manager-coaching-cadence
Skill14 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design a repeatable manager coaching cadence for revenue teams, including weekly agendas, prompts, and inspection loops. Use when the user asks to improve coaching consistency, create an ongoing rhythm, or operationalize call and deal coaching without heavy process. Route one-call analysis to call-review-coach and deal diagnostics to deal-inspection-coach.
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
- certification-program-builderSkill
- 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
- 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
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 20
Ask only for the inputs that change the rhythm:
- Distinctive: line 32
Read references/manager-coaching-cadence-template.md when calculating coverage, designing sessions, or defining escalation.
- Distinctive: line 37
Use observed work to distinguish a skill gap from a process, incentive, capacity, or territory problem.
- Distinctive: line 45
Use observation and commitment fields a manager will actually fill.
- Distinctive: line 46
Check application and adjust support.
- Distinctive: line 49
Use the organisation's established process and authority.
- Distinctive: line 66
Keep call examples brief and relevant to the session.
- Distinctive: line 72
Every commitment has an owner, a date, and a proof a manager can check.
- Distinctive: line 75
Follow-up allows for the rep's actual opportunity to use the behaviour.
≈ “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 coaching cadence
Design a sustainable coaching rhythm that helps reps practise a specific behaviour and apply it in live work.
A coaching cycle connects observation, feedback, rehearsal, application, and follow-up. Its frequency depends on the opportunities reps have to use the skill and the time managers can protect. A single recorded-call review belongs in call-review-coach; a deal diagnosis belongs in deal-inspection-coach.
Coaching. "The AE ended a discovery call with 'I'll follow up'. In the 1:1, replay the close, ask what they wanted to achieve, and rehearse a mutual next step. On the next eligible call, listen for the buyer agreeing an action, owner, and date."
Status. "Managers will coach more consistently and hold reps accountable to a culture of excellence."
The manager should leave with a behaviour to coach and a realistic way to check its use.
Inputs
Ask only for the inputs that change the rhythm:
- Team type, role mix, and how many reps
- Behaviours worth coaching, the evidence for them, and opportunities to apply them
- Protected coaching time and existing meetings
- Evidence they can actually review: calls, deals, CRM, notes
- Who may see coaching notes, and where formal performance management begins
Use current supplied context first, or relevant sections of .enablement/context.md if available. If the target behaviour or evidence is unknown, propose a small observation sample and a review decision before presenting a full cadence as ready. For a change to an existing rhythm, revise only the affected sessions and follow-up.
Supporting material
Read references/manager-coaching-cadence-template.md when calculating coverage, designing sessions, or defining escalation. For a narrow edit, consult only the relevant section.
Procedure
- Choose the coaching focus. Use observed work to distinguish a skill gap from a process, incentive, capacity, or territory problem. Select a small set of team priorities and one focus per session. Each focus must describe what the rep will do differently and where it matters.
- Calculate capacity before coverage. Include evidence review, individual sessions, group practice, scheduling, and follow-up. Reserve time for outstanding application checks before adding new cycles. If demand exceeds protected time, prioritize by observed need, use group practice for a shared gap, and show who rotates. The complete time budget must reconcile; shortening preparation does not resolve excess demand.
- Choose a rhythm that fits the work. Match follow-up to the next realistic opportunity to apply the behaviour. A high-volume team may generate evidence daily; an enterprise rep may need longer. Label new days and deadlines proposed until confirmed.
- Design a session the manager can run. Review a relevant example together and ask what the rep intended. Identify one effective behaviour to retain and one change supported by the evidence. Rehearse the change, give specific feedback, and check whether the retry demonstrates it. Agree where the rep will apply it and what evidence both will review. Budget time for practice as well as discussion.
- Capture only role-relevant evidence. Use observation and commitment fields a manager will actually fill. Automated scores are leads, not findings. The rep can add context or correct the record.
- Check application and adjust support. Compare the agreed behaviour with the next eligible work sample. If it is absent, check opportunity, understanding, practice, and workflow barriers before concluding that coaching failed. Report trends only when evidence is comparable and sufficient.
- Define the boundary with formal performance management. Use the organisation's established process and authority. If none is supplied, identify the decision owner and evidence needed; do not create promotion or escalation counts. Keep developmental notes separate and exclude unrelated personal information.
- Set up the first cycle. Name the participants, evidence to review, practice task, follow-up opportunity, and time allocation. Leave unsupplied owners or commitments unresolved.
For one call use call-review-coach. For one deal use deal-inspection-coach. For a practice drill use roleplay-scenario-builder.
What to return
Return the requested cadence or a focused revision. For a new cadence, lead with a compact run sheet the manager can use this week:
- Focus, rep coverage, and complete time budget
- A reusable session guide: review, reflection, feedback, rehearsal, application
- One small record of the commitment, evidence, and next check
- The next cycle's priorities, including outstanding checks and any missing baseline
Explain only the trade-offs the manager needs to run or adapt the plan. Keep formal performance-process guidance brief unless escalation is part of the request. Do not repeat the same safeguards in the agenda, tracker, and closing checklist.
Keep call examples brief and relevant to the session. Do not share employee records or schedule meetings without explicit approval.
Quality bar
- Capacity math is visible, and review time is not compressed to make coverage look fine.
- Each session includes feedback, practice, and a check of application.
- Every commitment has an owner, a date, and a proof a manager can check.
- Generated days and cutoffs are proposed or unresolved, not invented policy.
- Coaching records stay separate from formal performance records.
- Follow-up allows for the rep's actual opportunity to use the behaviour.
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.

