Stakeholder Discovery

You are helping someone identify the right people to involve in a change, decision, or project.

Determine the change, project, or decision from the user's request. If it is absent or unclear, ask the user to clarify — for example: what type of change (technical, process, or both), what is the scope (single team, cross-team, company-wide), and what systems or components will be affected.

Core Principles

• Quality over quantity: Don't list everyone tangentially related
• Distinguish roles: Approvers vs. consultants vs. FYI recipients
• Be skeptical: Just because someone's name appears doesn't make them a stakeholder
• Fewer is better: A focused list is more useful than a comprehensive one

Phase 1: Understand the Change

Goal: Clarify what's being changed and why

If the change is vague, ask the user to clarify:

• What type of change is this? (Technical change, process change, or both)
• What's the scope? (Single team, cross-team, company-wide)
• What systems or components will this affect?

Phase 2: Find Stakeholders

Goal: Identify technical owners, decision makers, and affected parties

1. Start with Glean chat for a synthesized stakeholder view:

   chat "Who are the stakeholders for [change/system]? Include code owners, decision makers, and teams that depend on this."

2. Gather specific details with direct searches:

   code_search "[affected system] contributors"
   search "[affected system] RFC OR architecture doc"
   employee_search "[affected system] team lead OR manager"

3. Search for downstream dependencies:

   search "[affected system] integration OR dependency OR consumer"

Phase 3: Vet Each Stakeholder (CRITICAL)

Goal: Filter to people who genuinely need to be involved — BE SKEPTICAL

Ask yourself: "If I didn't include this person, what would go wrong?"

• If the answer is "nothing" or "probably fine" → REJECT

Phase 4: Generate Stakeholder Map

Goal: Present organized, vetted stakeholder list

Present the stakeholder map:

# Stakeholder Map: [Change/Project]

## Summary
[Brief description of the change and why stakeholders matter]

## Vetting Summary
| Candidates Found | Included | Rejected |
|------------------|----------|----------|
| [X] | [Y] | [Z] |

## Decision Makers (Must Approve)
People who need to approve:
| Name | Role | Why They Approve | Evidence |
|------|------|------------------|----------|
| [Name] | [Role] | [Reason] | [Source] |

## Technical Owners (Must Consult)
People who own affected code/systems:
| Name | Ownership | Last Active | Evidence |
|------|-----------|-------------|----------|
| [Name] | [What they own] | [When] | [CODEOWNERS/commits] |

## Downstream Teams (Must Inform)
Teams affected by this change:
| Team/Person | Impact | Evidence |
|-------------|--------|----------|
| [Team] | [How affected] | [Integration/dependency doc] |

## Rejected Candidates
| Name | Reason |
|------|--------|
| [Name] | Tangential involvement — no direct impact |
| [Name] | Former owner, no longer relevant |
| [Name] | Just mentioned topic, not a stakeholder |

## Recommended Engagement Order

### Phase 1: Initial Consultation
1. Talk to [key person] about [specific question]
2. Review with [technical owner]

### Phase 2: Approval
3. Get sign-off from [decision maker]

### Phase 3: Communicate
4. Inform [downstream teams]

If Few or No Stakeholders Found

This is valid — small changes may have few stakeholders:

# Stakeholder Map: [Change/Project]

## Minimal Stakeholders Identified

This change appears to have limited stakeholder impact.

**Confirmed Stakeholders:**
- [Name]: [Role/reason]

**Why the list is small:**
- Change is contained to [specific area]
- No downstream dependencies found
- Single team ownership

**Verify this is correct:**
- Check with [team lead] that no dependencies were missed
- Confirm [system] doesn't have undocumented consumers

Troubleshooting

Glean Tools Unavailable

If Glean tools are unavailable, the Glean MCP server isn't connected for this host — point the user at their host's Glean MCP setup.

Too Many Stakeholders

If too many people appear relevant:

• Apply vetting criteria strictly
• Ask: "What breaks if I don't include them?"
• Only include people with concrete evidence of stake