agentsclimarketplace

Process audit worksheet

Skill stephenrogan/csm-skills/skills/process-audit-worksheet

Walks through auditing any CS process for agent-readiness by classifying each step as requiring human judgment (HUMAN) or suitable for agent execution (AGENT). Quantifies the production vs. judgment split and identifies the highest-value automation opportunities. Use when asked to audit a process, assess agent-readiness, classify workflow steps, evaluate what can be automated, or when a CS leader wants to understand how much of a process could be handled by agents. Also triggers for questions about process automation assessment, agent-human classification, workflow audit, operational efficiency analysis, or the agent-ready process model.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add stephenrogan/csm-skills --skill process-audit-worksheet

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 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 file declares

Copied from the file, not written here

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

7.5 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Process Audit Worksheet

Audits any CS process by classifying every step as AGENT (can be automated) or HUMAN (requires judgment). The most important operational assessment a CS team can run -- it reveals how much of the CSM's week is spent on work that does not require their expertise.

The governing insight: most CS processes were designed when the only execution engine was a person. Every step carries human time cost regardless of whether it requires human thinking. This audit separates the two.

How to Use

Provide any CS process in step-by-step form:

  • Onboarding workflow, renewal timeline, QBR preparation, escalation protocol, check-in cadence, health review, reporting cycle, handoff sequence -- any documented or undocumented process
  • For each step: what happens, who does it, how long it takes, and what judgment (if any) is required

The Classification Framework

Step 1: List Every Step

Write out every step in the process, including the ones nobody documents because "everyone knows" them. The undocumented steps are often the most time-consuming.

Step 2: Classify Each Step

For each step, apply the classification test:

The test: If an agent executed this step to a consistent standard using available data, would a senior CSM approve the output without modification?

ClassificationCriteriaExamples
AGENTStep requires no judgment. Follows a defined rule, uses available data, produces a predictable outputData pulls, CRM updates, email templates, scheduling, report formatting, status tracking, notification sending, field computation
HUMANStep requires expertise, relationship awareness, strategic thinking, or emotional intelligenceCustomer diagnosis, strategic recommendations, escalation decisions, relationship judgment, negotiation, save play design, political navigation
HUMAN+Step is primarily human but agent-prepared context would significantly improve quality or speedQBR recommendations (agent assembles data, human writes the strategy), health assessment (agent computes score, human validates and interprets)

Step 3: Apply the Pressure Test

The instinct is to classify too many steps as HUMAN. For each HUMAN classification, pressure-test:

Pressure Test QuestionIf YesIf No
Could an agent do this with a clear rule and available data?Reclassify as AGENTConfirm as HUMAN
Is the "judgment" actually just pattern matching that could be encoded?Reclassify as AGENT with rulesConfirm as HUMAN
Would a template with variable data fields produce an acceptable output?Reclassify as AGENTConfirm as HUMAN
Does the step require understanding the customer's emotional state, political dynamics, or relationship history?Confirm as HUMANConsider AGENT with human review
Does the step involve deciding between options where the right answer depends on context an agent cannot access?Confirm as HUMANConsider AGENT

Step 4: Quantify the Split

MetricCalculation
Total stepsCount of all steps in the process
AGENT stepsCount classified as AGENT
HUMAN stepsCount classified as HUMAN
HUMAN+ stepsCount classified as HUMAN+
Agent density(AGENT + 0.5 * HUMAN+) / Total steps
Time on AGENT stepsSum of estimated time for all AGENT-classified steps
Time on HUMAN stepsSum of estimated time for all HUMAN-classified steps
Time reclamation potentialTime currently spent by humans on AGENT-classified steps

Typical results: Most CS processes are 60-80% AGENT-classifiable. That means 60-80% of the time a CSM spends on that process is on work that does not require their judgment.

Output Format

## Process Audit: [Process Name]
**Audited by:** [name] | **Date:** [date]
**Total steps:** [n] | **Agent density:** [%]

### Step-by-Step Classification
| # | Step | Classification | Time (min) | Rationale |
|---|------|---------------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | [step] | [AGENT/HUMAN/HUMAN+] | [minutes] | [why this classification] |
| 2 | [step] | [AGENT/HUMAN/HUMAN+] | [minutes] | [why] |

### Summary
| Category | Steps | Time/Cycle | % of Process |
|----------|-------|-----------|-------------|
| AGENT | [n] | [min] | [%] |
| HUMAN | [n] | [min] | [%] |
| HUMAN+ | [n] | [min] | [%] |

### Time Reclamation
If AGENT steps were automated: [hours/week] freed per CSM per cycle
Across a team of [n] CSMs: [hours/week] total

### Priority Automation Candidates
1. [Step X]: [time/cycle] * [frequency] = highest time recovery
2. [Step Y]: [rationale]
3. [Step Z]: [rationale]

### Human Decision Points
The [n] steps that must remain human:
1. [Step]: [why human judgment is required]
2. [Step]: [why]

Quality Gates

  • Did you list every step, including the undocumented ones? Most processes have 3-5 steps that "everyone just knows" but that consume significant time. If your audit has fewer than 10 steps for a major process, you are missing steps
  • Did you pressure-test the HUMAN classifications? If more than 40% of steps are classified HUMAN, either the process involves unusually high judgment content or the classifications are too conservative. Pressure-test each one
  • Is the time estimate per step realistic? CSMs often underestimate how long production steps take because the time is distributed across the day in small increments. 5 minutes of CRM updating * 20 accounts = 100 minutes, not "a few minutes"
  • Are the priority automation candidates ranked by impact, not by ease? The highest-impact automation is often not the easiest. Rank by (time saved * frequency), not by implementation simplicity

Principles

  • The audit is a diagnostic, not a judgment. A process that is 80% AGENT-classifiable is not a bad process. It was a good process designed for the only execution engine available at the time: a person. The audit reveals the opportunity to upgrade the delivery mechanism
  • HUMAN steps are where the CSM earns their seat. The 20-30% of steps that require judgment, relationship awareness, and strategic thinking are the most valuable activities a CSM performs. The audit protects these steps by freeing time from the 70-80% that do not require them
  • Agent density is the business case metric. When a CS leader needs to justify an investment in automation, the audit provides the data: "Our QBR process has 24 steps. 18 are AGENT-classifiable, consuming 3.5 hours per cycle. Across 40 accounts per CSM, that is 140 hours per quarter of work that does not require judgment"
  • Start with your highest-volume process. The audit has the most impact on processes that run frequently (check-in cadence, health reviews) or that consume the most time per cycle (QBR preparation, renewal workflows). Audit the expensive processes first

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 1 of the 12 instructions most audit compliance skills give in ~1.6k tokens

Counted across 937 of the 1,487 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Fetch latest guidelines before each reviewin 43 of 937, across 3 files
  • Group findings by severityin 43 of 937
  • Check files against all fetched rulesin 42 of 937, across 2 files
  • Output findings in terse file:line formatin 41 of 937, across 3 files
  • Ask user which files to review if none specifiedin 41 of 937, across 3 files
  • Read specified files or prompt user for filesin 39 of 937, across 1 file
  • Generate the audit reportin 33 of 937, across 30 files
  • Assign a severity to every findingin 25 of 937
  • Run automated accessibility scansin 23 of 937, across 13 files
  • Output a markdown audit reporthere, and in 22 of 937
  • Map findings to WCAG criteriain 20 of 937, across 10 files
  • Confirm audit scopein 19 of 937, across 9 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • list every process step including undocumented ones
  • classify each step as AGENT, HUMAN, or HUMAN+
  • pressure-test every HUMAN classification
  • reclassify steps as AGENT if they use clear rules
  • calculate agent density for the process
  • estimate realistic time spent per step

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.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,790. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.