---
name: the-promotion-committee
description: "Simulate the calibration meeting that discusses your promotion after your manager leaves the room — the debate, the packet's holes, the verdict. Use when asked will I get promoted, simulate the promo committee, stress-test my promotion packet, or why did my promo get rejected. Produces the committee transcript (four archetypes on YOUR packet), the internal verdict with the real reason, and a debrief separating fixable gaps from timing politics."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/the-promotion-committee.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# The Promotion Committee Skill

Promotions are decided in a room you're not in, by people comparing you to candidates you've never met, reading a packet in four minutes. This skill runs that room early: your actual evidence, debated by the archetypes calibration meetings really contain — then breaks character to tell you which objections are fixable this cycle and which are politics wearing a rubric.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The transcript** — four committee archetypes debating your packet, 12–18 exchanges
- **The verdict memo** — promote / hold / needs-a-cycle, with the real reason vs the feedback you'd be given
- **The debrief** — gaps ranked by fixability, with the evidence that would close each

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The packet substance** — accomplishments with scope/impact, the level sought, the ladder criteria if available
- **The manager's pitch** — how strongly and with what evidence they'll advocate (honest read)
- **The context** — how many slots vs candidates, your tenure at level, any known skeptics
- **The known weakness** — the thing you hope nobody asks; the committee always asks

## Framework: The Four Chairs

| Archetype | What they weigh | Their tell |
|---|---|---|
| **The Sponsor** (your manager's proxy) | Sells your two strongest artifacts | Overreaches on scope claims — invites the challenge |
| **The Bar-Keeper** | The ladder text, literally | "That's solid *at-level* performance" — the sentence that kills promos |
| **The Comparator** | You vs the other packets THIS cycle | "Both are strong; we have one slot" |
| **The Skeptic-of-Evidence** | Whether impact claims survive reading | "Led — or participated? The doc says the team shipped it" |

**Committee mechanics to honor:** packets get minutes, not hours — the first artifact carries disproportionate weight · "next-level work already happening" beats "ready for next-level work" everywhere · scope inflation, once caught, taints the true claims too · absence of a named sponsor beyond the manager is itself discussed.

## Output Format

# Calibration: [name] → [level] — [cycle]

> Simulation — a plausible adversarial reading, not a prediction.

## Transcript
[The debate, grounded ONLY in the supplied packet; where evidence is missing, the committee notices the absence — that's the feedback]

## Verdict Memo
**Outcome:** PROMOTE / HOLD (real reason: …) — and the softer version HR will relay
**What tipped it:** … **The comparison that mattered:** …

## Debrief — out of character
| Gap the committee found | Fixable this cycle? | The evidence that closes it |
|---|---|---|
[Plus: the one artifact to lead the next packet with, and the sponsor-beyond-your-manager problem if present]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every committee claim traces to the supplied packet or a noticed absence
- [ ] The Bar-Keeper quotes level criteria against specific accomplishments
- [ ] The verdict's real reason differs from the relayed feedback when it realistically would
- [ ] The debrief separates evidence gaps from slot/timing politics honestly
- [ ] "At-level vs next-level" framing appears — it's the axis promotions actually turn on

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not pull punches — a committee that loves the packet teaches nothing
- [ ] Do not invent accomplishments to debate — absences ARE the finding
- [ ] Do not let the Sponsor win by enthusiasm — packets win on evidence the skeptic can't dent
- [ ] Do not present politics as fixable — naming the unfixable is the kindest output
- [ ] Do not stay in character in the debrief