Stakeholder Influence MapperCAUTION

1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: stakeholder-influence-mapper
description: "Map stakeholders for a product decision and produce a tailored influence strategy with talking points. Use when asked to get alignment, build consensus, get buy-in from engineering or finance or legal, navigate organisational resistance, or plan stakeholder conversations for a major initiative. Produces a stakeholder map, recommended conversation sequence, and tailored talking points per stakeholder."
---

# Stakeholder Influence Mapper Skill

Turn a product initiative into a structured influence plan — who needs to be aligned, in what order, and exactly what to say to each person in their language.

## Required Inputs

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked *(assumed, confirm)* and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
- **Initiative description** (what you want to do and why)
- **List of key stakeholders** (name, role, relationship to initiative)
- **Timeline pressure** (when do you need a decision?)
- **Any known objections or political context** (what you're already aware of)

## Process
1. Build stakeholder map with: role, primary concern, decision authority (blocker / influencer / informed), current stance (supportive / neutral / resistant / unknown)
2. Identify the critical path of conversations — who must be won before others
3. For each stakeholder, lead with their concern, not your ask
4. Prepare one likely objection per stakeholder and a prepared response
5. Flag any stakeholders who should NOT be approached until others are aligned
6. **Validate** — Confirm every "blocker" stakeholder has a specific tactic (not just "have a conversation"), and that the sequence accounts for political dependencies

## Output Structure

### Stakeholder Map: [Initiative Name]

| Stakeholder | Role | Primary Concern | Authority | Current Stance |
|-------------|------|-----------------|-----------|----------------|
| [name] | [role] | [concern] | [type] | [stance] |

### Recommended Conversation Sequence
1. **[Name first]** — because [reason they unlock others]
2. **[Name second]** — once [first] is aligned
[continue...]

### Talking Points by Stakeholder

#### [Stakeholder Name]
**Lead with:** [Their concern, not your feature]
**Your ask:** [One specific thing you need from them]
**Likely objection:** [What they'll push back on]
**Prepared response:** [How to address it without being defensive]
**What success looks like:** [What alignment from them looks like]

## Notes
- Never send the same message to all stakeholders — calibrate every time
- Engineering leads want technical feasibility acknowledged first
- Finance stakeholders want ROI framing before anything else
- Legal/compliance stakeholders want risk mitigation addressed upfront

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every blocker has a specific tactic (not just "have a chat")
- [ ] Conversation sequence accounts for political dependencies
- [ ] Each stakeholder's talking points lead with their concern, not your agenda
- [ ] At least one "do not approach until X is aligned" flag is considered
- [ ] The ask from each stakeholder is a single, specific thing (not a vague "support")

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not approach high-influence blockers before aligning their sponsors — approach order determines outcome
- [ ] Do not create talking points that lead with your agenda — always lead with the stakeholder's stated concern
- [ ] Do not treat every stakeholder as equally important — focus depth on the decision-makers and key influencers
- [ ] Do not omit the "do not approach until X is aligned" flags — sequencing mistakes can permanently close doors
- [ ] Do not build the map based only on org chart position — influence often lives outside formal authority

## Example Trigger Phrases

- "Get alignment."
- "Build consensus."
- "Get buy-in from engineering."
- "Plan stakeholder conversations for a major initiative."

CAUTIONgrade B · trust 89/100 Install with care. The audit found things worth knowing before you trust its output.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (5)

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/discovery-interview-guide/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/job-story-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/user-interview-synthesis/SKILL.md

templates/pm-launch-agent/skills/content-calendar/SKILL.md

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.