Interpreting Culture Index
Trail of BitsOfficialPublished by Trail of Bits
- Skill
- Role or persona
- Business and productivity
- CC-BY-SA-4.0
- Medium risk
- Has scripts
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
This skill provides a structured methodology for analyzing Culture Index (CI) survey data. It emphasizes the importance of relative trait positioning over absolute scores, the distinction between hardwired survey traits and adaptive job behaviors, and the identification of burnout risks through energy utilization analysis. The skill guides users through interpreting individual profiles, assessing team composition using the Gas/Brake/Glue framework, and coaching managers based on behavioral patterns.
What it does
- Interprets individual behavioral profiles and identifies archetypes.
- Analyzes team composition to balance Gas, Brake, and Glue traits.
- Detects burnout risk by comparing survey traits against job-adaptive behaviors.
- Predicts behavioral traits from interview transcripts.
- Provides coaching recommendations for managers based on direct report profiles.
- Extracts and verifies CI data from PDF documents into structured JSON.
When to use it
- When you need to interpret an individual's Culture Index survey results.
- When assessing team dynamics or identifying gaps in team composition.
- When a team member shows signs of burnout or frustration in their role.
- When defining ideal behavioral profiles for new hiring roles.
- When mediating conflict between team members with different behavioral styles.
- When preparing for 1:1 coaching sessions with direct reports.
Advantages
- Prevents common interpretation errors like comparing absolute values.
- Provides a clear, data-driven approach to identifying burnout and flight risk.
- Standardizes the process of extracting and analyzing behavioral data.
- Offers actionable management and communication strategies for different archetypes.
- Reduces subjectivity in hiring and team development decisions.
Usage examples
- “I have a Culture Index PDF for a candidate. How do I interpret their profile?”
- The agent will guide you through the extraction process using the provided script, then analyze the resulting JSON to identify the candidate's archetype and key behavioral strengths.
- “Our team feels stuck. Can you analyze our composition?”
- The agent will request the CI profiles for the team members, assess the balance of Gas, Brake, and Glue traits, and identify potential gaps or areas of friction.
- “How do I manage a direct report who is a 'Craftsman' archetype?”
- The agent will provide specific management strategies, communication preferences, and motivational needs tailored to the Craftsman pattern.
- “Is this employee at risk of burnout?”
- The agent will compare the employee's survey traits with their job-adaptive behaviors to calculate energy utilization and identify stress signals.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/trailofbits/interpreting-culture-index/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip interpreting-culture-index.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Trail of Bits
<essential_principles>
Culture Index measures behavioral traits, not intelligence or skills. There is no "good" or "bad" profile.
<principle name="never-compare-absolutes"> **Never compare absolute trait values between people.**
The 0-10 scale is just a ruler. What matters is distance from the red arrow (population mean at 50th percentile). The arrow position varies between surveys based on EU.
Why the arrow moves: Higher EU scores cause the arrow to plot further right; lower EU causes it to plot further left. This does not affect validity—we always measure distance from wherever the arrow lands.
Wrong: "Dan has higher autonomy than Jim because his A is 8 vs 5" Right: "Dan is +3 centiles from his arrow; Jim is +1 from his arrow"
Always ask: Where is the arrow, and how far is the dot from it? </principle>
<principle name="survey-vs-job"> **Survey = who you ARE. Job = who you're TRYING TO BE.**
"You can't send a duck to Eagle school." Traits are hardwired—you can only modify behaviors temporarily, at the cost of energy.
Top graph (Survey Traits): Hardwired by age 12-16. Does not change. Writing with your dominant hand.
Bottom graph (Job Behaviors): Adaptive behavior at work. Can change. Writing with your non-dominant hand.
Large differences between graphs indicate behavior modification, which drains energy and causes burnout if sustained 3-6+ months. </principle>
<principle name="distance-interpretation"> **Distance from arrow determines trait strength.**
| Distance | Label | Percentile | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| On arrow | Normative | 50th | Flexible, situational |
| ±1 centile | Tendency | ~67th | Easier to modify |
| ±2 centiles | Pronounced | ~84th | Noticeable difference |
| ±4+ centiles | Extreme | ~98th | Hardwired, compulsive, predictable |
Key insight: Every 2 centiles of distance = 1 standard deviation.
Extreme traits drive extreme results but are harder to modify and less relatable to average people. </principle>
<principle name="l-and-i-exception"> **L (Logic) and I (Ingenuity) use absolute values.**
Unlike A, B, C, D, you CAN compare L and I scores directly between people:
Logic 8 means "High Logic" regardless of arrow position
Ingenuity 2 means "Low Ingenuity" for anyone
Only these two traits break the "no absolute comparison" rule. </principle>
</essential_principles>
When to Use
Interpreting Culture Index survey results (individual or team)
Analyzing CI profiles from PDF or JSON data
Assessing team composition using Gas/Brake/Glue framework
Detecting burnout risk by comparing Survey vs Job graphs
Defining hiring profiles based on CI trait patterns
Coaching managers on how to work with specific CI profiles
Predicting CI traits from interview transcripts
Mediating team conflict using CI profile data
When NOT to Use
For non-CI behavioral assessments (DISC, Myers-Briggs, StrengthsFinder, Predictive Index, Enneagram)
For clinical psychological assessments or diagnoses
As the sole basis for hiring/firing decisions — CI is one data point among many
<input_formats>
JSON (Use if available)
If JSON data is already extracted, use it directly:
import json
with open("person_name.json") as f:
profile = json.load(f)JSON format:
{
"name": "Person Name",
"archetype": "Architect",
"survey": {
"eu": 21,
"arrow": 2.3,
"a": [5, 2.7],
"b": [0, -2.3],
"c": [1, -1.3],
"d": [3, 0.7],
"logic": [5, null],
"ingenuity": [2, null]
},
"job": { "..." : "same structure as survey" },
"analysis": {
"energy_utilization": 148,
"status": "stress"
}
}Note: Trait values are [absolute, relative_to_arrow] tuples. Use the relative value for interpretation.
Check same directory as PDF for matching .json file, or ask user if they have extracted JSON.
PDF Input (MUST EXTRACT FIRST)
⚠️ NEVER use visual estimation for trait values. Visual estimation has 20-30% error rate.
When given a PDF:
Check if JSON already exists (same directory as PDF, or ask user)
If not, run extraction with verification:
uv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]Visually confirm the verification summary matches the PDF
Use the extracted JSON for interpretation
If uv is not installed: Stop and instruct user to install it (brew install uv or curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh). Do NOT fall back to vision.
PDF Vision (Reference Only)
Vision may be used ONLY to verify extracted values look reasonable, NOT to extract trait scores.
</input_formats>
<intake>
Step 0: Do you have JSON or PDF?
If JSON provided or found: Use it directly (skip extraction)
Check same directory as PDF for
.jsonfile with matching nameCheck if user provided JSON path
If only PDF: Run extraction script with
--verifyflaguv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]If extraction fails: Report error, do NOT fall back to vision
Step 1: What data do you have?
CI Survey JSON → Proceed to Step 2
CI Survey PDF → Extract first (Step 0), then proceed to Step 2
Interview transcript only → Go to option 8 (predict traits from interview)
No data yet → "Please provide Culture Index profile (PDF or JSON) or interview transcript"
Step 2: What would you like to do?
Profile Analysis:
Interpret an individual profile - Understand one person's traits, strengths, and challenges
Analyze team composition - Assess gas/brake/glue balance, identify gaps
Detect burnout signals - Compare Survey vs Job, flag stress/frustration
Compare multiple profiles - Understand compatibility, collaboration dynamics
Get motivator recommendations - Learn how to engage and retain someone
Hiring & Candidates: 6. Define hiring profile - Determine ideal CI traits for a role 7. Coach manager on direct report - Adjust management style based on both profiles 8. Predict traits from interview - Analyze interview transcript to estimate CI traits 9. Interview debrief - Assess candidate fit based on predicted traits
Team Development: 10. Plan onboarding - Design first 90 days based on new hire and team profiles 11. Mediate conflict - Understand friction between two people using their profiles
Provide the profile data (JSON or PDF) and select an option, or describe what you need.
</intake>
<routing>
| Response | Workflow |
|---|---|
| "extract", "parse pdf", "convert pdf", "get json from pdf" | workflows/extract-from-pdf.md |
| 1, "individual", "interpret", "understand", "analyze one", "single profile" | workflows/interpret-individual.md |
| 2, "team", "composition", "gaps", "balance", "gas brake glue" | workflows/analyze-team.md |
| 3, "burnout", "stress", "frustration", "survey vs job", "energy", "flight risk" | workflows/detect-burnout.md |
| 4, "compare", "compatibility", "collaboration", "multiple", "two profiles" | workflows/compare-profiles.md |
| 5, "motivate", "engage", "retain", "communicate" | Read references/motivators.md directly |
| 6, "hire", "hiring profile", "role profile", "recruit", "what profile for" | workflows/define-hiring-profile.md |
| 7, "manage", "coach", "1:1", "direct report", "manager" | workflows/coach-manager.md |
| 8, "transcript", "interview", "predict traits", "guess", "estimate", "recording" | workflows/predict-from-interview.md |
| 9, "debrief", "should we hire", "candidate fit", "proceed", "offer" | workflows/interview-debrief.md |
| 10, "onboard", "new hire", "integrate", "starting", "first 90 days" | workflows/plan-onboarding.md |
| 11, "conflict", "friction", "mediate", "not working together", "clash" | workflows/mediate-conflict.md |
| "conversation starters", "how to talk to", "engage with" | Read references/conversation-starters.md directly |
After reading the workflow, follow it exactly.
</routing>
<verification_loop>
After every interpretation, verify:
Did you use relative positions? Never stated "A is 8" without context
Did you reference the arrow? All trait interpretations relative to arrow
Did you compare Survey vs Job? Identified any behavior modification
Did you avoid value judgments? No traits called "good" or "bad"
Did you check EU? Energy utilization calculated if both graphs present
Report to user:
"Interpretation complete"
Key findings (2-3 bullet points)
Recommended actions
</verification_loop>
<reference_index>
Domain Knowledge (in references/):
Primary Traits:
primary-traits.md- A (Autonomy), B (Social), C (Pace), D (Conformity)
Secondary Traits:
secondary-traits.md- EU (Energy Units), L (Logic), I (Ingenuity)
Patterns:
patterns-archetypes.md- Behavioral patterns, trait combinations, archetypes
Archetype Deep Profiles (archetype-*.md):
archetype-administrator.md- The Administrator (High A, High B, Low C, Mid D)archetype-coordinator.md- The Coordinator (Low A, High B, Mid C, Low D)archetype-craftsman.md- The Craftsman (Low A, Low B, High C, High D)archetype-daredevil.md- The Daredevil (High A, Low B, Low C, Low D)archetype-debater.md- The Debater (Mid A, Mid-High B, Low C, High D)archetype-facilitator.md- The Facilitator (Low A, Mid B, Mid C, Low D)archetype-influencer.md- The Influencer (Low A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-operator.md- The Operator (Low A, Low B, High C, Mid-High D)archetype-persuader.md- The Persuader (High A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-philosopher.md- The Philosopher (Low A, Low B, High C, Low D)archetype-rainmaker.md- The Rainmaker (High A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-scholar.md- The Scholar (High A, Low B, Low C, High D)archetype-socializer.md- The Socializer (Low A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-specialist.md- The Specialist (Low A, Low B, High C, Mid D)archetype-technical-expert.md- The Technical Expert (Low A, Low B, High C, Low D)archetype-traditionalist.md- The Traditionalist (Low A, Low B, High C, High D)archetype-trailblazer.md- The Trailblazer (High A, Mid B, Mid C, Low D)
Application:
motivators.md- How to motivate each trait typeteam-composition.md- Gas, brake, glue frameworkanti-patterns.md- Common interpretation mistakesconversation-starters.md- How to engage each pattern and trait typeinterview-trait-signals.md- Signals for predicting traits from interviews
</reference_index>
<workflows_index>
Workflows (in workflows/):
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
extract-from-pdf.md | Extract profile data from Culture Index PDF to JSON format |
interpret-individual.md | Analyze single profile, identify archetype, summarize strengths/challenges |
analyze-team.md | Assess team balance (gas/brake/glue), identify gaps, recommend hires |
detect-burnout.md | Compare Survey vs Job, calculate EU utilization, flag risk signals |
compare-profiles.md | Compare multiple profiles, assess compatibility, collaboration dynamics |
define-hiring-profile.md | Define ideal CI traits for a role, identify acceptable patterns and red flags |
coach-manager.md | Help managers adjust their style for specific direct reports |
predict-from-interview.md | Analyze interview transcripts to predict CI traits before survey |
interview-debrief.md | Assess candidate fit using predicted traits from transcript analysis |
plan-onboarding.md | Design first 90 days based on new hire profile and team composition |
mediate-conflict.md | Understand and address friction between team members using their profiles |
</workflows_index>
<quick_reference>
Trait Colors:
| Trait | Color | Measures |
|---|---|---|
| A | Maroon | Autonomy, initiative, self-confidence |
| B | Yellow | Social ability, need for interaction |
| C | Blue | Pace/Patience, urgency level |
| D | Green | Conformity, attention to detail |
| L | Purple | Logic, emotional processing |
| I | Cyan | Ingenuity, inventiveness |
Energy Utilization Formula:
Utilization = (Job EU / Survey EU) × 100
70-130% = Healthy
>130% = STRESS (burnout risk)
<70% = FRUSTRATION (flight risk)Gas/Brake/Glue:
| Role | Trait | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Gas | High A | Growth, risk-taking, driving results |
| Brake | High D | Quality control, risk aversion, finishing |
| Glue | High B | Relationships, morale, culture |
Score Precision:
| Value | Precision | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Traits (A,B,C,D,L,I) | Integer 0-10 | 0, 1, 2, ... 10 |
| Arrow position | Tenths | 0.4, 2.2, 3.8 |
| Energy Units (EU) | Integer | 11, 31, 45 |
</quick_reference>
<success_criteria>
A well-interpreted Culture Index profile:
Uses relative positions (distance from arrow), never absolute values alone
Identifies the archetype/pattern correctly
Highlights 2-3 key strengths based on leading traits
Notes 2-3 challenges or development areas
Compares Survey vs Job if both are available
Provides actionable recommendations
Avoids value judgments ("good"/"bad")
Acknowledges Culture Index is one data point, not a complete picture
</success_criteria>
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer959 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer19.7 KiB
- SKILL.md14.0 KiB
- agents/openai.yaml246 B
- assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg3.0 KiB
- references/anti-patterns.md8.1 KiB
- references/archetype-administrator.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-coordinator.md3.9 KiB
- references/archetype-craftsman.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-daredevil.md3.3 KiB
- references/archetype-debater.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-facilitator.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-influencer.md2.9 KiB
- references/archetype-operator.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-persuader.md3.4 KiB
- references/archetype-philosopher.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-rainmaker.md2.6 KiB
- references/archetype-scholar.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-socializer.md3.3 KiB
- references/archetype-specialist.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-technical-expert.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-traditionalist.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-trailblazer.md4.0 KiB
- references/conversation-starters.md9.6 KiB
- references/interview-trait-signals.md8.1 KiB
- references/motivators.md6.6 KiB
- references/patterns-archetypes.md6.7 KiB
- references/primary-traits.md12.5 KiB
- references/secondary-traits.md8.3 KiB
- references/team-composition.md6.2 KiB
- scripts/check_deps.pyScript2.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/__init__.pyScript564 B
- scripts/culture_index/constants.pyScript3.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/extract.pyScript5.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/models.pyScript371 B
- scripts/culture_index/opencv_extractor.pyScript15.6 KiB
- scripts/extract_pdf.pyScript7.0 KiB
- scripts/pyproject.toml422 B
- scripts/uv.lock66.6 KiB
- templates/burnout-report.md3.2 KiB
- templates/comparison-report.md3.3 KiB
- templates/hiring-profile.md3.9 KiB
- templates/individual-report.md2.5 KiB
- templates/predicted-profile.md5.6 KiB
- templates/team-report.md3.1 KiB
- workflows/analyze-team.md5.1 KiB
- workflows/coach-manager.md8.8 KiB
- workflows/compare-profiles.md6.2 KiB
- workflows/define-hiring-profile.md7.6 KiB
- workflows/detect-burnout.md6.1 KiB
- workflows/extract-from-pdf.md3.9 KiB
- workflows/interpret-individual.md5.7 KiB
- workflows/interview-debrief.md7.5 KiB
- workflows/mediate-conflict.md9.9 KiB
- workflows/plan-onboarding.md9.2 KiB
- workflows/predict-from-interview.md8.0 KiB
workflows/coach-manager.md
<required_reading>
Read these reference files before coaching:
references/primary-traits.md- A, B, C, D trait details and management approachesreferences/secondary-traits.md- EU, L, I traitsreferences/patterns-archetypes.md- Pattern identification
</required_reading>
<purpose>
Help managers work more effectively with their direct reports by comparing Culture Index profiles and providing specific coaching recommendations. This workflow translates trait differences into actionable management adjustments.
</purpose>
<process>
Step 1: Load Both Profiles
Gather the manager and direct report's profiles:
Manager: [Name]
- Pattern: [Archetype]
- A: [position relative to arrow]
- B: [position relative to arrow]
- C: [position relative to arrow]
- D: [position relative to arrow]
- EU Survey/Job: [values]
Direct Report: [Name]
- Pattern: [Archetype]
- A: [position relative to arrow]
- B: [position relative to arrow]
- C: [position relative to arrow]
- D: [position relative to arrow]
- EU Survey/Job: [values]Step 2: Calculate Trait Gaps
For each trait, calculate the gap between manager and direct report:
| Trait | Manager | Direct Report | Gap | Friction Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Low/Med/High] |
Friction risk guide:
Same side of arrow, similar distance: Low friction
Same side of arrow, different distance: Medium friction
Opposite sides of arrow: High friction potential
Step 3: Identify Primary Friction Points
Flag the largest gaps (opposite sides of arrow or >3 centile difference):
| Gap | Manager Tendency | Direct Report Need | Friction Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Trait] | [behavior] | [behavior] | [conflict] |
Common friction patterns:
| Manager | Direct Report | Friction |
|---|---|---|
| High A | Low A | Manager expects initiative; report waits for direction |
| Low A | High A | Manager collaborates; report acts independently |
| High B | Low B | Manager wants connection; report wants to work |
| Low B | High B | Manager skips rapport; report needs relationship first |
| High C | Low C | Manager methodical; report impatient |
| Low C | High C | Manager creates urgency; report resists rush |
| High D | Low D | Manager detail-focused; report big-picture |
| Low D | High D | Manager flexible; report needs structure |
Step 4: Generate Communication Adjustments
Based on direct report's traits, recommend specific adjustments:
If direct report is High A:
Use bullet points focused on ROI, not paragraphs
Give outcomes ("bake me a cake"), not step-by-step instructions
Ask questions to get buy-in, don't dictate
Allow autonomy - avoid micromanagement
Be direct and confident - they don't respect hesitation
If direct report is Low A:
Provide specific direction before expecting action
Give frameworks for novel decisions
Offer specific praise, not general ("Great job on X")
Probe for concerns - silence doesn't mean agreement
Don't misread helpfulness as ambition
If direct report is High B:
Allow time for rapport before tasks
Verbal praise and public recognition matter
Include in social activities
Don't isolate with extended solo work
Remember: first statement isn't final position (verbal processor)
If direct report is Low B:
Minimize unnecessary check-ins
Use async communication (email) over meetings
Private recognition, not public praise
Thoughtful gestures over verbal affirmation
Don't mistake quiet for disengagement
If direct report is High C:
Send agendas in advance
One topic per meeting
Protect their focus time (28-min recovery from interruptions)
Provide advance notice of changes
Give structured, sequential instructions
If direct report is Low C:
Put deadlines in subject lines
Keep them busy with variety
Expect them to interrupt - plan for it
Use their urgency productively
Don't be surprised by over-commitment
If direct report is High D:
Frame feedback as process improvement, not personal criticism
Provide training/learning opportunities
Don't break trust - they have long memories
Build SOPs for new responsibilities
Recognize their attention to quality
If direct report is Low D:
Give creative problems to solve
Provide options, not mandates
Build systems to catch their gaps
Focus on the 3 things that matter most
Accept 80% completion; assign finishers
Step 5: Design 1:1 Structure
Based on trait comparison, recommend 1:1 format:
Frequency:
Low A direct report: More frequent (weekly)
High A direct report: Less frequent (bi-weekly or as needed)
High C direct report: Consistent schedule, same time/day
Low C direct report: Flexible timing, short check-ins ok
Duration:
High B direct report: Allow buffer for rapport
Low B direct report: Keep focused and efficient
High C direct report: Single-topic, predictable length
Low C direct report: Can be shorter, faster-paced
Format:
High D direct report: Structured agenda, action items
Low D direct report: Flexible, allow tangents
High B direct report: Start with personal connection
Low B direct report: Start with business
Sample 1:1 template for [Direct Report's Pattern]:
1. [Opening based on B trait]
2. [Agenda item structure based on C/D traits]
3. [Feedback approach based on A trait]
4. [Closing/action items based on D trait]Step 6: Identify Motivators
Based on direct report's profile, their primary motivators are:
| Trait Position | Motivator | Implementation |
|---|---|---|
| High A | Autonomy, ROI, winning | Give ownership, variable comp |
| Low A | Clear direction, team success | Specific praise, stable comp |
| High B | Acceptance, inclusion | Verbal praise, team activities |
| Low B | Privacy, focus time | Leave alone, private recognition |
| High C | Stability, predictability | Consistent routines, advance notice |
| Low C | Variety, deadlines | Keep busy, clear deadlines |
| High D | Knowledge, trust | Training, recognition for quality |
| Low D | Freedom, options | Creative problems, flexibility |
Step 7: Flag Energy Concerns
Check EU utilization:
Survey EU: [value]
Job EU: [value]
Utilization: [Job/Survey × 100]%
| Utilization | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 70-130% | Healthy | Maintain current approach |
| <70% | Frustration | Address mismatch - discuss role engagement |
| >130% | Stress | Direct report is overextending |
Step 8: Compile Coaching Summary
## Manager Coaching Guide: [Manager] → [Direct Report]
**Date:** [Date]
**Manager Pattern:** [Archetype]
**Direct Report Pattern:** [Archetype]
### Key Trait Gaps
| Trait | Gap | Adjustment Needed |
|-------|-----|-------------------|
| [Trait] | [difference] | [specific adjustment] |
### Communication Style Adjustments
1. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
2. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
3. [Specific adjustment based on their traits]
### 1:1 Recommendations
- **Frequency:** [recommendation]
- **Duration:** [recommendation]
- **Format:** [recommendation]
- **Opening:** [how to start based on B trait]
- **Feedback:** [how to deliver based on A/D traits]
### Primary Motivators
1. [Motivator 1] - [how to implement]
2. [Motivator 2] - [how to implement]
### Watch Areas
- [Potential friction point 1]
- [Potential friction point 2]
### Energy Status
- EU Utilization: [percentage]
- Status: [Healthy/Watch/Concern/Stress]
- Action: [if any]
### Things to Avoid
- [Anti-pattern for this direct report]
- [Anti-pattern for this direct report]</process>
<anti_patterns>
Avoid these coaching mistakes:
Expecting them to change: Survey traits are hardwired - change the environment, not the person
Projecting your motivators: What motivates you may demotivate them
One-size-fits-all 1:1s: Adapt format to their profile
Ignoring EU signals: Low utilization predicts disengagement and flight risk
Treating gaps as problems: Different profiles bring complementary strengths
Forgetting your own biases: Your profile affects how you perceive theirs
</anti_patterns>
<success_criteria>
Manager coaching is complete when:
[ ] Both profiles loaded and compared
[ ] All trait gaps calculated with friction risk
[ ] Primary friction points identified
[ ] Communication adjustments specified for each major trait
[ ] 1:1 structure designed for their profile
[ ] Motivators identified with implementation suggestions
[ ] EU utilization checked and flagged if concerning
[ ] Watch areas documented
[ ] Anti-patterns for this pairing noted
</success_criteria>
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Declares allowed tools, Needs network access, Needs Python
Security
What our scanner noticed· Medium risk
- Instructions that use the network
- Downloads piped into a shell
- Scripts that your agent may run
This skill includes scripts that your agent may run. Read them before you use it.
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Trail of Bits
- Publisher
- Trail of Bits (Official)
- Source
- trailofbits/skills · plugins/culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index · commit e4dd0bb
- Licence
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Trail of Bits or Trail of Bits.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download interpreting-culture-index.zip