From grimoire
Evaluates leaders against Sun Tzu's five commander virtues (wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage, strictness) and diagnoses which deficits cause organizational or competitive failures.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/grimoire:apply-five-commander-virtuesThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Assess a leader — or yourself — against the five virtues Sun Tzu identifies as essential for strategic command: wisdom (智), sincerity (信), benevolence (仁), courage (勇), and strictness (严). Identify which virtue deficits are causing failures; develop the deficient virtues deliberately.
Assess a leader — or yourself — against the five virtues Sun Tzu identifies as essential for strategic command: wisdom (智), sincerity (信), benevolence (仁), courage (勇), and strictness (严). Identify which virtue deficits are causing failures; develop the deficient virtues deliberately.
Origin: Chapter 1 of The Art of War lists the commander (将) as the fourth of the five strategic factors, and defines the commander's quality through five virtues: "The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness." (智、信、仁、勇、严, Ch.1, Giles trans.) These are not personality traits — they are functional capabilities whose presence enables strategic execution and whose absence produces specific, predictable failure modes.
Adopted by: The five virtues map directly to frameworks validated by modern leadership research. Jim Collins' Level 5 Leadership in Good to Great (2001) identifies personal humility (仁) combined with professional will (勇+严) as the defining quality of leaders who produced sustained company excellence — consistent with Sun Tzu's pairing. Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety (The Fearless Organization, 2018) demonstrates that 信 (sincerity/trustworthiness) is the prerequisite for team performance under uncertainty. Robert Greenleaf's servant leadership (1977) is a modern elaboration of 仁 as a leadership principle.
Impact: Leadership failure modes are predictable. A leader high on 勇 (courage) but low on 智 (wisdom) makes bold decisions without adequate judgment — recklessness. A leader high on 仁 (benevolence) but low on 严 (strictness) creates a warm culture with poor execution discipline — the "nice but ineffective" leader. A leader low on 信 (sincerity) produces a team that hedges, withholds information, and does not commit. Diagnosing which virtue is deficient explains the specific failure mode and points to the corrective action.
Why best: Most leadership assessment frameworks are descriptive (personality types, behavioural styles) rather than functional. The five commander virtues framework is functional — each virtue enables a specific capability that strategic execution requires, and the absence of each virtue produces a specific, identifiable failure mode. This makes it actionable for diagnosis, hiring, and development.
Sources: Sun Tzu, The Art of War (Giles trans. 1910) — Ch.1 (Laying Plans); Collins, Good to Great (2001) — Level 5 Leadership; Edmondson, The Fearless Organization (2018) — psychological safety; Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977); Drucker, The Effective Executive (1967) — executive effectiveness
智 (Zhì) — Wisdom / Judgment The ability to assess situations accurately, anticipate consequences, and make sound decisions under uncertainty. Not intelligence alone — wisdom is experience-informed judgment applied to novel situations.
Enables: Strategic assessment, adaptive decision-making, distinguishing important from urgent, reading the competitive environment accurately. Deficit produces: Poor situational assessment, decisions that ignore critical factors, inability to adapt when circumstances change, overconfidence in a single analytical framework.
信 (Xìn) — Sincerity / Integrity / Trustworthiness Doing what you say; keeping commitments to the people you lead; consistency between stated values and actual decisions. Integrity in the broadest sense — not just honesty, but coherence between words and actions.
Enables: Team trust, psychological safety, honest information flow upward, organisational alignment behind stated priorities. Deficit produces: Teams that withhold bad news, decisions driven by what the leader wants to hear rather than what is true, commitment without follow-through, erosion of organisational credibility.
仁 (Rén) — Benevolence / Care / Servant Leadership Genuine concern for the welfare of the people you lead. Not weakness or permissiveness — 仁 and 严 must coexist. Care that motivates the team to extend beyond job-description compliance into committed effort.
Enables: Discretionary effort, retention of excellent people, willingness to surface problems before they become crises, team resilience under adversity. Deficit produces: Mercenary culture (people stay for compensation, not commitment), high attrition when conditions are difficult, information hoarding, and minimalist compliance with directives.
勇 (Yǒng) — Courage / Decisiveness Making difficult decisions at the right moment without hesitation. Not recklessness (which is 勇 without 智) — courage tempered by judgment. The willingness to take necessary actions despite uncertainty, discomfort, or personal risk.
Enables: Decisive action at critical moments, willingness to make unpopular calls (difficult feedback, hard personnel decisions, strategic pivots), ability to commit rather than deliberate past the point of decision. Deficit produces: Decisions deferred past the optimal moment, consensus-seeking that produces slow and diluted actions, avoidance of necessary conflict, failure to act on known problems.
严 (Yán) — Strictness / Discipline / Standards Enforcing standards consistently, without favoritism, for every member of the team. Clear expectations, consistent accountability, and the refusal to accept excuses for avoidable performance failures.
Enables: Execution consistency, organisational reliability, a culture where accountability is real, quality standards that hold under pressure. Deficit produces: Execution inconsistency, a two-tier culture (favorites vs. others), declining standards over time, a team that does not take commitments seriously because consequences are not consistently applied.
Rate the leader (or yourself) on each virtue using observable behaviours, not intentions:
| Virtue | Score 1–5 | Key observable behaviour |
|---|---|---|
| 智 Wisdom | Do their assessments of situations prove accurate over time? | |
| 信 Sincerity | Do their commitments to the team consistently hold? | |
| 仁 Benevolence | Do team members voluntarily go beyond their job description? | |
| 勇 Courage | Do they make hard decisions when needed, without prolonged delay? | |
| 严 Strictness | Are standards applied consistently, regardless of who is involved? |
Score based on what you observe, not what the leader says about themselves. The virtues are revealed by behaviour under pressure, not by self-report.
Map observed failures to specific virtue deficits:
| Observed failure | Primary virtue deficit |
|---|---|
| Team withholds bad news until it's a crisis | 信 — trust deficit; team does not believe honesty is safe |
| Bold moves that consistently miss critical factors | 勇 without 智 — recklessness (also listed in five commander faults) |
| Warm culture, poor execution, missed commitments | 仁 without 严 — care without discipline |
| Decisions never finalised, consensus-seeking | 勇 deficit — courage to decide is absent |
| Standards fall when the leader's favourites are involved | 严 deficit — inconsistent accountability |
| Strategic assessment proves wrong repeatedly | 智 deficit — poor situational judgment |
| People leave despite competitive compensation | 仁 deficit — team does not feel seen or valued |
Use this table to move from "something is wrong with the leadership" to "this specific virtue deficit is producing this specific failure."
Virtues are not fixed personality traits — they are capabilities that can be built with the right practice:
Developing 智 (Wisdom):
Developing 信 (Sincerity):
Developing 仁 (Benevolence):
Developing 勇 (Courage):
Developing 严 (Strictness):
When hiring for leadership positions, design the interview to produce evidence for each virtue:
| Virtue | Interview question type |
|---|---|
| 智 | "Tell me about a situation where your initial assessment of a market/problem proved wrong. What did you learn?" |
| 信 | "Describe a commitment you made to your team that you failed to keep. How did you handle it?" |
| 仁 | "What do you know about each of your direct reports that has nothing to do with their job performance?" |
| 勇 | "Tell me about a decision you made that was unpopular. How did you make it? What happened?" |
| 严 | "Describe a situation where a high performer was not meeting a standard. What did you do?" |
Score each answer: does it demonstrate the virtue through observable behaviour, or does it describe the virtue abstractly without evidence?
Diagnosing a team's information problem (信 deficit): A leadership team notices that problems consistently surface late — as crises, not early warnings. Root cause diagnosis: the leader has responded to bad news historically with blame or visible displeasure, eroding 信. The team has learned that withholding is safer than surfacing. Corrective action: the leader explicitly rewards early problem surfacing in three consecutive team meetings, changes their own visible response to bad news, and over 6–12 months rebuilds the 信 that allows honest upward communication.
Hiring for a VP of Engineering role: Interview reveals: strong 智 (excellent situational judgment in technical architecture), adequate 勇 (has made hard calls on failed projects), strong 仁 (detailed knowledge of team members' career aspirations). But: inconsistent 严 — stories about standards enforcement involve making exceptions for high performers who were personal friends. Risk: will build a warm, technically strong team with a two-tier accountability culture. If 严 deficit is acceptable given the stage (early startup, speed over process), hire with awareness. If execution discipline is critical at current scale, continue searching.
Assessing virtues from self-report: "I'm a very direct leader" (self-assessed 严) tells you nothing. Ask for specific examples with outcomes, then verify with references.
Treating the virtues as a personality model: The virtues are functional capabilities, not personality types. An introvert can have high 勇; an extrovert can have low 信. Avoid mapping virtues to personality categories.
Developing one virtue while neglecting its complementary constraint: 勇 developed without 智 produces recklessness. 仁 developed without 严 produces permissiveness. Develop paired virtues together.
Using the framework to confirm a pre-existing assessment: If you have decided you like or dislike a leader, the virtue framework will produce evidence to confirm that decision. Score each virtue independently from observable evidence before forming an overall assessment.
npx claudepluginhub jeffreytse/grimoire --plugin grimoireApplies a five-factor strategic audit before committing to competitive engagements like product launches, market entries, or negotiations. Compares your position against an opponent's across Sun Tzu's dimensions.
Routes identity and values reasoning to the appropriate tool based on the situation. Use for mission alignment, character testing, or values clarification.
Enforces structured troubleshooting and evidence-first delivery habits for repeated failures, passive behavior, or quality issues. Uses big-tech performance culture rhetoric to drive proactive, exhaustive problem-solving.