From skills-for-humanity
Tests whether a proposed decision genuinely aligns with stated mission, helping detect rationalisation and drift. Useful for strategic reviews and mission checks.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-identity-mission-alignmentThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Organisations drift from mission gradually — through decisions that are each individually justifiable but collectively represent a departure from purpose. The test is not whether a decision can be argued to be consistent with mission, but whether it genuinely serves it.
Organisations drift from mission gradually — through decisions that are each individually justifiable but collectively represent a departure from purpose. The test is not whether a decision can be argued to be consistent with mission, but whether it genuinely serves it.
Step 1: State the Mission Plainly Not the marketing version — the operational version. What is this organisation or person actually trying to achieve, for whom, and why? If the mission has multiple legitimate interpretations, name them.
Step 2: State the Proposed Direction What is the decision, initiative, or direction being evaluated?
Framing check: Confirm the mission and the proposed decision before continuing. State what you've identified — the operational mission and the specific decision or initiative under evaluation — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 3: Test for Direct Mission Service Does this directly serve the mission? If yes: how specifically — trace the connection. If no: what is it serving instead (growth, revenue, opportunity, stakeholder pressure)?
Step 4: Test for Rationalisation Does the case for alignment require interpreting the mission more broadly than it was intended? Is this a genuine evolution of the mission — or is the mission being stretched to justify an attractive decision that doesn't actually fit?
Step 5: Apply the Genuine Pursuer Test What would someone who genuinely, single-mindedly pursued this mission do? Does the proposal match that behaviour? If a person fully committed to the mission looked at this decision, would they find it obvious — or would they feel something was off?
Step 6: Classify and Recommend Assign a classification and make a recommendation.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
[Operational description — not the tagline]
[Clear description]
Directly serves mission: Yes / Partially / No Connection (if yes): [Specific trace from decision to mission outcome] What it's actually serving (if no): [Honest description]
Is the mission being stretched to justify this decision? What is the evidence for or against?
What would someone fully committed to this mission do? Does the proposal fit?
Classification: On-Mission / Adjacent / Off-Mission / Mission-Expanding Recommendation: [Proceed / Proceed with modification / Pause / Decline — with rationale]
"Adjacent" and "Mission-Expanding" are not the same thing — adjacent means close but not serving the mission, while mission-expanding means the mission is genuinely growing. Be precise about which applies.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-identity-values-clarification — Clarify the values behind the mission/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting — Weight decisions against mission alignment/s4h-strategy-positioning — Position strategy to serve the missionnpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityRoutes identity and values reasoning to the appropriate tool based on the situation. Use for mission alignment, character testing, or values clarification.
Tests current work against a written mission anchor to detect and correct goal drift, scope creep, or standards erosion. Forces a continue, re-anchor, escalate, or stop decision.
Creates team alignment frameworks (North Star, values, decision tenets) for new teams, scaling organizations, or resolving misalignment.