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
npx -y skills add stephenrogan/csm-skills --skill process-audit-worksheetAssembled 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?
| Classification | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| AGENT | Step requires no judgment. Follows a defined rule, uses available data, produces a predictable output | Data pulls, CRM updates, email templates, scheduling, report formatting, status tracking, notification sending, field computation |
| HUMAN | Step requires expertise, relationship awareness, strategic thinking, or emotional intelligence | Customer 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 speed | QBR 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 Question | If Yes | If No |
|---|---|---|
| Could an agent do this with a clear rule and available data? | Reclassify as AGENT | Confirm as HUMAN |
| Is the "judgment" actually just pattern matching that could be encoded? | Reclassify as AGENT with rules | Confirm as HUMAN |
| Would a template with variable data fields produce an acceptable output? | Reclassify as AGENT | Confirm as HUMAN |
| Does the step require understanding the customer's emotional state, political dynamics, or relationship history? | Confirm as HUMAN | Consider AGENT with human review |
| Does the step involve deciding between options where the right answer depends on context an agent cannot access? | Confirm as HUMAN | Consider AGENT |
Step 4: Quantify the Split
| Metric | Calculation |
|---|---|
| Total steps | Count of all steps in the process |
| AGENT steps | Count classified as AGENT |
| HUMAN steps | Count classified as HUMAN |
| HUMAN+ steps | Count classified as HUMAN+ |
| Agent density | (AGENT + 0.5 * HUMAN+) / Total steps |
| Time on AGENT steps | Sum of estimated time for all AGENT-classified steps |
| Time on HUMAN steps | Sum of estimated time for all HUMAN-classified steps |
| Time reclamation potential | Time 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.