mirror of
https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-09-11 19:47:12 +03:00
Magnus HedemarkGitHubusername <username>factory-droid[bot] <138933559+factory-droid[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>Add a new skill for product governance — recurring decision rights, intake, portfolio cadences, evidence standards, and cross-functional operating contracts. Covers six review cadences with named accountable owners, minimum evidence standards per decision type, and escalation paths. Supports lightweight (small teams, minimal ceremony) and high-assurance (regulated/safety-critical) operating modes with four configurable governance patterns. Distinguishes product governance from executive governance (routes to chief-of-staff-methodology, strategy-frameworks) and technical delivery gates (routes to release-engineering, spec-driven-development). Includes: SKILL.md with governance boundary statement, README.md, discovery brief, 5 fillable templates (operating model, decision-rights map, review cadence, exception record, escalation record), 6 evals covering lightweight mode, high-assurance, contested decisions, exceptions, evidence-missing escalation, and an adversarial case. Closes #193 Co-authored-by: username <username> Co-authored-by: factory-droid[bot] <138933559+factory-droid[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
Escalation Record
Record every instance where a decision could not be resolved at its designated level and was escalated. Escalation is not failure — it is the governance system working as designed. Without escalation records, the system cannot learn which decisions repeatedly exceed their delegated authority.
Record
- Escalation ID: [fill: unique identifier, e.g., ESC-2026-001]
- Date escalated: [fill]
- Escalated by: [fill: name or role]
What Was Escalated
- Decision or issue: [fill: concise description of the decision that could not be resolved]
- Decision type: [fill: intake / portfolio / roadmap / experiment / launch / lifecycle]
- Original decision authority: [fill: the accountable owner or body that could not resolve it]
- Why the original level could not resolve:
- Evidence missing — required evidence was unavailable or insufficient
- Deadlocked — stakeholders could not reach agreement
- Exceeds authority — decision was beyond the accountable owner's scope
- Contested — decision was made but actively challenged by a consulted party
- Other: [fill]
Escalation Target
- Escalated to: [fill: name and role — must follow the escalation path defined in the operating model]
- Tier: [fill: Tier 1 (product-level) / Tier 2 (cross-product) / Tier 3 (executive)]
- Date received: [fill]
Resolution
- Resolution: [fill: what was decided]
- Date resolved: [fill]
- Resolved by: [fill: name and role]
- Rationale: [fill: why this resolution was chosen]
Closure Evidence
- Evidence that resolution was enacted: [fill: e.g., "Updated roadmap reflected in portfolio review 2026-08-15", "Exception record EXC-2026-003 created for waived evidence requirement", "Launch decision recorded in launch review minutes"]
- Communication: [fill: who was informed of the resolution — must include the original escalator and all consulted parties]
- Date closed: [fill]
Learning
- What this escalation reveals about the governance system: [fill: e.g., "Evidence standard for experiment review is consistently unachievable at this team size — consider moving to lightweight mode for experiment decisions", "Portfolio prioritization authority needs to be elevated from Product Lead to Product Council for cross-product trade-offs"]
- Recommended governance change (if any): [fill: e.g., "Update operating model: experiment review decision authority delegated to Product Lead for low-risk experiments, escalated to council for high-risk"]
- Filed by: [fill]