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/mediate-conflict.md
<required_reading>
Read these reference files before mediation:
references/primary-traits.md- A, B, C, D trait detailsreferences/team-composition.md- Conflict pairs and friction patternsreferences/patterns-archetypes.md- Pattern identification
</required_reading>
<purpose>
Understand why two team members aren't working well together using their Culture Index profiles. This workflow identifies trait-based friction sources and provides specific recommendations for improving the working relationship.
Important: CI explains behavioral friction, not personal conflict. If the conflict involves values, ethics, or performance issues, those require separate intervention.
</purpose>
<process>
Step 1: Load Both Profiles
Person A: [Name]
- Role: [Title]
- 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]
Person B: [Name]
- Role: [Title]
- 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: Map Trait Differences
Calculate the gap for each trait:
| Trait | Person A | Person B | Gap | On Same Side? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] | [Yes/No] |
Highest friction risk: Traits on opposite sides of arrow with large gaps.
Step 3: Identify Primary Friction Source
Match trait gaps to known friction patterns:
| Pattern | Source | How It Manifests |
|---|---|---|
| High A vs Low A | Independence vs collaboration | High A acts autonomously; Low A feels excluded. Low A seeks consensus; High A sees it as slow. |
| High A vs High A | Power struggle | Both want to lead, neither wants to defer. Competing visions. |
| High B vs Low B | Social energy mismatch | High B wants connection; Low B wants focus. High B feels rejected; Low B feels overwhelmed. |
| High C vs Low C | Pace mismatch | Low C creates urgency; High C resists rush. High C seems slow; Low C seems chaotic. |
| High D vs Low D | Detail orientation | High D focuses on precision; Low D on big picture. High D sees carelessness; Low D sees rigidity. |
| High D vs High D | Perfectionism clash | Both critical, both notice flaws. Can become mutual criticism spiral. |
Your primary friction source: [Identified pattern]
Step 4: Understand Each Perspective
Map how each person likely perceives the other:
Person A ([Pattern]) likely sees Person B as:
| Person A's Trait | Person B's Trait | Person A Perceives B As... |
|---|---|---|
| High A | Low A | Indecisive, slow, passive |
| Low A | High A | Aggressive, selfish, dismissive |
| High B | Low B | Cold, unfriendly, disconnected |
| Low B | High B | Chatty, distracting, inefficient |
| High C | Low C | Chaotic, impatient, disruptive |
| Low C | High C | Slow, resistant, inflexible |
| High D | Low D | Sloppy, unreliable, careless |
| Low D | High D | Rigid, nitpicky, controlling |
Person B ([Pattern]) likely sees Person A as: [Same analysis from B's perspective]
Step 5: Assess Relationship Structure
What is their working relationship?
| Relationship | Additional Dynamics |
|---|---|
| Peers | No hierarchy - must find middle ground |
| Manager → Report | Manager should adapt first (they have more power) |
| Report → Manager | Report may need environment change if mismatch is severe |
| Cross-functional | Different priorities compound trait friction |
| Close collaborators | Daily friction accumulates faster |
| Occasional interaction | May be able to limit contact |
Their relationship: [Type]
Step 6: Generate Mediation Approach
Based on friction source, recommend approach:
For High A vs Low A friction:
Clarify decision rights (who owns what)
High A: Give Low A explicit input time before decisions
Low A: Understand High A's autonomy need isn't personal
Process: Defined consultation points before independent action
For High B vs Low B friction:
Acknowledge different social needs
High B: Reduce expectations for social interaction from Low B
Low B: Commit to minimal connection (brief check-ins)
Process: Scheduled, bounded social interaction
For High C vs Low C friction:
Acknowledge pace difference as legitimate
Low C: Give advance notice of urgent requests
High C: Accept some urgency is real, build buffer time
Process: Deadlines set with High C's processing time in mind
For High D vs Low D friction:
Acknowledge different detail orientations
High D: Accept "good enough" for some work
Low D: Use systems to catch critical details
Process: Clear quality standards for each deliverable type
For High A vs High A friction:
Clear domain ownership (separate turfs)
Explicit agreement on shared decisions
Regular alignment to prevent divergent directions
Process: Leadership defines who owns what
Your mediation approach:
[Specific recommendation]
[Specific recommendation]
[Specific recommendation]
Step 7: Design Process Changes
Beyond individual adjustments, what process changes would help?
| Friction Source | Process Solution |
|---|---|
| Pace mismatch | Define response time expectations, meeting cadence |
| Decision friction | RACI or decision rights matrix |
| Communication style | Agree on preferred channels, formats |
| Detail orientation | Define quality gates and checklists |
| Social needs | Protected focus time vs collaboration time |
Recommended process changes:
[Specific process change]
[Specific process change]
Step 8: Identify What Won't Change
CI traits are hardwired. Set realistic expectations:
| Person | Trait | Will Not Change |
|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [trait] | [behavior that won't change] |
| [Name] | [trait] | [behavior that won't change] |
Accept that:
[Person A] will continue to [trait-driven behavior]
[Person B] will continue to [trait-driven behavior]
The goal is accommodation, not transformation.
Step 9: Check Energy Levels
Review EU utilization for both parties:
| Person | EU Survey | EU Job | Utilization | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [A] | [val] | [val] | [%] | [Healthy/Stress/Frustration] |
| [B] | [val] | [val] | [%] | [Healthy/Stress/Frustration] |
If either is in stress/frustration:
The conflict may be intensifying natural friction
Address the energy drain as part of mediation
Consider workload or role adjustment
Step 10: Compile Mediation Summary
## Conflict Analysis: [Person A] & [Person B]
**Date:** [Date]
**Relationship:** [Peers / Manager-Report / etc.]
### Profile Comparison
| Trait | Person A | Person B | Gap |
|-------|----------|----------|-----|
| A | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
| B | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
| C | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
| D | [pos] | [pos] | [diff] |
**Person A Pattern:** [Archetype]
**Person B Pattern:** [Archetype]
### Primary Friction Source
**[Identified pattern]**
[1-2 sentence explanation of the core conflict driver]
### How They See Each Other
**Person A likely perceives Person B as:**
- [perception based on trait gap]
**Person B likely perceives Person A as:**
- [perception based on trait gap]
### Recommendations
**For Person A:**
1. [Specific adjustment]
2. [Specific adjustment]
**For Person B:**
1. [Specific adjustment]
2. [Specific adjustment]
**Process Changes:**
1. [Process change to reduce friction]
2. [Process change to reduce friction]
### What Won't Change
- [Person A] will continue to [trait behavior] - this is hardwired
- [Person B] will continue to [trait behavior] - this is hardwired
The goal is accommodation, not transformation.
### Energy Status
- Person A: [EU utilization status]
- Person B: [EU utilization status]
[Note any energy concerns]
### Conversation Guide
**Frame the discussion as:**
- Different working styles, not personal conflict
- Both approaches are valid
- Goal is finding workable middle ground
**Avoid:**
- Labeling either person's style as "wrong"
- Expecting either to fundamentally change
- Assuming one must adapt more than the other (unless manager-report)
### Success Indicators
After mediation, look for:
- [ ] Reduced friction in [specific interaction type]
- [ ] Both parties feeling heard
- [ ] Workable process in place for [friction point]
- [ ] Energy levels stabilizing (if previously stressed)
### Escalation Criteria
Escalate beyond CI-based mediation if:
- Conflict involves values, ethics, or harassment
- Performance issues underlie the conflict
- Either party is unwilling to accommodate
- Energy utilization continues declining</process>
<anti_patterns>
Avoid these mediation mistakes:
Blaming one party: Both profiles contribute to friction
Expecting transformation: CI traits don't change - environment does
Ignoring power dynamics: Manager-report relationships require manager to adapt first
Over-attributing to CI: Not all conflict is trait-based
Generic advice: Recommendations must be specific to their trait gaps
Forgetting EU signals: Energy drain indicates escalating friction
</anti_patterns>
<success_criteria>
Conflict mediation is complete when:
[ ] Both profiles loaded and compared
[ ] All trait gaps calculated
[ ] Primary friction source identified
[ ] Each person's perspective mapped
[ ] Relationship structure considered
[ ] Specific recommendations for each person
[ ] Process changes identified
[ ] Hardwired behaviors acknowledged (won't change)
[ ] EU levels checked
[ ] Conversation guide provided
[ ] Success indicators defined
[ ] Escalation criteria 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