本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

hr-network-analyst

Professional network graph analyst identifying Gladwellian superconnectors, mavens, and influence brokers using betweenness centrality, structural holes theory, and multi-source network reconstruction. Activate on 'superconnectors', 'network analysis', 'who knows who', 'professional network', 'influence mapping', 'betweenness centrality'. NOT for surveillance, discrimination, stalking, privacy violation, or speculation without data.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(7)

  • SKILL.md6.5 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md1.1 KB
  • references/algorithms.md10.8 KB
  • references/data-sources-implementation.md4.0 KB
  • references/data-sources.md24.9 KB
  • references/graph-databases.md14.7 KB
  • references/network-theory.md3.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

HR Network Analyst

Applies graph theory and network science to professional relationship mapping. Identifies hidden superconnectors, influence brokers, and knowledge mavens that drive professional ecosystems.

Integrations

Works with: career-biographer, competitive-cartographer, research-analyst, cv-creator

Core Questions Answered

  • Who should I know? (optimal networking targets)
  • Who knows everyone? (superconnectors for referrals)
  • Who bridges worlds? (cross-domain brokers)
  • How does influence flow? (information/opportunity pathways)
  • Where are structural holes? (untapped connection opportunities)

Quick Start

User: "Who are the key connectors in AI safety research?"

Process:
1. Define boundary: AI safety researchers, 2020-2024
2. Identify sources: arXiv, NeurIPS workshops, Twitter clusters
3. Compute centrality: betweenness (bridges), eigenvector (influence)
4. Classify by archetype: Connector, Maven, Broker
5. Output: Ranked list with network position rationale

Key principle: Most valuable people aren't always most famous—they connect otherwise disconnected worlds.

Gladwellian Archetypes (Quick Reference)

TypeNetwork SignatureHR Value
ConnectorHigh betweenness + degree, bridges clustersBest for cross-domain referrals
MavenHigh in-degree, authoritative, creates contentKnow who's good at what
SalesmanHigh influence propagation, deal networksClose candidates, navigate negotiation

Full theory: See references/network-theory.md

Centrality Metrics (Quick Reference)

MetricMeaningWhen to Use
BetweennessControls information flowFinding gatekeepers, brokers
DegreeRaw connection countMaximizing referral reach
EigenvectorQuality over quantityAccess to power, rising stars
PageRankEndorsed by important othersThought leaders
ClosenessCan reach anyone quicklyInformation spreading

Analysis Workflows

1. Find Superconnectors for Referrals

  • Define target domain → Seed network → Expand → Compute betweenness + degree → Rank

2. Map Domain Influence

  • Define boundaries → Multi-source construction → Community detection → Identify brokers

3. Optimize Personal Networking

  • Map current network → Map target domain → Find shortest paths → Identify structural holes

4. Organizational Network Analysis (ONA)

  • Collect data (surveys, Slack metadata) → Construct graph → Find informal vs formal structure

Detailed workflows: See references/data-sources-implementation.md

Data Sources

SourceSignal StrengthWhat to Extract
Co-authorshipVery strongPublication collaborations
Conference co-panelStrongSpeaking relationships
GitHub co-repoMedium-strongCode collaboration
LinkedIn connectionMediumProfessional links
Twitter mutualWeakSocial association

Multi-source fusion: Weight and combine signals for robust network

When NOT to Use

  • Surveillance: Tracking individuals without consent
  • Discrimination: Using network position to exclude
  • Manipulation: Engineering social influence for harm
  • Privacy violation: Accessing non-public data
  • Speculation without data: Guessing network structure

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern: Degree Obsession

What it looks like: Only looking at who has most connections Why wrong: High degree often = noise; connectors differ from popular Instead: Use betweenness for bridging, eigenvector for influence quality

Anti-Pattern: Static Network Assumption

What it looks like: Treating 5-year-old connections as current Why wrong: Networks evolve; old edges may be dead Instead: Recency-weight edges, verify currency

Anti-Pattern: Single-Source Reliance

What it looks like: Using only LinkedIn data Why wrong: Missing relationships not on LinkedIn Instead: Multi-source fusion with source-appropriate weighting

Anti-Pattern: Ignoring Context

What it looks like: High betweenness = valuable, regardless of domain Why wrong: Bridging irrelevant communities isn't useful Instead: Constrain analysis to relevant domain boundaries

Ethical Guidelines

Acceptable:

  • Analyzing public data (conference speakers, publications)
  • Aggregate pattern analysis
  • Opt-in organizational analysis
  • Academic research with proper IRB

NOT Acceptable:

  • Scraping private profiles without consent
  • Building surveillance systems
  • Selling individual data
  • Discrimination based on network position

Troubleshooting

IssueCauseFix
Can't find dataDomain small/privateSnowball sampling, surveys, adjacent communities
False edgesOver-weighting weak signalsRequire multiple signals, threshold weights
Too largeUnconstrained boundaryK-core filtering, high-weight only
Entity resolutionSame person, different namesUnique IDs (ORCID), manual verification

Reference Files

  • references/algorithms.md - NetworkX code patterns, centrality formulas, Gladwell classification
  • references/graph-databases.md - Neo4j, Neptune, TigerGraph, ArangoDB query examples
  • references/data-sources.md - LinkedIn network data acquisition strategies, APIs, scraping, legal considerations

Core insight: Advantage comes from bridging otherwise disconnected groups, not from connections within dense clusters. — Ron Burt, Structural Holes Theory

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply normative BDI reasoning to agents that must detect norms, choose which commitments to internalize, and resolve conflicts by comparing consequences. Use when obligations, prohibitions, or policies collide in autonomous systems. NOT for simple fixed-priority rules, pure constraint satisfaction, or domains where no real normative conflict exists.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する