certification-program-builder
Skill14 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create role-based readiness certifications with evidence requirements, defensible pass/fail standards, behaviorally anchored scoring, and assessor calibration. Use when the user asks to design or govern certification standards, practical assessments, assessor guides, retakes, or recertification for sales or customer-facing roles. Route learning sequence, practice, and broader ramp planning to onboarding-program-builder.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- account-brief-builderSkill
- battlecard-builderSkill
- call-insights-to-objectionsSkill
- call-review-coachSkill
- case-study-extractorSkill
- content-gap-analysisSkill
- content-governance-systemSkill
- deal-inspection-coachSkill
- discovery-and-demo-structureSkill
- discovery-rubric-auditorSkill
- enablement-house-styleSkill
- enablement-impact-storySkill
- enablement-metrics-and-instrumentationSkill
- enablement-program-designSkill
- enablement-routerSkill
- executive-briefing-builderSkill
- field-feedback-synthesizerSkill
- forecast-risk-briefSkill
- manager-coaching-cadenceSkill
- mutual-action-plan-builderSkill
- objection-library-builderSkill
- onboarding-program-builderSkill
- onboarding-to-value-playbookSkill
- one-pager-and-slide-outlineSkill
- partner-enablement-packageSkill
- pipeline-stage-definition-and-exit-criteriaSkill
- product-launch-enablementSkill
- proposal-rfp-orchestratorSkill
- qbr-ebr-builderSkill
- quarterly-enablement-plannerSkill
- release-notes-to-seller-updatesSkill
- renewal-and-expansion-enablementSkill
- revenue-enablement-contextSkill
- roleplay-scenario-builderSkill
- talk-track-builderSkill
- value-prop-and-positioningSkill
- win-loss-synthesisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 16
If two assessors cannot score the same evidence the same way, you do not have a standard yet.
- Distinctive: line 22
Ask only for the inputs that change the standard:
- Distinctive: line 30
Do not invent a pass mark from convenience.
- Distinctive: line 34
Read references/certification-scoring-rules.md for anchors, hard fails, and calibration.
- Distinctive: line 38
Write the readiness claim.
- Very specific: line 44
Write behavior anchors and practical prompts.
- Distinctive: line 54
Write decision, appeal, retake, accommodation, recertification, and version rules.
- Very specific: line 72
Do not write the ramp curriculum.
≈ “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
Certification program builder
Define the work a person must demonstrate before they can perform a role or task independently.
Certification states what a person may do after they pass, and what evidence proves it. The ramp that prepares them is onboarding-program-builder. A practice drill may supply a scenario; it does not set the decision.
Observable gate. "Certified AE may run first-call discovery unsupervised. Pass: independently gets problem, cost, and a mutual next step. Hard fail: invents a customer result."
Quiz. "80% on the product quiz plus manager sign-off."
If two assessors cannot score the same evidence the same way, you do not have a standard yet.
Inputs
Reuse supplied context first. If a missing company fact would change the result, check the relevant sections of .enablement/context.md when available. Preserve source dates and approval limits.
Ask only for the inputs that change the standard:
- Role, critical tasks, and the failures this gate must catch
- What the result will control, and who owns the job standard
- Authentic evidence already available, plus examples of ready and not-ready work
- Assessor group, cohort size, and evaluation capacity
- Accommodation, retake, and recertification constraints
Do not invent a pass mark from convenience. Course completion, tenure, confidence, and manager familiarity are not readiness evidence.
Supporting material
Read references/certification-scoring-rules.md for anchors, hard fails, and calibration. Skip it if the user already has a governed rubric and only wants retake or recertification rules.
Procedure
- Write the readiness claim. What they may do, in which situations, with what independence. Done when a manager can use that sentence to grant or withhold work.
- Derive the smallest set of dimensions that covers the job and its material failure risks. Each dimension must distinguish competent from unsafe or ineffective work. Use knowledge checks for prerequisites where appropriate; they cannot replace demonstration of the task.
- Define authentic evidence for each dimension. Type, minimum quantity, allowed support, critical errors. Done when a quiz cannot substitute for the work.
- Write behavior anchors and practical prompts.
Dimension-specific
1through4. Generic labels are not a rubric. - Set the standard at minimally competent independent performance.
Overall threshold, critical-dimension minimums, non-compensable hard fails. Mark it
provisionaluntil the owner and a pilot support it. - Pilot on ready, borderline, and not-ready work samples. Investigate unexpected results against the task, anchors, accessibility, and independent evidence of competence. Revise the assessment or the prior classification as the evidence warrants; do not move the threshold simply to obtain a preferred pass rate.
- Calibrate assessors. Independent benchmark scoring, variance review, rescore gate. Do not go live while hard-fail calls still disagree.
- Test delivery capacity.
Demand, assessor time, moderation, accommodations, retakes. Return
fits,reduce,sequence, orblocked. - Write decision, appeal, retake, accommodation, recertification, and version rules.
- Ship the pack with owner, version, validation status, and the delivery decision.
A high score on a safe dimension cannot buy off a hard fail. Material rubric changes get a new version. Prior decisions keep the standard they used.
What to return
For a new standard, return the pack below. For a rubric, retake, or recertification revision, return the changed rules and their effects on prior decisions:
- Readiness claim and the job-task map
- Evidence plan: authenticity, quantity, support, critical errors
- Anchored rubric and practical prompts
- Pass/fail logic with owner, version, and
provisionalorvalidated - Decision, moderation, appeal, and retake rules
- Recertification window and change triggers
- Calibration pack: benchmarks, agreement gate, drift checks
- Capacity ledger and
fits/reduce/sequence/blocked
Do not write the ramp curriculum. That is onboarding-program-builder.
Quality bar
- Pass requires observable job evidence, not a course score.
- Two assessors would reach the same decision on the same evidence.
- Hard fails are non-compensable.
- The standard is
provisionaluntil owner review and pilot evidence exist. - Identity, tenure, and confidence are not scored.
- The assessment establishes readiness for the stated task and leaves curriculum design to the onboarding plan.
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.

