Team check in
50+ Claude skills and 20+ agents for AI PMs, engineering managers, and senior ICs. Think more clearly about your work. Claude plugin. Made for Claude Desktop and Claude Code.
npx -y skills add shwetank/bettersense --skill team-check-inAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when a team needs to regularly revisit their Goals/Roles/Norms foundation to surface drift and realign. Trigger phrases include "team check-in", "are we still aligned", "team retro on our operating model", "review our team charter", "3X3 check-in". Facilitates a structured conversation (30–90 min) that answers: Are we still committed to our stated goals/roles/norms? If not, what's the gap and how do we close it? The second step of Moussa's 3X3 framework. Works from an existing team charter (from team-charter) or surfaces foundations de novo if none exist.
SKILL.md
9.0 KB, ~2.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Team Check-In
Structured recurring conversation to revisit a team's Goals, Roles, and Norms — the three foundations from Moussa's 3X3 framework. Answers: Are we still committed to what we said? If not, what's the gap between what we say and what we do? (The "Check-In" step)
Purpose: Surface drift before it derails the team. Teams naturally diverge from their initial agreements due to new information, new members, changing priorities, or unexamined habits. Check-ins make drift visible and create space to course-correct.
When to apply
Trigger this skill when:
- It's time for the team's regular alignment cadence (every 4–6 weeks)
- The team feels misaligned but can't pinpoint why
- New member joined — needs to understand the team's operating model
- Goals seem to be shifting without explicit conversation
- Someone raises: "Wait, I thought you were doing that" or "That's not what we agreed"
- After a major external change (org reorg, strategy pivot, product launch)
- The team charter exists but is stale
Skip when:
- The team meets for the first time (use
team-charterfirst instead) - The team is in active fire-fighting mode (use
incident-respondertype skills first) - There are only 1–2 people on the "team" (overhead > value)
The three-part agenda (3X3 check-in)
Total time: 60–90 minutes for a 6-person team. Shorter for smaller teams.
Part 1: Review current state (15 min)
Start with reality, not aspiration.
- Read the current charter (if one exists). "When did we create this? What were we trying to do?"
- Surface what's changed since then:
- New information learned
- New constraints (budget, timeline, dependencies)
- Team composition changes (joins, leaves, role shifts)
- External environment shifts (market, competitive, org strategy)
- Quick pulse check: On a 1–5 scale, how aligned do we feel on:
- Goals: Are we all pulling in the same direction?
- Roles: Is ownership clear? Any duplication or gaps?
- Norms: Are we working together effectively or fighting the process?
If scores are high (4–5) and no major changes, the check-in can be a brief sync (15 min). If scores are low (≤3) or changes are significant, proceed to full exploration.
Part 2: Diagnose gaps (25–40 min)
For each of Goals, Roles, Norms, surface specific places where stated ≠ actual.
Goals gap diagnosis:
- "What are we actually spending time on? Does it match the stated goals?"
- "What's competing for our attention? Are those things in our goals?"
- "Are our metrics still the right ones? Are we optimizing for the wrong thing?"
- "Do we all agree on priority order? Or are we pulling in different directions?"
Roles gap diagnosis:
- "Where are we stepping on each other's toes?"
- "What work is falling through the cracks? Whose job should it be?"
- "Is anyone doing work outside their role without agreement?"
- "Are decisions getting made in the right places? Or bottlenecked?"
- "Are we using people's strengths appropriately?"
Norms gap diagnosis:
- "What's driving us crazy about how we work together?"
- "Which meetings feel wasteful? Which are missing?"
- "How are we handling conflict? Is it healthy or toxic?"
- "Are we sharing information enough? Too much?"
- "Are our communication expectations clear and followed?"
Technique: Anonymous input collection first (everyone writes 1–2 bullet points per foundation privately, then shares round-robin). Prevents the loudest voice setting the agenda.
Part 3: Close the gaps (20–30 min)
For each identified gap, decide: Do we fix it, or do we intentionally live with it?
Not every gap needs closing. Some are unavoidable. But they must be explicitly accepted.
For gaps to close:
- Define the specific behavior change. "We should communicate better" → "We will post project status updates in #proj-updates every Friday by 3pm."
- Assign an owner. Every action item gets a single named owner.
- Set a target date. Small steps, not revolutions.
- Keep it small. One concrete change per gap, not five. Better to change one thing fully than five partially.
- Make it observable. "Improve meeting quality" → "All recurring meetings will have an agenda posted 24h in advance and decisions documented in the meeting notes."
For gaps to live with:
- Name the trade-off: "We're not documenting everything because speed matters more than completeness right now. We accept that tax."
- Set a review date: "We'll revisit this in 3 months and see if it's still the right trade-off."
Output: A short list of action items (2–4 items max), each with:
- What change
- Who owns it
- By when
- How we'll know it's done
These action items are tracked separately (could go into a team action tracker or the wins log for the team lead).
Running the check-in
The skill provides:
- Sample agenda with timings
- Anonymous input template (for teams that prefer written first)
- Follow-up email template summarizing decisions and action items
- Escalation guidance if the team can't agree on a fix
Suggested cadence
- New teams: every 2 weeks for first 2 months, then monthly
- Stable teams: every 6 weeks
- High-change teams: every 2–4 weeks
- Link to
/scheduleto automate reminders
Virtual teams adaptation
For distributed teams, emphasize:
- Async input collection (everyone contributes before the call)
- Video on for relationship building
- Shared doc for real-time note-taking
- Extra time for reading the room (no body language cues)
Facilitation tips the skill gives
- Start with appreciation: "What's going well?" before diving into gaps — sets constructive tone
- Name the pattern, not the person: "We're not posting meeting notes" not "You never post notes"
- Timebox each section: Use a timer; avoid over-discussing minor issues
- End with clear action items and owners: No meeting without clear next steps
- Rotate facilitator: If possible, rotate who runs the check-in to build ownership
- Archive decisions: Keep a changes log in the charter file
Operating principles
- Small steps, not revolution. Close one gap at a time; iterative improvement compounds
- Data-informed, not opinion-only. Look at actual behavior (meeting attendance, Slack activity, PR patterns) before diagnosing
- Owners, not just agreements. Every change needs a single named owner (not "the team")
- Link to the charter. Always reference the written charter; if it's wrong, update it
- Psychological safety prerequisite. If team members fear speaking honestly, fix safety first (see
psychological-safetyskill) - Not a retrospective. Retros look back at past work; check-ins look forward at team health and alignment
- Not a status meeting. This is about how the team works, not what the team is doing
Composition with other skills
team-charter— prerequisite for teams that have never done this; check-in reads charter each timeteam-diagnosis— complement: diagnosis gives quantitative read; check-in gives qualitative narrativeread-the-room— use after check-in if subtext revealed: "Why did Alice go quiet when we discussed roles?"coaching-mode— if the team leader needs to coach a member on their role or behavior post-check-inpsychological-safety— if check-in reveals safety issues, run this skill to address themstakeholder-reflect— if the check-in surfaces issues with external stakeholders, log them individually
Anti-patterns to flag
- Checking in without a charter. "What are our goals?" every meeting is exhausting. Charter first.
- Going deep on one foundation, ignoring others. Balance all three in each check-in, even if briefly.
- No follow-through. Action items assigned but not tracked → trust erosion
- Leader dominates. Manager sets all goals/roles/norms alone → no buy-in
- Infrequent cadence. "We'll check in quarterly" → drift goes unchecked for months
- Treating it as a performance review. Check-in is about system health, not individual performance evaluation
- Acquiescing to loudest voice. Use structured round-robin or anonymous input to ensure all voices
Trigger phrases the skill recognizes
- "Let's do a team check-in"
- "Are we still aligned on goals/roles/norms?"
- "We need to reset how we work together"
- "Our team charter is stale"
- "Let's review our operating agreement"
- "3X3 framework check-in"
- "Team alignment meeting"
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in ~2.0k tokens
Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Read the output and check the exit codein 54 of 1195, across 14 files
- Verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
- Identify the verification command proving the claimin 51 of 1195, across 12 files
- Run the full verification commandin 50 of 1195, across 11 files
- Verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 12 files
- Check version control diff after agent delegationin 46 of 1195, across 6 files
- State claim with evidencein 44 of 1195, across 4 files
- Run the test suitein 33 of 1195, across 26 files
- Keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
- Make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
- Produce a verification reportin 25 of 1195, across 14 files
- Detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files
Said here and by no other author read
- review existing team charter first
- assess alignment on goals roles and norms
- compare actual behavior to stated agreements
- collect anonymous input before group discussion
- name a single owner for each action item
- limit action items to four
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.