stakeholder-comms-planner

Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates. Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information, designing the communication rhythm, building reporting structures for multi-jurisdiction programmes, or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes. Trigger on: 'stakeholder map', 'who needs to be kept informed', 'communication plan', 'reporting structure', 'who do we report to', 'how often do we meet', 'client wants more updates', 'new contact on the client side', 'build the comms plan', 'reporting hierarchy', 'HQ vs regions', 'who is the decision maker', 'comms rhythm', 'meeting cadence', 'status call schedule'.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A genuinely expert, highly actionable body with strong workflow gating and concrete templates, but it is a long monolithic document with some conceptual padding and no progressive-disclosure structure splitting the domain-knowledge sections into reference files.

Suggestions

Tighten the prose rationale sections (e.g. 'The problem this skill solves', 'The most common communication failure') into terse directives; assume Claude grasps the LPM context and keep only non-obvious guidance.

Move the three 'Domain Knowledge' blocks (stakeholder mapping, communication planning, reporting hierarchy) into separate reference files (e.g. MAPPING.md, PLANNING.md, HIERARCHY.md) and keep SKILL.md as an overview with one-level-deep links.

Confirm the pre-flight identifier gate applies uniformly — Mode 4's 'produce from change description' path loosens the gate; state explicitly which identifiers are still required versus inferred in that path.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body runs ~289 lines and, while much is high-value domain knowledge Claude lacks, it includes explanatory prose ('The problem this skill solves...', rationale paragraphs) that could be tightened; not every token earns its place.	2 / 3
Actionability	Gives copy-paste-ready guidance: exact column headers ('use exactly'), enumerated required Mode 4 outputs, and concrete WRONG/RIGHT substitution pairs for privilege and consultation statements.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Modes are clearly sequenced with a pre-flight identifier-confirmation gate, explicit flag-before-implement sequencing for union comms, and 'only proceed when' gating that functions as a validation checkpoint.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is a single monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files or external references; domain-knowledge sections (mapping, planning, hierarchy) that could live in separate reference files are all inline.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, third-person description that names specific capabilities, provides an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, and lists natural trigger terms users would say. It is comprehensive without padding and clearly distinct from neighbouring legal skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates' — each a specific deliverable rather than vague language.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (the four design/maintenance activities) and when ('Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information... or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes').	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Extensive natural-language triggers users would actually say: 'stakeholder map', 'who needs to be kept informed', 'communication plan', 'reporting structure', 'comms rhythm', 'meeting cadence', 'HQ vs regions'.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clearly niched legal-project-management scope with distinctive triggers ('HQ vs regions', 'comms rhythm', 'reporting hierarchy') unlikely to fire for adjacent skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: legalopsconsulting/lpm-skills
Commit: 178ed52

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.