Structured AI adoption framework for leaders — diagnostic assessments, blocker analysis, rollout plans, and board-ready narratives
Shell
23
4 commits
updated Oct 3, 2026
From "we're exploring AI" to board-ready results.
A skills framework for leaders responsible for AI adoption — a consulting methodology in agent-readable skills, not a coding tool.
Leadership asks "what's your AI strategy?" You bought tool licenses. You told the team to use them. Nothing happened. Next board meeting, you say "we're exploring AI." The board is unimpressed. Repeat.
This playbook breaks that loop with a structured process: diagnose what's stuck, build a plan with owners and milestones, and produce board-ready updates with real numbers.
Note: The playbook helps you calculate and defend your own numbers — it never invents them. Validate figures with your finance owner before they reach a board.
After installing (see Installation below), say:
"Start AI playbook"
The playbook picks the right diagnostic for you and takes over. If you'd rather signal your specific situation:
| Skill | What it produces |
|---|---|
adoption-scorecard | Snapshot of who uses what AI tools, how often, how well |
board-ai-update | Board-ready narrative with specific numbers |
tool-stack-audit | What you pay for vs. what gets used |
roi-calculator | Quantified impact across four dimensions — cost efficiency, revenue optimization, new revenue, and capacity gained (revenue per FTE) |
data-readiness-check | Whether the data behind a chosen use case is actually usable, before committing to a plan |
| Skill | What it does |
|---|---|
fluency-assessment | Entry point — scores your team across three pillars (psychological barriers, integration, ownership) |
reporting-readiness-assessment | Stage 2 — scores reporting maturity across three pillars (outcome rigor, risk posture, board defensibility) |
blocker-diagnosis | Deep dive into what's stuck and why |
first-use-case-picker | Finds the right starting point for maximum visible wins |
90-day-plan-builder | Phased rollout with board-cycle milestones (Adoption track), or a governance/rollout-review/guardrails build-out (Review Layer track) |
board-narrative-coach | Practice with a skeptical VC, then draft the update |
ai-exposure-register | What AI is actually running, function by function — owner, authority, data reach. Produces the exposure section of the board report. The one skill that can run before the fluency assessment. |
| Skill | What it orchestrates |
|---|---|
full-adoption-cycle | Assessment -> diagnosis -> use case -> plan -> narrative |
quarterly-review | Re-assess, compare to last quarter, generate board update |
The playbook runs in two stages.
Stage 1 — Adoption. Every AI adoption failure maps to one of three pillars:
The fluency-assessment diagnoses which pillars are blocking you. Other skills then fix them in an order that produces results.
Stage 2 — Reporting. Most roadmaps assume Data → AI → Value — a straight line. In practice, the model is the easy part. What's usually missing is the layer between "the model produced an answer" and "someone downstream relied on it" — a customer, or an internal team like finance: who decided what counts as correct, who tested it, and what catches it when it's wrong. Once adoption is underway (Integration ≥ 3/5), that gap — call it the review layer — is what Stage 2 checks for.
The reporting-readiness-assessment diagnoses Stage 2. roi-calculator, board-ai-update, and 90-day-plan-builder (Review Layer track) close the gaps it surfaces. A risk-posture gap routes through ai-exposure-register first — you cannot plan governance for use cases nobody has listed.
Works for engineering, sales, and other functional teams — the playbook detects your team type at the start and adapts its probes, examples, and metrics accordingly.
blocker-diagnosis digs into the RED pillar; first-use-case-picker finds a win achievable in 2–4 weeksdata-readiness-check verifies the data behind that use case is actually usable; 90-day-plan-builder then produces the plan with named owners and board-cycle milestonesboard-narrative-coach grills you with skeptical-VC questions, then drafts the update you'll actually presentroi-calculator rebuilds your numbers with documented methodology and ranges instead of point estimatesboard-ai-update formats the result into the narrativequarterly-review re-assesses and compares against last quarter's scorecardPersist your company context in an adoption.local.md file so skills stop re-asking for it — company name, departments, currency, board cadence, tool stack. Save it in any folder shared with Cowork, or in .claude/ for Claude Code:
# AI Adoption Playbook Configuration
- Company: Acme GmbH
- Departments: Engineering (primary), Sales # one department, several, or "whole org"
- Currency: EUR # USD / EUR / GBP / other
- Company size: 120 employees, 45 in Engineering
- Board cadence: quarterly, next meeting 2026-09-15
- AI tools in use: GitHub Copilot (30 seats), ChatGPT Team (15 seats)
The playbook runs one department at a time (each gets its own scorecard and plan). List several departments and it works through them in cycles, starting with the primary; put whole org and it runs org-wide.
Optionally connect your tools via MCP (Slack, Box, Atlassian pre-configured) — skills then replace self-reported numbers with observed ones. Every connector is optional; see CONNECTORS.md.
https://github.com/adimango/ai-adoption-playbookOnce installed, say one of the Quick Start phrases above and the playbook takes over.
/plugin marketplace add adimango/ai-adoption-playbook
/plugin install ai-adoption-playbook@ai-adoption-playbook
Or clone and use directly:
git clone https://github.com/adimango/ai-adoption-playbook.git
cd ai-adoption-playbook
claude --plugin-dir .
Skills are namespaced as /ai-adoption-playbook:skill-name (e.g., /ai-adoption-playbook:fluency-assessment).
Skills are auto-discovered from .vibe/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directories. The symlinks are already set up in this repo.
/ai-adoption-playbook-fluency-assessment, /ai-adoption-playbook-roi-calculator, etc.A few skills (blocker-diagnosis, first-use-case-picker, 90-day-plan-builder, board-narrative-coach, reporting-readiness-assessment) are deliberately left off the slash-command list — CLAUDE.md's chaining rules gate them behind fluency-assessment, and Mistral Vibe Code doesn't load CLAUDE.md to enforce that. Run fluency-assessment first, then describe what you need and let the model route to them.
skills/ folderCursor supports the same Agent Skills format, auto-discovered from .agents/skills/ (or .cursor/skills/), not a top-level skills/ folder. Clone this repo — the symlinks in .agents/skills/ are already set up — and Cursor will pick up the skills automatically.
Future: MCP server packaging for use with other MCP-compatible clients.
If the gap is bandwidth, not understanding, I package the same methodology as a quarterly service called Talon — same diagnosis, same board update, run by me.
MIT
Structured AI adoption framework for leaders — diagnostic assessments, blocker analysis, rollout plans, and board-ready narratives
Shell
23
4 commits
updated Oct 3, 2026
From "we're exploring AI" to board-ready results.
A skills framework for leaders responsible for AI adoption — a consulting methodology in agent-readable skills, not a coding tool.
Leadership asks "what's your AI strategy?" You bought tool licenses. You told the team to use them. Nothing happened. Next board meeting, you say "we're exploring AI." The board is unimpressed. Repeat.
This playbook breaks that loop with a structured process: diagnose what's stuck, build a plan with owners and milestones, and produce board-ready updates with real numbers.
Note: The playbook helps you calculate and defend your own numbers — it never invents them. Validate figures with your finance owner before they reach a board.
After installing (see Installation below), say:
"Start AI playbook"
The playbook picks the right diagnostic for you and takes over. If you'd rather signal your specific situation:
| Skill | What it produces |
|---|---|
adoption-scorecard | Snapshot of who uses what AI tools, how often, how well |
board-ai-update | Board-ready narrative with specific numbers |
tool-stack-audit | What you pay for vs. what gets used |
roi-calculator | Quantified impact across four dimensions — cost efficiency, revenue optimization, new revenue, and capacity gained (revenue per FTE) |
data-readiness-check | Whether the data behind a chosen use case is actually usable, before committing to a plan |
| Skill | What it does |
|---|---|
fluency-assessment | Entry point — scores your team across three pillars (psychological barriers, integration, ownership) |
reporting-readiness-assessment | Stage 2 — scores reporting maturity across three pillars (outcome rigor, risk posture, board defensibility) |
blocker-diagnosis | Deep dive into what's stuck and why |
first-use-case-picker | Finds the right starting point for maximum visible wins |
90-day-plan-builder | Phased rollout with board-cycle milestones (Adoption track), or a governance/rollout-review/guardrails build-out (Review Layer track) |
board-narrative-coach | Practice with a skeptical VC, then draft the update |
ai-exposure-register | What AI is actually running, function by function — owner, authority, data reach. Produces the exposure section of the board report. The one skill that can run before the fluency assessment. |
| Skill | What it orchestrates |
|---|---|
full-adoption-cycle | Assessment -> diagnosis -> use case -> plan -> narrative |
quarterly-review | Re-assess, compare to last quarter, generate board update |
The playbook runs in two stages.
Stage 1 — Adoption. Every AI adoption failure maps to one of three pillars:
The fluency-assessment diagnoses which pillars are blocking you. Other skills then fix them in an order that produces results.
Stage 2 — Reporting. Most roadmaps assume Data → AI → Value — a straight line. In practice, the model is the easy part. What's usually missing is the layer between "the model produced an answer" and "someone downstream relied on it" — a customer, or an internal team like finance: who decided what counts as correct, who tested it, and what catches it when it's wrong. Once adoption is underway (Integration ≥ 3/5), that gap — call it the review layer — is what Stage 2 checks for.
The reporting-readiness-assessment diagnoses Stage 2. roi-calculator, board-ai-update, and 90-day-plan-builder (Review Layer track) close the gaps it surfaces. A risk-posture gap routes through ai-exposure-register first — you cannot plan governance for use cases nobody has listed.
Works for engineering, sales, and other functional teams — the playbook detects your team type at the start and adapts its probes, examples, and metrics accordingly.
blocker-diagnosis digs into the RED pillar; first-use-case-picker finds a win achievable in 2–4 weeksdata-readiness-check verifies the data behind that use case is actually usable; 90-day-plan-builder then produces the plan with named owners and board-cycle milestonesboard-narrative-coach grills you with skeptical-VC questions, then drafts the update you'll actually presentroi-calculator rebuilds your numbers with documented methodology and ranges instead of point estimatesboard-ai-update formats the result into the narrativequarterly-review re-assesses and compares against last quarter's scorecardPersist your company context in an adoption.local.md file so skills stop re-asking for it — company name, departments, currency, board cadence, tool stack. Save it in any folder shared with Cowork, or in .claude/ for Claude Code:
# AI Adoption Playbook Configuration
- Company: Acme GmbH
- Departments: Engineering (primary), Sales # one department, several, or "whole org"
- Currency: EUR # USD / EUR / GBP / other
- Company size: 120 employees, 45 in Engineering
- Board cadence: quarterly, next meeting 2026-09-15
- AI tools in use: GitHub Copilot (30 seats), ChatGPT Team (15 seats)
The playbook runs one department at a time (each gets its own scorecard and plan). List several departments and it works through them in cycles, starting with the primary; put whole org and it runs org-wide.
Optionally connect your tools via MCP (Slack, Box, Atlassian pre-configured) — skills then replace self-reported numbers with observed ones. Every connector is optional; see CONNECTORS.md.
https://github.com/adimango/ai-adoption-playbookOnce installed, say one of the Quick Start phrases above and the playbook takes over.
/plugin marketplace add adimango/ai-adoption-playbook
/plugin install ai-adoption-playbook@ai-adoption-playbook
Or clone and use directly:
git clone https://github.com/adimango/ai-adoption-playbook.git
cd ai-adoption-playbook
claude --plugin-dir .
Skills are namespaced as /ai-adoption-playbook:skill-name (e.g., /ai-adoption-playbook:fluency-assessment).
Skills are auto-discovered from .vibe/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directories. The symlinks are already set up in this repo.
/ai-adoption-playbook-fluency-assessment, /ai-adoption-playbook-roi-calculator, etc.A few skills (blocker-diagnosis, first-use-case-picker, 90-day-plan-builder, board-narrative-coach, reporting-readiness-assessment) are deliberately left off the slash-command list — CLAUDE.md's chaining rules gate them behind fluency-assessment, and Mistral Vibe Code doesn't load CLAUDE.md to enforce that. Run fluency-assessment first, then describe what you need and let the model route to them.
skills/ folderCursor supports the same Agent Skills format, auto-discovered from .agents/skills/ (or .cursor/skills/), not a top-level skills/ folder. Clone this repo — the symlinks in .agents/skills/ are already set up — and Cursor will pick up the skills automatically.
Future: MCP server packaging for use with other MCP-compatible clients.
If the gap is bandwidth, not understanding, I package the same methodology as a quarterly service called Talon — same diagnosis, same board update, run by me.
MIT