used by:

• pm-comms-charter - team size, timezones, tools inform communication setup
• Phase 6-7 skills - team capacity affects stripe planning and delivery

Step 0: Current state check

Check for existing artifacts:

• Team Roster
• Decision Rights Matrix
• Skill Gap Assessment

Also check: does a Project Charter exist? Cross-reference budget constraints vs. team plan. Does a Stakeholder Map / RACI exist? Check for decision authority conflicts.

Look for: unfilled roles (TBD), gaps without mitigation plan, decision areas with no clear owner, skill gaps that block Phase 6 start.

Re-run behavior (delta mode): If these artifacts already exist, do not redraft blank. Compare new answers against the existing roster/matrix/assessment, show what changed (new hires, filled gaps, new decision owners), and update only what the new input supports.

Interaction: Group related questions (2-4 per round) and confirm before moving on. For any A/B/C/D choice, use the AskUserQuestion tool with one option marked (Recommended) - never print options as plain text. Keep open-ended questions free-text (don't fake options). If the user is unsure, propose 3-4 concrete options plus "Other". Surface an assumption the moment you make one; never fabricate to fill a gap. (Full standard: CLAUDE.md.)

Step 1: Gather inputs

Ask questions in 2 groups. After each group show a summary and wait for confirmation before continuing.

Group 1 of 2 - Team

Ask all as plain text:

List the core team members. For each person: role, full-time or part-time (what %), and whether they are an employee, contractor, or co-founder.

After answers, confirm: "Is this the complete team for this project?"

Group 2 of 2 - Decision rights and gaps

Ask all as plain text:

Who has the final say in each of these areas: product scope and priorities, technical decisions (architecture, stack), design and UX direction, budget and hiring, Go/No-Go at phase gates?

What is currently missing or weak in the team? What roles or skills are gaps?

How do you plan to address those gaps? (hire, contractor, outsource, skip for now, other)

After answers, show complete team inputs summary. Ask for final confirmation before generating the artifact.

Step 2: Generate artifacts

Generate all documents in English.

ARTIFACT 1: Team Roster

# Team Roster - [Product Name]

> **Version:** 1.0 · **Date:** [date]

---

## Core Team

| Name | Role | Type | Availability | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name/TBD] | PM | Internal | 100% | Product ownership, stakeholder communication, phase gates |
| [Name/TBD] | Tech Lead | Internal | 100% | Architecture decisions, tech feasibility, code quality |
| [Name/TBD] | FE Developer | [Type] | [%] | [Responsibility] |
| [Name/TBD] | BE Developer | [Type] | [%] | [Responsibility] |
| [Name/TBD] | UX Designer | [Type] | [%] | [Responsibility] |
| [Name/TBD] | QA | [Type] | [%] | [Responsibility] |

---

## Extended Team / Advisors

| Name / Role | Type | Involvement | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal | External | Ad-hoc | Phase 1, Phase 4 (GDPR) |
| Data Analyst | [Type] | Part-time | Phase 8+ (Beta, Launch) |

---

## Team Capacity

**Total capacity:** [X] effective FTE
**Peak capacity (Phase 6-7 Build):** [Y] FTE
**Critical dependency:** [If one person leaves / gets sick, what breaks]

Compute effective FTE honestly - do not sum the stated percentages. Apply these discounts and show the math in the table:

• Context switching: a person at 50% on this project delivers ~35-40% (the switch cost is real); anyone split across 3+ projects counts at max 25% here regardless of what they say.
• Wearing multiple hats: a founder doing PM + sales + support counts only the hours left for this project's execution, not their total time.
• If discounted peak build capacity looks insufficient for Phase 6-7 (as a rough floor: less than ~1.5 effective FTE of engineering for an MVP build), flag it now as a 🔴 gap in the Skill Gap Assessment - discovering it in Phase 6 costs months.

ARTIFACT 2: Decision Rights Matrix

# Decision Rights Matrix - [Product Name]

> Each decision has one **owner** (Final Say). Others may consult.

---

| Decision area | Final Say | Consulted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Product** | | | |
| MVP scope definition | [PM] | [Tech Lead, CEO] | |
| Feature prioritization | [PM] | [Tech Lead, UX] | |
| Scope change during build | [PM + Tech Lead] | [CEO] | Changes >X days = escalate to CEO |
| Phase Go/No-Go | [PM + CEO] | [Tech Lead, CFO] | |
| **Technology** | | | |
| Tech stack selection | [Tech Lead] | [PM, CTO] | |
| Architecture decisions | [Tech Lead] | [PM] | |
| Tech debt prioritization | [Tech Lead] | [PM] | |
| **Design** | | | |
| UX direction and flow | [UX Designer] | [PM] | |
| Design system | [UX Designer] | [Tech Lead] | |
| **Business** | | | |
| Budget approval | [CEO/CFO] | [PM] | |
| Hiring decisions | [CEO] | [PM, Tech Lead] | |
| Investor communication | [CEO] | [PM] | |
| Pricing model | [CEO + PM] | [CFO] | |

ARTIFACT 3: Skill Gap Assessment

# Skill Gap Assessment - [Product Name]

> **Goal:** Identify what the team is missing and have a plan before Phase 4+ (Build phases).

---

## Gap Analysis

| Skill / Role | Current state | Gap | Criticality | Mitigation | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backend development | [Who / seniority / %] | [What's missing] | 🔴 Critical | [Hire / contractor] | [By Phase X] |
| QA / Testing | [Who / seniority / %] | [What's missing] | 🟡 Medium | [Plan] | [By Phase X] |
| Data Analytics | Nobody | Completely missing | 🟢 Low | External / Phase 8+ | Phase 9 Beta |
| [Other skill] | | | | | |

**Criticality:**
- 🔴 Critical - without this we cannot start Phase 6 (Build)
- 🟡 Medium - slows us down, but we have a workaround
- 🟢 Low - needed later, we have time

---

## Mitigation Plan

### Immediate actions (by end of Phase 1)
- [ ] [Action 1 - e.g. "Post Tech Lead position by [date]"]
- [ ] [Action 2]

### Short-term (by Phase 4)
- [ ] [Action 3]

### Long-term (Phase 6+)
- [ ] [Action 4]

---

**Team risk assessment:**
[One-sentence summary: Is the team sufficient for Phase 1-5? What is the biggest risk?]

Internal completeness checklist

Team Roster must cover:

• Product Manager identified (name, availability %, type)
• UX/UI Designer identified (UX and UI - same person or split?)
• Tech Lead / Architect identified
• QA coverage addressed (dedicated lead or shared responsibility)
• Marketing / GTM Lead addressed (internal or external, when needed)
• Data Analyst addressed (needed if product is data-driven / AI)
• For AI products: AI/ML engineer or data scientist identified or gap flagged
• For SaaS: DevOps / Platform engineer addressed (CI/CD, cloud infra)
• Single point of failure identified (who, what breaks if they leave)

Decision Rights Matrix must cover:

• Product scope and priorities - one owner
• Tech stack selection - one owner
• Design approval - one owner
• Budget and hiring - one owner
• Go/No-Go at each phase gate - one owner
• Level of product team autonomy stated (can PM decide scope alone or needs CEO approval?)
• For AI products: model and data decisions ownership defined

Skill Gap Assessment must cover:

• All critical gaps identified with severity (Critical / Medium / Low)
• Mitigation plan per gap (hire, contractor, outsource, skip until phase X)
• Timeline per mitigation (by when must gap be resolved before it blocks Phase 6)
• For SaaS/AI: cloud infrastructure expertise gap assessed
• For AI products: AI ethics / responsible AI competency assessed

Save to

pureinn-workspace/[project-slug]/artifacts/phase-1-foundation/team-roster.md
pureinn-workspace/[project-slug]/artifacts/phase-1-foundation/decision-rights-matrix.md
pureinn-workspace/[project-slug]/artifacts/phase-1-foundation/skill-gap-assessment.md

Handoff

Čo si teraz má: Roly, zodpovednosti a decision rights v tíme - jasné kto čo vlastní a kde sú skill gapy.

Ďalší krok: /pm-comms-charter — komunikačná kadencia a meeting rhythm pre tieto roly. Alebo /pureinn pre Phase 1 gate check.

Môžeš preskočiť ak: Si solo builder - žiadny tím na koordináciu, choď rovno do Phase 2 (/pm-tech-feasibility).