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.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use the-promotion-committee to simulate a promotion-calibration debate using [promotion packet], [manager pitch], and [candidate context], then provide an evidence-grounded verdict and debrief of fixable gaps versus timing politics.
Required inputs
[promotion packet]
[manager pitch]
[candidate context]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: the-promotion-committeedescription: "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."
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