Builds and maintains the leveling framework and pay structure — level definitions, salary bands, benchmarking, pay equity, and how raises and promotions are decided. Use this to design or revise leveling, set or adjust salary bands, benchmark against market, handle a compensation request or counteroffer, run a review cycle, or diagnose pay compression and equity issues.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Compensation touches employment law, pay transparency requirements, and equal pay obligations that vary by jurisdiction. Structural work here is fine; specific decisions about individuals should be reviewed by qualified counsel or an HR professional.
Pay structure without a leveling framework produces negotiated salaries, and negotiated salaries produce inequity that correlates with who negotiates hardest.
Define each level by scope and impact, not tenure or task list:
Levels must be distinguishable in a sentence. If two adjacent levels cannot be told apart by someone who does not know the people in them, they are one level.
For each level, benchmark against a market defined by the roles you actually compete with for candidates — not the whole industry, and not aspirational peers.
Compression — new hires paid near or above tenured staff — is the predictable result of moving markets and static internal pay. It is corrosive because it is discovered, and it is always discovered.
Run a pay equity analysis on a schedule: pay by level, controlling for level and location, disaggregated by demographic. Where a gap exists, fix it directly rather than waiting for the next cycle. Findings here need qualified review before action.
references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
Benchmark data is the purchase that matters, and it is where the scale tier is real: free and crowd-sourced ranges are directional at best; Pave, Carta Total Comp or Option Impact suit venture -backed companies; Radford, Mercer or Willis Towers Watson are the surveys large employers price against, and similar.
Administration: the compensation module of the HRIS, or CompTrack, Assemble, and similar.
Whatever the source, know its effective date, its scope, and how it defines the level you are matching to. Two surveys disagreeing usually means they are describing different jobs.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.