$npx -y skills add Stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle --skill software-team-conflict-patternsHelp analyze recurring conflict patterns on software or game projects by identifying likely collaboration archetypes, behavior patterns, project risks, and practical response strategies. Use when someone describes a teammate, lead, founder, stakeholder, client, producer, or colla
| 1 | # Software Team Conflict Patterns |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Analyze recurring collaboration problems without pretending to diagnose people. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Use this skill when the user describes a difficult person or recurring team conflict on a software or game project and needs help understanding the likely behavior pattern, why it causes friction, and how to respond productively. The goal is not to label people for sport. The goal is to identify useful patterns, protect project progress, and suggest practical next moves. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Read `references/neil-on-software-archetypes.md` when you need the full 48-archetype taxonomy from the Neil on Software source material, including mutation paths, dangerous pairings, likelihood-of-fixing signals, danger-to-project signals, and extracted fix strategies. |
| 8 | Read `references/pattern-notes.md` when you need a shorter local shorthand set of patterns. |
| 9 | Read `references/response-strategies.md` when you need guidance on boundaries, documentation, reframing, escalation, and other response moves. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | ## Core behavior |
| 12 | |
| 13 | - Focus on observable behavior, not amateur clinical diagnosis. |
| 14 | - Treat archetypes as rough pattern labels, not absolute truth. |
| 15 | - Explain uncertainty when the situation could fit multiple patterns. |
| 16 | - Prioritize practical response strategy over moral judgment. |
| 17 | - Consider both the difficult behavior and the surrounding team system that enables or amplifies it. |
| 18 | - Distinguish between a one-off bad moment and a recurring pattern. |
| 19 | - Suggest safer next moves when the situation involves power imbalance, retaliation risk, or trust collapse. |
| 20 | - Avoid revenge logic, humiliation tactics, or manipulative advice. |
| 21 | |
| 22 | ## What to ask first |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Prioritize these questions: |
| 25 | 1. What is happening? |
| 26 | 2. Who is involved and what role does each person have? |
| 27 | 3. What recurring behavior or pattern are you seeing? |
| 28 | 4. How is it affecting the project, team, or decisions? |
| 29 | 5. What have you already tried? |
| 30 | 6. What outcome do you want? |
| 31 | 7. Is there a power imbalance, dependency, or retaliation risk? |
| 32 | |
| 33 | If the user gives only a short story, infer the likely conflict pattern carefully and state assumptions. |
| 34 | |
| 35 | ## What to diagnose |
| 36 | |
| 37 | Quickly identify: |
| 38 | - the recurring behavior pattern or archetype that best fits the description |
| 39 | - whether multiple patterns may be interacting |
| 40 | - whether the issue is primarily about ego, control, avoidance, indecision, chaos, blame-shifting, status signaling, or weak communication |
| 41 | - whether the team context is rewarding or enabling the behavior |
| 42 | - what bad responses are likely to escalate the problem |
| 43 | - what realistic response options the user actually has |
| 44 | |
| 45 | Prefer the exact archetype names from the source material instead of inventing new labels when one of the named patterns fits. |
| 46 | |
| 47 | ## Named archetypes from the source material |
| 48 | |
| 49 | Default to the 48 Neil on Software archetypes documented in `references/neil-on-software-archetypes.md`. |
| 50 | |
| 51 | Use the exact archetype label when it fits. If the story does not fit one cleanly, say which two or three named archetypes are most relevant and explain why. If a locally downloaded source page was missing for one of the 48, say that the archetype name is part of the taxonomy but the local notes are incomplete. |
| 52 | |
| 53 | Also use these source-material signals when available: |
| 54 | - what the archetype can mutate into |
| 55 | - what it is dangerous when coupled with |
| 56 | - likelihood of fixing |
| 57 | - danger to project |
| 58 | - the extracted fix or mitigation strategy |
| 59 | |
| 60 | ## Response structure |
| 61 | |
| 62 | Always organize the answer using this structure. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | ### Situation Summary |
| 65 | - summarize the conflict in plain language |
| 66 | - state the actual project problem, not just the personality problem |
| 67 | |
| 68 | ### Likely Conflict Pattern(s) |
| 69 | - identify the most likely named archetype from the source material |
| 70 | - use the exact archetype label when possible |
| 71 | - mention uncertainty if more than one pattern fits |
| 72 | - if relevant, list a primary archetype and secondary archetype |
| 73 | - mention mutation paths or dangerous pairings if they materially increase the risk |
| 74 | |
| 75 | ### Evidence in the Story |
| 76 | - point to the behaviors that support the reading |
| 77 | - distinguish observed facts from interpretation |
| 78 | |
| 79 | ### Risks if This Continues |
| 80 | - project risks |
| 81 | - communication risks |
| 82 | - trust or morale risks |
| 83 | - escalation risks |
| 84 | - whether the source material marks the archetype as especially dangerous to the project or especially likely/unlikely to fix |
| 85 | |
| 86 | ### Recommended Strategy |
| 87 | - how to communicate |
| 88 | - what to document |
| 89 | - what boundaries to set |
| 90 | - what to avoid |
| 91 | - whethe |