[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6H1SH1C4BBQAHMHGPRSTBAP":3,"skill-same:01M6H1SH1C4BBQAHMHGPRSTBAP":83},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":50,"commitSha":51,"skillDirectory":52,"forksCount":53,"repositoryHtmlUrl":54,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":55,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":56,"install":57,"resources":70},"01M6H1SH1C4BBQAHMHGPRSTBAP","strategic-alignment",null,"Cascades strategy from boardroom to individual contributor. Detects and fixes misalignment between company goals and team execution. Covers strategy articulation, cascade mapping, orphan goal detection, silo identification, communication gap analysis, and realignment protocols. Use when teams are pulling in different directions, OKRs don't connect, departments optimize locally at company expense, or when user mentions alignment, strategy cascade, silo, conflicting OKRs, or strategy communication.","micsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills","micsapp","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F82411001?v=4","01M6GWCFQ6D3PV8EHNY62NN5VW","01M6GWCFVE1PA5HG0DKC7AMFJ3",4,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fclaude-code\u002Fclaude-skills-192\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fstrategic-alignment\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"strategic","strategic alignment","alignment","fixes","teams","checker","silo","directions","team execution","identification","gap analysis","orphan","use","strategy","expense","team","analysis","execution","protocols","connect","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: \"strategic-alignment\"\ndescription: \"Cascades strategy from boardroom to individual contributor. Detects and fixes misalignment between company goals and team execution. Covers strategy articulation, cascade mapping, orphan goal detection, silo identification, communication gap analysis, and realignment protocols. Use when teams are pulling in different directions, OKRs don't connect, departments optimize locally at company expense, or when user mentions alignment, strategy cascade, silo, conflicting OKRs, or strategy communication.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  version: 1.0.0\n  author: Alireza Rezvani\n  category: c-level\n  domain: strategic-alignment\n  updated: 2026-03-05\n  python-tools: alignment_checker.py\n  frameworks: alignment-playbook\n---\n\n# Strategic Alignment Engine\n\nStrategy fails at the cascade, not the boardroom. This skill detects misalignment before it becomes dysfunction and builds systems that keep strategy connected from CEO to individual contributor.\n\n## Keywords\nstrategic alignment, strategy cascade, OKR alignment, orphan OKRs, conflicting goals, silos, communication gap, department alignment, alignment checker, strategy articulation, cross-functional, goal cascade, misalignment, alignment score\n\n## Quick Start\n\n```bash\npython scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py    # Check OKR alignment: orphans, conflicts, coverage gaps\n```\n\n## Core Framework\n\nThe alignment problem: **The further a goal gets from the strategy that created it, the less likely it reflects the original intent.** This is the organizational telephone game. It happens at every stage. The question is how bad it is and how to fix it.\n\n### Step 1: Strategy Articulation Test\n\nBefore checking cascade, check the source. Ask five people from five different teams:\n**\"What is the company's most important strategic priority right now?\"**\n\n**Scoring:**\n- All five give the same answer: ✅ Articulation is clear\n- 3–4 give similar answers: ? Loose alignment — clarify and communicate\n- \u003C 3 agree: ? Strategy isn't clear enough to cascade. Fix this before fixing cascade.\n\n**Format test:** The strategy should be statable in one sentence. If leadership needs a paragraph, teams won't internalize it.\n- ❌ \"We focus on product-led growth while maintaining enterprise relationships and expanding our international presence and investing in platform capabilities\"\n- ✅ \"Win the mid-market healthcare segment in DACH before Series B\"\n\n### Step 2: Cascade Mapping\n\nMap the flow from company strategy → each level of the organization.\n\n```\nCompany level:  OKR-1, OKR-2, OKR-3\n    ↓\nDept level:     Sales OKRs, Eng OKRs, Product OKRs, CS OKRs\n    ↓\nTeam level:     Team A OKRs, Team B OKRs...\n    ↓\nIndividual:     Personal goals \u002F rocks\n```\n\n**For each goal at every level, ask:**\n- Which company-level goal does this support?\n- If this goal is 100% achieved, how much does it move the company goal?\n- Is the connection direct or theoretical?\n\n### Step 3: Alignment Detection\n\nThree failure patterns:\n\n**Orphan goals:** Team or individual goals that don't connect to any company goal.\n- Symptom: \"We've been working on this for a quarter and nobody above us seems to care\"\n- Root cause: Goals set bottom-up or from last quarter's priorities without reconciling to current company OKRs\n- Fix: Connect or cut. Every goal needs a parent.\n\n**Conflicting goals:** Two teams' goals, when both succeed, create a worse outcome.\n- Classic example: Sales commits to volume contracts (revenue), CS is measured on satisfaction scores. Sales closes bad-fit customers; CS scores tank.\n- Fix: Cross-functional OKR review before quarter begins. Shared metrics where teams interact.\n\n**Coverage gaps:** Company has 3 OKRs. 5 teams support OKR-1, 2 support OKR-2, 0 support OKR-3.\n- Symptom: Company OKR-3 consistently misses; nobody owns it\n- Fix: Explicit ownership assignment. If no team owns a company OKR, it won't happen.\n\nSee `scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py` for automated detection against your JSON-formatted OKRs.\n\n### Step 4: Silo Identification\n\nSilos exist when teams optimize for local metrics at the expense of company metrics.\n\n**Silo signals:**\n- A department consistently hits their goals while the company misses\n- Teams don't know what other teams are working on\n- \"That's not our problem\" is a common phrase\n- Escalations only flow up; coordination never flows sideways\n- Data isn't shared between teams that depend on each other\n\n**Silo root causes:**\n1. **Incentive misalignment:** Teams rewarded for local metrics don't optimize for company metrics\n2. **No shared goals:** When teams share a goal, they coordinate. When they don't, they drift.\n3. **No shared language:** Engineering doesn't understand sales metrics; sales doesn't understand technical debt\n4. **Geography or time zones:** Silos accelerate when teams don't interact organically\n\n**Silo measurement:**\n- How often do teams request something from each other vs. proceed independently?\n- How much time does it take to resolve a cross-functional issue?\n- Can a team member describe the current priorities of an adjacent team?\n\n### Step 5: Communication Gap Analysis\n\nWhat the CEO says ≠ what teams hear. The gap grows with company size.\n\n**The message decay model:**\n- CEO communicates strategy at all-hands → managers filter through their lens → teams receive modified version → individuals interpret further\n\n**Gap sources:**\n- **Ambiguity:** Strategy stated at too high a level (\"grow the business\") lets each team fill in their own interpretation\n- **Frequency:** One all-hands per quarter isn't enough repetition to change behavior\n- **Medium mismatch:** Long written strategy doc for teams that respond to visual communication\n- **Trust deficit:** Teams don't believe the strategy is real (\"we've heard this before\")\n\n**Gap detection:**\n- Run the Step 1 articulation test across all levels\n- Compare what leadership thinks they communicated vs. what teams say they heard\n- Survey: \"What changed about how you work since the last strategy update?\"\n\n### Step 6: Realignment Protocol\n\nHow to fix misalignment without calling it a \"realignment\" (which creates fear).\n\n**Step 6a: Don't start with what's wrong**\nStarting with \"here's our misalignment\" creates defensiveness. Start with \"here's where we're heading and I want to make sure we're connected.\"\n\n**Step 6b: Re-cascade in a workshop, not a memo**\nAlignment workshops are more effective than documents. Get company-level OKR owners and department leads in a room. Map connections. Find gaps together.\n\n**Step 6c: Fix incentives before fixing goals**\nIf department heads are rewarded for local metrics that conflict with company goals, no amount of goal-setting fixes the problem. The incentive structure must change first.\n\n**Step 6d: Install a quarterly alignment check**\nAfter fixing, prevent recurrence. See `references\u002Falignment-playbook.md` for quarterly cadence.\n\n---\n\n## Alignment Score\n\nA quick health check. Score each area 0–10:\n\n| Area | Question | Score |\n|------|----------|-------|\n| Strategy clarity | Can 5 people from different teams state the strategy consistently? | \u002F10 |\n| Cascade completeness | Do all team goals connect to company goals? | \u002F10 |\n| Conflict detection | Have cross-team OKR conflicts been reviewed and resolved? | \u002F10 |\n| Coverage | Does each company OKR have explicit team ownership? | \u002F10 |\n| Communication | Do teams' behaviors reflect the strategy (not just their stated understanding)? | \u002F10 |\n\n**Total: __ \u002F 50**\n\n| Score | Status |\n|-------|--------|\n| 45–50 | Excellent. Maintain the system. |\n| 35–44 | Good. Address specific weak areas. |\n| 20–34 | Misalignment is costing you. Immediate attention required. |\n| \u003C 20 | Strategic drift. Treat as crisis. |\n\n---\n\n## Key Questions for Alignment\n\n- \"Ask your newest team member: what is the most important thing the company is trying to achieve right now?\"\n- \"Which company OKR does your team's top priority support? Can you trace the connection?\"\n- \"When Team A and Team B both hit their goals, does the company always win? Are there scenarios where they don't?\"\n- \"What changed in how your team works since the last strategy update?\"\n- \"Name a decision made last week that was influenced by the company strategy.\"\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- Teams consistently hit goals while company misses targets\n- Cross-functional projects take 3x longer than expected (coordination failure)\n- Strategy updated quarterly but team priorities don't change\n- \"That's a leadership problem, not our problem\" attitude at the team level\n- New initiatives announced without connecting them to existing OKRs\n- Department heads optimize for headcount or budget rather than company outcomes\n\n## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles\n\n| When... | Work with... | To... |\n|---------|-------------|-------|\n| New strategy is set | CEO + COO | Cascade into quarterly rocks before announcing |\n| OKR cycle starts | COO | Run cross-team conflict check before finalizing |\n| Team consistently misses goals | CHRO | Diagnose: capability gap or alignment gap? |\n| Silo identified | COO | Design shared metrics or cross-functional OKRs |\n| Post-M&A | CEO + Culture Architect | Detect strategy conflicts between merged entities |\n\n## Detailed References\n- `scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py` — Automated OKR alignment analysis (orphans, conflicts, coverage)\n- `references\u002Falignment-playbook.md` — Cascade techniques, quarterly alignment check, common patterns\n","# Strategic Alignment Engine\n\nStrategy fails at the cascade, not the boardroom. This skill detects misalignment before it becomes dysfunction and builds systems that keep strategy connected from CEO to individual contributor.\n\n## Keywords\nstrategic alignment, strategy cascade, OKR alignment, orphan OKRs, conflicting goals, silos, communication gap, department alignment, alignment checker, strategy articulation, cross-functional, goal cascade, misalignment, alignment score\n\n## Quick Start\n\n```bash\npython scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py    # Check OKR alignment: orphans, conflicts, coverage gaps\n```\n\n## Core Framework\n\nThe alignment problem: **The further a goal gets from the strategy that created it, the less likely it reflects the original intent.** This is the organizational telephone game. It happens at every stage. The question is how bad it is and how to fix it.\n\n### Step 1: Strategy Articulation Test\n\nBefore checking cascade, check the source. Ask five people from five different teams:\n**\"What is the company's most important strategic priority right now?\"**\n\n**Scoring:**\n- All five give the same answer: ✅ Articulation is clear\n- 3–4 give similar answers: ? Loose alignment — clarify and communicate\n- \u003C 3 agree: ? Strategy isn't clear enough to cascade. Fix this before fixing cascade.\n\n**Format test:** The strategy should be statable in one sentence. If leadership needs a paragraph, teams won't internalize it.\n- ❌ \"We focus on product-led growth while maintaining enterprise relationships and expanding our international presence and investing in platform capabilities\"\n- ✅ \"Win the mid-market healthcare segment in DACH before Series B\"\n\n### Step 2: Cascade Mapping\n\nMap the flow from company strategy → each level of the organization.\n\n```\nCompany level:  OKR-1, OKR-2, OKR-3\n    ↓\nDept level:     Sales OKRs, Eng OKRs, Product OKRs, CS OKRs\n    ↓\nTeam level:     Team A OKRs, Team B OKRs...\n    ↓\nIndividual:     Personal goals \u002F rocks\n```\n\n**For each goal at every level, ask:**\n- Which company-level goal does this support?\n- If this goal is 100% achieved, how much does it move the company goal?\n- Is the connection direct or theoretical?\n\n### Step 3: Alignment Detection\n\nThree failure patterns:\n\n**Orphan goals:** Team or individual goals that don't connect to any company goal.\n- Symptom: \"We've been working on this for a quarter and nobody above us seems to care\"\n- Root cause: Goals set bottom-up or from last quarter's priorities without reconciling to current company OKRs\n- Fix: Connect or cut. Every goal needs a parent.\n\n**Conflicting goals:** Two teams' goals, when both succeed, create a worse outcome.\n- Classic example: Sales commits to volume contracts (revenue), CS is measured on satisfaction scores. Sales closes bad-fit customers; CS scores tank.\n- Fix: Cross-functional OKR review before quarter begins. Shared metrics where teams interact.\n\n**Coverage gaps:** Company has 3 OKRs. 5 teams support OKR-1, 2 support OKR-2, 0 support OKR-3.\n- Symptom: Company OKR-3 consistently misses; nobody owns it\n- Fix: Explicit ownership assignment. If no team owns a company OKR, it won't happen.\n\nSee `scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py` for automated detection against your JSON-formatted OKRs.\n\n### Step 4: Silo Identification\n\nSilos exist when teams optimize for local metrics at the expense of company metrics.\n\n**Silo signals:**\n- A department consistently hits their goals while the company misses\n- Teams don't know what other teams are working on\n- \"That's not our problem\" is a common phrase\n- Escalations only flow up; coordination never flows sideways\n- Data isn't shared between teams that depend on each other\n\n**Silo root causes:**\n1. **Incentive misalignment:** Teams rewarded for local metrics don't optimize for company metrics\n2. **No shared goals:** When teams share a goal, they coordinate. When they don't, they drift.\n3. **No shared language:** Engineering doesn't understand sales metrics; sales doesn't understand technical debt\n4. **Geography or time zones:** Silos accelerate when teams don't interact organically\n\n**Silo measurement:**\n- How often do teams request something from each other vs. proceed independently?\n- How much time does it take to resolve a cross-functional issue?\n- Can a team member describe the current priorities of an adjacent team?\n\n### Step 5: Communication Gap Analysis\n\nWhat the CEO says ≠ what teams hear. The gap grows with company size.\n\n**The message decay model:**\n- CEO communicates strategy at all-hands → managers filter through their lens → teams receive modified version → individuals interpret further\n\n**Gap sources:**\n- **Ambiguity:** Strategy stated at too high a level (\"grow the business\") lets each team fill in their own interpretation\n- **Frequency:** One all-hands per quarter isn't enough repetition to change behavior\n- **Medium mismatch:** Long written strategy doc for teams that respond to visual communication\n- **Trust deficit:** Teams don't believe the strategy is real (\"we've heard this before\")\n\n**Gap detection:**\n- Run the Step 1 articulation test across all levels\n- Compare what leadership thinks they communicated vs. what teams say they heard\n- Survey: \"What changed about how you work since the last strategy update?\"\n\n### Step 6: Realignment Protocol\n\nHow to fix misalignment without calling it a \"realignment\" (which creates fear).\n\n**Step 6a: Don't start with what's wrong**\nStarting with \"here's our misalignment\" creates defensiveness. Start with \"here's where we're heading and I want to make sure we're connected.\"\n\n**Step 6b: Re-cascade in a workshop, not a memo**\nAlignment workshops are more effective than documents. Get company-level OKR owners and department leads in a room. Map connections. Find gaps together.\n\n**Step 6c: Fix incentives before fixing goals**\nIf department heads are rewarded for local metrics that conflict with company goals, no amount of goal-setting fixes the problem. The incentive structure must change first.\n\n**Step 6d: Install a quarterly alignment check**\nAfter fixing, prevent recurrence. See `references\u002Falignment-playbook.md` for quarterly cadence.\n\n---\n\n## Alignment Score\n\nA quick health check. Score each area 0–10:\n\n| Area | Question | Score |\n|------|----------|-------|\n| Strategy clarity | Can 5 people from different teams state the strategy consistently? | \u002F10 |\n| Cascade completeness | Do all team goals connect to company goals? | \u002F10 |\n| Conflict detection | Have cross-team OKR conflicts been reviewed and resolved? | \u002F10 |\n| Coverage | Does each company OKR have explicit team ownership? | \u002F10 |\n| Communication | Do teams' behaviors reflect the strategy (not just their stated understanding)? | \u002F10 |\n\n**Total: __ \u002F 50**\n\n| Score | Status |\n|-------|--------|\n| 45–50 | Excellent. Maintain the system. |\n| 35–44 | Good. Address specific weak areas. |\n| 20–34 | Misalignment is costing you. Immediate attention required. |\n| \u003C 20 | Strategic drift. Treat as crisis. |\n\n---\n\n## Key Questions for Alignment\n\n- \"Ask your newest team member: what is the most important thing the company is trying to achieve right now?\"\n- \"Which company OKR does your team's top priority support? Can you trace the connection?\"\n- \"When Team A and Team B both hit their goals, does the company always win? Are there scenarios where they don't?\"\n- \"What changed in how your team works since the last strategy update?\"\n- \"Name a decision made last week that was influenced by the company strategy.\"\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- Teams consistently hit goals while company misses targets\n- Cross-functional projects take 3x longer than expected (coordination failure)\n- Strategy updated quarterly but team priorities don't change\n- \"That's a leadership problem, not our problem\" attitude at the team level\n- New initiatives announced without connecting them to existing OKRs\n- Department heads optimize for headcount or budget rather than company outcomes\n\n## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles\n\n| When... | Work with... | To... |\n|---------|-------------|-------|\n| New strategy is set | CEO + COO | Cascade into quarterly rocks before announcing |\n| OKR cycle starts | COO | Run cross-team conflict check before finalizing |\n| Team consistently misses goals | CHRO | Diagnose: capability gap or alignment gap? |\n| Silo identified | COO | Design shared metrics or cross-functional OKRs |\n| Post-M&A | CEO + Culture Architect | Detect strategy conflicts between merged entities |\n\n## Detailed References\n- `scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py` — Automated OKR alignment analysis (orphans, conflicts, coverage)\n- `references\u002Falignment-playbook.md` — Cascade techniques, quarterly alignment check, common patterns\n",{"name":5,"license":14,"metadata":43,"description":7},{"author":44,"domain":5,"updated":45,"version":46,"category":47,"frameworks":48,"python-tools":49},"Alireza Rezvani",1772668800000,"1.0.0","c-level","alignment-playbook","alignment_checker.py","master","3f5d983eb4ef375b749adcd6b07ec03bd82ae8a8","claude-code\u002Fclaude-skills-192\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fstrategic-alignment",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp","2026-03-20 11:24:18",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":58,"prompt":68,"zipAvailable":69},[59,62,65],{"tool":60,"command":61},"npx","npx skills add micsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills --skill strategic-alignment",{"tool":63,"command":64},"bunx","bunx skills add micsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills --skill strategic-alignment",{"tool":66,"command":67},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add micsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills --skill strategic-alignment","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fclaude-code\u002Fclaude-skills-192\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fstrategic-alignment\u002FSKILL.md",true,[71,77],{"path":72,"resourceType":73,"resourceTypeDesc":74,"sizeBytes":75,"sourceHtmlUrl":76},"references\u002Falignment-playbook.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",8606,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fclaude-code\u002Fclaude-skills-192\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fstrategic-alignment\u002Freferences\u002Falignment-playbook.md",{"path":78,"resourceType":79,"resourceTypeDesc":80,"sizeBytes":81,"sourceHtmlUrl":82},"scripts\u002Falignment_checker.py","SCRIPT","脚本",17679,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fclaude-code\u002Fclaude-skills-192\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fstrategic-alignment\u002Fscripts\u002Falignment_checker.py",[84,120,150,170,189,214],{"skillNo":85,"name":86,"nameZh":6,"description":87,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":88,"categories":89,"keywords":100,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBTJ02FXBFG9NYEHHYAP52","azure-apim-architecture","Analyzes and explains Azure API Management architecture decisions for enterprise API marketplace implementations using VNet Internal mode, Front Door, hybrid authentication, and multi-environment strategies. Use when discussing APIM component selection, network topology, cost optimization, or comparing alternatives like workspaces vs instances, VNet Internal vs External mode, or Front Door vs Application Gateway.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fcopilot-agent-skills\u002F.github\u002Fskills\u002Fazure-apim-architecture\u002FSKILL.md",[90,95],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":98,"taxonomyTypeDesc":99},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,33,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119],"architecture","azure","azure apim architecture","component","authentication","gateway","topology","Optimization","network","api","environment","multi-environment","workspaces","instances","selection","strategies","azure api management","mode","for",{"skillNo":121,"name":122,"nameZh":6,"description":123,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":124,"categories":125,"keywords":134,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBT7J4H082JEEA670B3EQ9","apiops-deployment","Guides deployment of Azure API Management infrastructure using Infrastructure as Code (Bicep\u002FTerraform), CI\u002FCD pipelines (GitHub Actions\u002FAzure DevOps), and APIOps workflows. Use when deploying APIM, creating pipelines, or implementing dev→test→prod promotion strategies.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fcopilot-agent-skills\u002F.github\u002Fskills\u002Fapiops-deployment\u002FSKILL.md",[126,127,130,133],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},{"categoryNo":128,"categoryName":129,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000011","运维与部署",{"categoryNo":131,"categoryName":132,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":98,"taxonomyTypeDesc":99},[135,136,137,138,102,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,110,33,116,146,147,117,148,149],"deployment","apiops deployment","workflows","azure devops","infrastructure","code","infrastructure as code","actions","ci","github actions","github-actions","as","guides","CI\u002FCD","implementing",{"skillNo":151,"name":152,"nameZh":6,"description":153,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":154,"categories":155,"keywords":157,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBT2HEA23THNE9E00GYQBE","apim-policy-authoring","Creates production-ready Azure API Management policy XML for authentication (OAuth 2.0, JWT validation, subscription keys), rate limiting, CORS configuration, error handling, and API transformations. Use when implementing API security, access control, or request\u002Fresponse processing logic.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fcopilot-agent-skills\u002F.github\u002Fskills\u002Fapim-policy-authoring\u002FSKILL.md",[156],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},[158,159,160,161,102,105,110,33,162,30,163,164,165,166,167,117,168,169,149,119],"policy","authoring","apim policy authoring","security","access","ready","api security","Access Control","error","processing","cors configuration","production-ready",{"skillNo":171,"name":172,"nameZh":6,"description":173,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":174,"categories":175,"keywords":178,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBSY65SB29J9WE9KYD0K6T","api-security-review","Reviews Azure API Management configurations for security vulnerabilities, OWASP API Security Top 10 compliance, VNet Internal mode validation, Private Link verification, and Azure Security Benchmark alignment. Use when performing security audits, pre-deployment validation, or compliance reviews.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fcopilot-agent-skills\u002F.github\u002Fskills\u002Fapi-security-review\u002FSKILL.md",[176,177],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":93,"taxonomyTypeDesc":94},{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":98,"taxonomyTypeDesc":99},[179,161,180,110,164,181,102,135,182,183,184,185,33,20,117,186,187,188,118,119],"review","security review","api security review","benchmark","verification","owasp","owasp-api","azure security","reviews","top",{"skillNo":190,"name":191,"nameZh":6,"description":192,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":193,"categories":194,"keywords":195,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBSRW4PDFE6K4F8JYPZQ05","jira-cli","Interact with Jira from the command line to create, list, view, edit, and transition issues, manage sprints and epics, and perform common Jira workflows. Use when the user asks about Jira tasks, tickets, issues, sprints, or needs to manage project work items.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fawesome-copilot-agents\u002Fskills\u002Fjira-cli\u002FSKILL.md",[],[196,197,198,137,199,200,201,202,110,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213],"cli","jira","jira cli","init","tasks","create","issues","common","work","command","edit","list","view","project","project work","token","line","sprints",{"skillNo":215,"name":216,"nameZh":6,"description":217,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":218,"categories":219,"keywords":220,"publishedAt":38},"01M6HBSNS3JHMW603G47TWE31H","calculator","Performs arbitrary-precision arithmetic calculations including addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponents. Use when the user asks to calculate, compute, or evaluate math expressions, or when precise decimal arithmetic is needed to avoid floating-point errors.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmicsapp\u002Fmicstec-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fcopilot-cli\u002Fawesome-copilot-agents\u002Fskills\u002Fcalculator\u002FSKILL.md",[],[216,221,222,223,224,225,226,30,227,228],"npm","js","calculate","node","math","user","compute","errors"]