peer-prep
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Prepare partnership-oriented 1:1 talking points for a peer, manager, or cross-functional collaborator. Focuses on shared alignment, open commitments, and strategic topics. Use when prepping for a 1:1 with someone you do NOT manage.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- setupSkill
- enrich-prsSkill
- epic-cleanupSkill
- epic-overviewSkill
- oncall-reviewSkill
- sprint-managementSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- team-activitySkill
- team-data-syncSkill
- direct-report-prepSkill
- interview-analysisSkill
- interview-prepSkill
- project-statusSkill
- team-analysisSkill
- today-prioritiesSkill
- weekly-snippetSkill
- bus-factorSkill
- contribution-velocitySkill
- nine-boxSkill
- project-people-mapSkill
- review-cardsSkill
- review-cyclesSkill
- review-networkSkill
- team-health-reportSkill
- task-rolloverSkill
- context-checkSkill
- prep-my-daySkill
- initiative-breakdownSkill
- product-briefSkill
- technical-deep-diveSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 24
Use language that implies a reporting relationship
- Very specific: line 43
If the person is in members with "relationship": "direct", redirect to the direct-report-prep skill
- Distinctive: line 44
If not found, ask the user about the relationship
- Distinctive: line 60
Check active projects for references to this person
- Distinctive: line 65
Check for blockers, resource asks, or strategic alignment topics
- Very specific: line 99
If the person's relationship is "manager", include upward topics: escalations, resource asks, guidance needs.
≈ “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
Peer / Non-Direct 1:1 Prep
Prepare talking points for a 1:1 with a peer, manager, or cross-functional partner. Focuses on partnership, shared alignment, and open commitments rather than coaching.
When to use
- "Prep 1:1 with [peer name]", "peer 1:1", "talking points for [name]"
- As part of the
prep-my-dayorchestration skill (for non-direct-report 1:1s)
Key difference from direct report prep
This is NOT coaching prep. Do not:
- Analyze their code or PR quality
- Frame topics as coaching opportunities
- Use language that implies a reporting relationship
Instead focus on:
- Shared project alignment and partnership
- Open action items between the two of you
- Strategic discussion topics
- Things you need FROM this person or want to ALIGN ON
Prerequisites
- Team roster with the person listed under
collaborators - A People file for the person in the vault
relationshipfield:"peer"or"manager"
Process
Step 1: Identify the person
- Match to team roster
collaboratorsarray - If the person is in
memberswith"relationship": "direct", redirect to the direct-report-prep skill - If not found, ask the user about the relationship
Step 2: Gather data
From the vault:
- Read
People/{vault_name}.mdfor:- Open items and recent conversation notes
- Pending asks or commitments ("they were going to [do X]")
- Items tagged
#followup
From recent dailies (last 5-7 days):
- Mentions of the person
- Shared project context
- Decisions or commitments made
From project files:
- Check active projects for references to this person
- Cross-reference with current focus areas for alignment topics
For manager-relationship people:
- Surface items you may want to escalate or get guidance on
- Check for blockers, resource asks, or strategic alignment topics
Step 3: Build talking points
Open follow-ups — Commitments either person made. Frame as "did this happen?" not "why didn't you do this?"
Shared project alignment — Active projects you're both involved in. What decisions need to be made? Where might you be misaligned?
Partnership rhythms — Process questions: cadence, async communication, review workflows.
Strategic topics — Bigger-picture items: roadmap, cross-team dynamics, organizational context.
Reflections/feedback season — If it's feedback season, consider whether there are themes to discuss conversationally (but only if the user has flagged this or it's contextually relevant).
Step 4: Write to People file
Same format and rules as direct-report-prep:
#### [[Dailies/YYYY-MM-DD|YYYY-MM-DD]] 1:1
**Topic** (Follow-up)
- Follow up: context about the open item
**Topic** (Alignment)
- Ask: strategic question about shared workContext types: (Follow-up), (Alignment), (Partnership), (Strategic), (Escalation) (manager only)
Rules
- Same task/formatting rules as direct-report-prep (no new checkboxes, wikilinks, idempotent)
- Tone matters. This is a peer conversation. No coaching language, no implied hierarchy.
- If the person's relationship is
"manager", include upward topics: escalations, resource asks, guidance needs.
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.

