[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M73F2GAGTTTS7PRHSRMPM0Z2":3,"skill-same:01M73F2GAGTTTS7PRHSRMPM0Z2":61},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":18,"linkOnly":19,"markdownContent":20,"markdownBody":21,"frontMatter":22,"refName":39,"commitSha":40,"skillDirectory":41,"forksCount":42,"repositoryHtmlUrl":43,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":44,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":45,"updatedAt":46,"install":47,"resources":60},"01M73F2GAGTTTS7PRHSRMPM0Z2","competency-modeling",null,"Guides the building of organizational competency models — competency definition with behavioral anchors, proficiency leveling, and assessment design — the SHRM Body of Knowledge's talent-planning core. Use when: a competency framework needs to be built, leveled, validated, or wired into assessment instruments from scratch.","5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards","5throck","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F10958964?v=4","01M73BFEH0V0VS483TW4JD49JW","01M73BFEJ5VQZJHJSFTVPAZGDM",25,"AGPL-3.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-hr\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetency-modeling\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-11 15:11:14",false,"---\nname: competency-modeling\nscope: co-hr\ndescription: >\n  Guides the building of organizational competency models — competency\n  definition with behavioral anchors, proficiency leveling, and assessment\n  design — the SHRM Body of Knowledge's talent-planning core. Use when:\n  a competency framework needs to be built, leveled, validated, or wired\n  into assessment instruments from scratch.\nversion: 1.0.0\nlast_reviewed: 2026-08-25\nstatus: active\nowner: learning-development-specialist\nprerequisites: none\nmetadata:\n  type: domain\n  triggers:\n    - competency model\n    - competency framework\n    - competency dictionary\n    - proficiency leveling\n    - behavioral anchors\n    - competency assessment design\n---\n\n## Context\n\nUse in Phase 2 when an engagement requires building (or rebuilding) an organization's competency architecture. Owned by the Learning & Development Specialist, with structured hand-offs to the skills that consume the finished model.\n\n**Positioning vs. `learning-curriculum-design`**: that skill includes a competency-model design step as the ENTRY to curriculum work — a just-in-time model for one learning program. THIS skill is the organizational framework: the enterprise competency dictionary, its proficiency ladder, and the assessment design that makes competencies measurable across talent processes (performance rubrics, succession readiness, curriculum gap analysis). When a full framework exists, `learning-curriculum-design` consumes it instead of re-deriving.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Client has no competency framework, or one that is stale, unlevelled, or unusable as a rating basis\n- A competency model must serve MULTIPLE consumers (performance + learning + succession), not one program\n- Behavioral anchors or proficiency levels need to be defined or harmonized\n- Assessment instruments (interview guides, work samples, 360s) must be designed against the model\n\n## Execution Steps\n\n### 1. Scope the Architecture\n\n- Decide the model's span: **core\u002Fvalues competencies** (all roles), **functional\u002Ftechnical competencies** (job families), **leadership competencies** (management levels). Record which are in scope.\n- Align to strategy: the 5-8 competencies that distinguish great performance in THIS organization's next 3 years — not a generic library dump. Cite the strategic input (business plan, org-design output from `org-design-framework` if present).\n\n### 2. Collect Evidence (never invent from the armchair)\n\n- **Critical-incident interviews** with high performers and their managers: \"describe a time this role demanded excellence — what did the person DO?\"\n- **SME panels \u002F focus groups** per job family to draft functional competencies\n- **Existing artifacts**: job descriptions, performance forms, exit-interview themes\n- Every competency must trace to at least two independent evidence sources; label single-sourced candidates as DRAFT.\n\n### 3. Draft the Competency Dictionary\n\nOne entry per competency:\n\n| Field | Rule |\n|-------|------|\n| Name | Short, observable behavior phrase (\"Builds Stakeholder Trust\" — not \"Integrity\") |\n| Definition | 1-2 sentences, behavior + outcome, no traits or personality language |\n| Behavioral anchors | 3-5 observable indicators per proficiency level — what a rater would SEE |\n| Distinctness | No overlap with another competency — merge or split until clean |\n| Evidence | The sources supporting the entry |\n\nBan list: circular definitions (\"X is demonstrating X\"), unobservable adjectives (\"passionate\", \"driven\"), and trait nouns.\n\n### 4. Level the Model (proficiency scale)\n\n- Define ONE proficiency scale across the model (recommend 4 levels: Foundational → Applied → Advanced → Expert\u002FMastery), with a one-line anchor defining what progression means generically.\n- For every competency × level: a concrete behavioral anchor. Test each anchor with \"could two raters watching the same person agree this level is shown?\" — if not, the anchor is too vague.\n- Map levels to the client's career ladder where one exists (individual-contributor tiers vs. manager tiers); note where the model and ladder disagree rather than forcing alignment.\n\n### 5. Validate\n\n- SME review of definitions and anchors (clarity + completeness)\n- Incumbent + manager review of LEVELING at 2-3 real roles: run a mini calibration — discrepancies are anchor defects, not rater errors\n- Record validation status per competency (Validated \u002F Draft)\n\n### 6. Design the Assessment Layer\n\nChoose methods per competency type:\n\n| Competency type | Primary assessment methods |\n|-----------------|---------------------------|\n| Behavioral (core, leadership) | Structured behavioral interviews (STAR probes against anchors), 360 feedback |\n| Functional\u002Ftechnical | Work samples, simulations, credential verification |\n| Integrated (complex judgment) | Case\u002Fsimulation exercises scored with the anchor rubric |\n\nDesign rules:\n\n- Every instrument's scoring rubric quotes the model's anchors verbatim — paraphrased rubrics break comparability\n- Structured format: same probes, same order, same scoring guide for all candidates\u002Fincumbents\n- Multiple assessors for high-stakes decisions; document inter-rater resolution\n- Fairness guardrail: check for adverse impact across protected groups during validation runs — route measurement questions to `data-analyst`; labor-market legality questions (which characteristics may lawfully be assessed under the active country profile) to `labor-compliance-analyst`\n- Assessment ≠ performance rating: assessments measure current proficiency against anchors; performance management measures results against goals — keep the instruments distinct\n\n### 7. Govern and Hand Off\n\n- Version the dictionary (semver); record review cadence (annual or on org-design change)\n- Hand-offs: behavioral anchors + levels → `performance-system-design` (rating rubrics); gap analysis → `learning-curriculum-design` (curriculum priorities); readiness levels → `career-path-succession-planning` (succession criteria); \"% roles with defined competency profile\" → `hr-metrics-analysis` per the ISO 30414 mapping (Professional competence and development area)\n\n## Output Format\n\n- **Competency Dictionary**: entries per the Step-3 table, with validation status\n- **Proficiency Leveling Matrix**: competency × level anchor grid\n- **Assessment Plan**: per competency — method(s), instrument sketch, scoring source (which anchors), assessor structure\n- **Governance Note**: version, review cadence, evidence log locations\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `learning-curriculum-design` — downstream consumer: converts assessed gaps into curriculum design\n- `performance-system-design` — downstream consumer: anchors become rating rubrics\n- `career-path-succession-planning` — downstream consumer: levels become readiness criteria\n- `org-design-framework` — upstream: strategy and job-family structure input\n","## Context\n\nUse in Phase 2 when an engagement requires building (or rebuilding) an organization's competency architecture. Owned by the Learning & Development Specialist, with structured hand-offs to the skills that consume the finished model.\n\n**Positioning vs. `learning-curriculum-design`**: that skill includes a competency-model design step as the ENTRY to curriculum work — a just-in-time model for one learning program. THIS skill is the organizational framework: the enterprise competency dictionary, its proficiency ladder, and the assessment design that makes competencies measurable across talent processes (performance rubrics, succession readiness, curriculum gap analysis). When a full framework exists, `learning-curriculum-design` consumes it instead of re-deriving.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Client has no competency framework, or one that is stale, unlevelled, or unusable as a rating basis\n- A competency model must serve MULTIPLE consumers (performance + learning + succession), not one program\n- Behavioral anchors or proficiency levels need to be defined or harmonized\n- Assessment instruments (interview guides, work samples, 360s) must be designed against the model\n\n## Execution Steps\n\n### 1. Scope the Architecture\n\n- Decide the model's span: **core\u002Fvalues competencies** (all roles), **functional\u002Ftechnical competencies** (job families), **leadership competencies** (management levels). Record which are in scope.\n- Align to strategy: the 5-8 competencies that distinguish great performance in THIS organization's next 3 years — not a generic library dump. Cite the strategic input (business plan, org-design output from `org-design-framework` if present).\n\n### 2. Collect Evidence (never invent from the armchair)\n\n- **Critical-incident interviews** with high performers and their managers: \"describe a time this role demanded excellence — what did the person DO?\"\n- **SME panels \u002F focus groups** per job family to draft functional competencies\n- **Existing artifacts**: job descriptions, performance forms, exit-interview themes\n- Every competency must trace to at least two independent evidence sources; label single-sourced candidates as DRAFT.\n\n### 3. Draft the Competency Dictionary\n\nOne entry per competency:\n\n| Field | Rule |\n|-------|------|\n| Name | Short, observable behavior phrase (\"Builds Stakeholder Trust\" — not \"Integrity\") |\n| Definition | 1-2 sentences, behavior + outcome, no traits or personality language |\n| Behavioral anchors | 3-5 observable indicators per proficiency level — what a rater would SEE |\n| Distinctness | No overlap with another competency — merge or split until clean |\n| Evidence | The sources supporting the entry |\n\nBan list: circular definitions (\"X is demonstrating X\"), unobservable adjectives (\"passionate\", \"driven\"), and trait nouns.\n\n### 4. Level the Model (proficiency scale)\n\n- Define ONE proficiency scale across the model (recommend 4 levels: Foundational → Applied → Advanced → Expert\u002FMastery), with a one-line anchor defining what progression means generically.\n- For every competency × level: a concrete behavioral anchor. Test each anchor with \"could two raters watching the same person agree this level is shown?\" — if not, the anchor is too vague.\n- Map levels to the client's career ladder where one exists (individual-contributor tiers vs. manager tiers); note where the model and ladder disagree rather than forcing alignment.\n\n### 5. Validate\n\n- SME review of definitions and anchors (clarity + completeness)\n- Incumbent + manager review of LEVELING at 2-3 real roles: run a mini calibration — discrepancies are anchor defects, not rater errors\n- Record validation status per competency (Validated \u002F Draft)\n\n### 6. Design the Assessment Layer\n\nChoose methods per competency type:\n\n| Competency type | Primary assessment methods |\n|-----------------|---------------------------|\n| Behavioral (core, leadership) | Structured behavioral interviews (STAR probes against anchors), 360 feedback |\n| Functional\u002Ftechnical | Work samples, simulations, credential verification |\n| Integrated (complex judgment) | Case\u002Fsimulation exercises scored with the anchor rubric |\n\nDesign rules:\n\n- Every instrument's scoring rubric quotes the model's anchors verbatim — paraphrased rubrics break comparability\n- Structured format: same probes, same order, same scoring guide for all candidates\u002Fincumbents\n- Multiple assessors for high-stakes decisions; document inter-rater resolution\n- Fairness guardrail: check for adverse impact across protected groups during validation runs — route measurement questions to `data-analyst`; labor-market legality questions (which characteristics may lawfully be assessed under the active country profile) to `labor-compliance-analyst`\n- Assessment ≠ performance rating: assessments measure current proficiency against anchors; performance management measures results against goals — keep the instruments distinct\n\n### 7. Govern and Hand Off\n\n- Version the dictionary (semver); record review cadence (annual or on org-design change)\n- Hand-offs: behavioral anchors + levels → `performance-system-design` (rating rubrics); gap analysis → `learning-curriculum-design` (curriculum priorities); readiness levels → `career-path-succession-planning` (succession criteria); \"% roles with defined competency profile\" → `hr-metrics-analysis` per the ISO 30414 mapping (Professional competence and development area)\n\n## Output Format\n\n- **Competency Dictionary**: entries per the Step-3 table, with validation status\n- **Proficiency Leveling Matrix**: competency × level anchor grid\n- **Assessment Plan**: per competency — method(s), instrument sketch, scoring source (which anchors), assessor structure\n- **Governance Note**: version, review cadence, evidence log locations\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `learning-curriculum-design` — downstream consumer: converts assessed gaps into curriculum design\n- `performance-system-design` — downstream consumer: anchors become rating rubrics\n- `career-path-succession-planning` — downstream consumer: levels become readiness criteria\n- `org-design-framework` — upstream: strategy and job-family structure input\n",{"name":5,"owner":23,"scope":24,"status":25,"version":26,"metadata":27,"description":36,"last_reviewed":37,"prerequisites":38},"learning-development-specialist","co-hr","active","1.0.0",{"type":28,"triggers":29},"domain",[30,31,32,33,34,35],"competency model","competency framework","competency dictionary","proficiency leveling","behavioral anchors","competency assessment design","Guides the building of organizational competency models — competency definition with behavioral anchors, proficiency leveling, and assessment design — the SHRM Body of Knowledge's talent-planning core. Use when: a competency framework needs to be built, leveled, validated, or wired into assessment instruments from scratch.\n",1787616000000,"none","main","1162ccc568cf90c01b3886d6143cbfd851a37883","templates\u002Fco-hr\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetency-modeling",9,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck","Experienced in digital transformation, enterprise IT, startup acceleration, and business strategy. Focused on building practical systems that connect technolo","2026-11-14 21:22:34",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":48,"prompt":58,"zipAvailable":59},[49,52,55],{"tool":50,"command":51},"npx","npx skills add 5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards --skill competency-modeling",{"tool":53,"command":54},"bunx","bunx skills add 5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards --skill competency-modeling",{"tool":56,"command":57},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add 5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards --skill competency-modeling","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-hr\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetency-modeling\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[62,70,75,80,85,90],{"skillNo":63,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":66,"categories":67,"keywords":68,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBJDYHJMGTJYSC37JVWY8S","i18n-layout","Text layout and encoding guidance: character encoding (UTF-8, legacy Korean code pages, BOM hazards), line endings, RTL\u002Fbidi handling, and script-specific font selection (Hangul focus). Use when: encoding is corrupted or mojibake appears, an RTL locale must render correctly, fonts must be chosen for a script, or CRLF\u002FBOM issues surface.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-15 14:19:17",{"skillNo":71,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":72,"categories":73,"keywords":74,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBJ9XHAAS1AVGKZZ841VBZ","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002F.hermes\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":76,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":77,"categories":78,"keywords":79,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBJ5C3X8TKFKG5R9P9P49W","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002F.gemini\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":81,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":82,"categories":83,"keywords":84,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBJ1B52X0QMJ2QVBMPJB37","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":86,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":87,"categories":88,"keywords":89,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBHX91BW2Q2R276MRX5AW3","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":91,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":65,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":92,"categories":93,"keywords":94,"publishedAt":69},"01M7BBHQWGXPSFRWN1PRC2NMMV","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002F5throck\u002Fai-workspace-standards\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftemplates\u002Fco-work\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fi18n-layout\u002FSKILL.md",[],[]]