Claude Skill

project-delivery

Plans and delivers a single project — scope, estimation, scheduling, critical path, tracking, and recovering when it slips. Use this to plan a project, build or challenge a schedule, estimate credibly, track progress meaningfully, or recover a project that is late.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 17 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download cbrock84-headcount-plugins_pmo_skills_project-delivery-98d1c17.zip · 3 KB
Part of cbrock84/headcount — 160 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount/tree/main/plugins/pmo/skills/project-delivery
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install cbrock84-headcount@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole cbrock84/headcount collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Project delivery

A project is one bounded piece of work with an end. Coordinating several toward a shared outcome is pmo:program-management.

Scope by exclusion

Inclusions are agreed easily and understood differently. The exclusions do the work: what this project will not deliver, written down and acknowledged by the sponsor.

Unwritten exclusions return as assumptions, always late, always framed as something obviously included. Fixing that at the end is called scope creep; it is usually a documentation failure at the start.

Estimate as a range, and say what the range means

A single-point estimate is a forecast presented as a commitment. Give a range with the assumptions that would move it, and be explicit about confidence.

Estimate the work, not the desired date. Estimates negotiated downward do not change the work; they change when you find out, and the finding-out happens at the least recoverable moment.

Decompose until the pieces are comprehensible. Estimating a large unknown produces a number correlated with optimism rather than with the work.

The critical path is where attention belongs

Not everything late matters. Slippage on the critical path moves the end date; slippage elsewhere consumes float. Knowing which is which is the difference between useful concern and generalised anxiety.

Recalculate as things change — the critical path moves, and a team watching the original one is watching the wrong thing.

Hold buffer at the project level rather than padding each task. Padded tasks absorb their own buffer and deliver no earlier, because work expands and nobody reports finishing early.

Track completion, not effort

Percentage complete is self-reported optimism, and it famously stalls at 90%. Track binary completion of defined deliverables — done or not done, judged against a definition agreed in advance.

Watch the trend: whether the amount remaining is falling at the rate required. A project where remaining work is not decreasing is a project that is late, whatever the reported percentage.

Recovery

Diagnose first, since remedies do not overlap: scope larger than understood, capacity lower than planned, dependencies not delivering, or an estimate that was never realistic.

Then present options with consequences — cut scope and name what, extend and say by how much, or add capacity, which late in a project usually slows things further. Re-baseline once, visibly. Serial one-week slips destroy credibility far faster than a single honest reset.

Change control is what makes the scope statement mean anything

A scope boundary that anyone can move in a conversation is not a boundary. Change control is the mechanism that turns it into one, and it needs to be light enough that people use it rather than route around it.

  • A change is anything that moves scope, date, or cost — including work that arrives described as a clarification. Most scope creep enters as a series of small reasonable requests, none of which was ever assessed against the whole.
  • Assess impact on all three before deciding. "Yes, and it adds two weeks" is a decision someone can make. "Yes" alone is how a plan quietly stops being achievable.
  • The person who can approve a change is the person who owns the consequence. If the sponsor approves scope but the team absorbs the date, changes will keep being approved.
  • Log rejected changes too. The record of what was declined is what stops the same request arriving three more times, and it is the honest answer when someone asks why a feature is missing.

Re-baseline when an approved change makes the old plan meaningless, and not otherwise. A baseline re-set to hide variance destroys the only reference you had.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Tooling

Delivery tracking: Jira, Asana, Linear, Monday.com, Smartsheet, Microsoft Project, and similar.

Portfolio and capacity: Jira Align, Planview, Adaptive Work, and similar. Worth it when you are reconciling many teams' plans against one capacity pool, not before.

The tool records the plan; it does not make the plan true. A status field nobody updates between meetings is worse than no field at all.

Never

  • Agree scope without written exclusions.
  • Present a single-point estimate as a commitment.
  • Report progress as percentage complete.
  • Add people to a late project and expect it to accelerate.
Files (headcount)
  • references
    • sources.md 1.7 KB
      # Sources — `pmo:project-delivery`
      
      <!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
      
      Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
      
      ## GAO Agile Assessment Guide
      
      US Government Accountability Office · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
      
      <https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105506>
      
      **Authoritative for:** Whether an organization has actually adopted an iterative delivery model or relabeled a staged one. Gives testable criteria, which is rare in this area, and reconciles iterative delivery with cost and schedule assurance.
      
      ## GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: best practices for project schedules
      
      US Government Accountability Office · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
      
      <https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-89g>
      
      Machine-readable: <https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-89g.pdf>
      
      **Authoritative for:** Whether a schedule is reliable — the ten criteria an auditor applies, covering the work breakdown, sequencing, resource loading, critical path, total float and schedule risk analysis.
      
      ## NASA Systems Engineering Handbook
      
      NASA · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
      
      <https://www.nasa.gov/reference/systems-engineering-handbook/>
      
      **Authoritative for:** What a phase gate must contain before a technical project may proceed — the review structure, entrance and success criteria, and how the technical baseline is controlled.
      
      ---
      
      Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.
      
  • SKILL.md 4.9 KB
    ---
    name: project-delivery
    description: Plans and delivers a single project — scope, estimation, scheduling, critical path, tracking, and recovering when it slips. Use this to plan a project, build or challenge a schedule, estimate credibly, track progress meaningfully, or recover a project that is late.
    ---
    
    # Project delivery
    
    A project is one bounded piece of work with an end. Coordinating several toward a shared outcome is
    `pmo:program-management`.
    
    ## Scope by exclusion
    
    Inclusions are agreed easily and understood differently. The exclusions do the work: what this
    project will *not* deliver, written down and acknowledged by the sponsor.
    
    Unwritten exclusions return as assumptions, always late, always framed as something obviously
    included. Fixing that at the end is called scope creep; it is usually a documentation failure at the
    start.
    
    ## Estimate as a range, and say what the range means
    
    A single-point estimate is a forecast presented as a commitment. Give a range with the assumptions
    that would move it, and be explicit about confidence.
    
    Estimate the work, not the desired date. Estimates negotiated downward do not change the work; they
    change when you find out, and the finding-out happens at the least recoverable moment.
    
    Decompose until the pieces are comprehensible. Estimating a large unknown produces a number
    correlated with optimism rather than with the work.
    
    ## The critical path is where attention belongs
    
    Not everything late matters. Slippage on the critical path moves the end date; slippage elsewhere
    consumes float. Knowing which is which is the difference between useful concern and generalised
    anxiety.
    
    Recalculate as things change — the critical path moves, and a team watching the original one is
    watching the wrong thing.
    
    Hold buffer at the project level rather than padding each task. Padded tasks absorb their own buffer
    and deliver no earlier, because work expands and nobody reports finishing early.
    
    ## Track completion, not effort
    
    Percentage complete is self-reported optimism, and it famously stalls at 90%. Track binary completion
    of defined deliverables — done or not done, judged against a definition agreed in advance.
    
    Watch the trend: whether the amount remaining is falling at the rate required. A project where
    remaining work is not decreasing is a project that is late, whatever the reported percentage.
    
    ## Recovery
    
    Diagnose first, since remedies do not overlap: scope larger than understood, capacity lower than
    planned, dependencies not delivering, or an estimate that was never realistic.
    
    Then present options with consequences — cut scope and name what, extend and say by how much, or add
    capacity, which late in a project usually slows things further. Re-baseline once, visibly. Serial
    one-week slips destroy credibility far faster than a single honest reset.
    
    ## Change control is what makes the scope statement mean anything
    
    A scope boundary that anyone can move in a conversation is not a boundary. Change control is the
    mechanism that turns it into one, and it needs to be light enough that people use it rather than
    route around it.
    
    - **A change is anything that moves scope, date, or cost** — including work that arrives described
      as a clarification. Most scope creep enters as a series of small reasonable requests, none of
      which was ever assessed against the whole.
    - **Assess impact on all three before deciding.** "Yes, and it adds two weeks" is a decision
      someone can make. "Yes" alone is how a plan quietly stops being achievable.
    - **The person who can approve a change is the person who owns the consequence.** If the sponsor
      approves scope but the team absorbs the date, changes will keep being approved.
    - **Log rejected changes too.** The record of what was declined is what stops the same request
      arriving three more times, and it is the honest answer when someone asks why a feature is missing.
    
    Re-baseline when an approved change makes the old plan meaningless, and not otherwise. A baseline
    re-set to hide variance destroys the only reference you had.
    
    ## Sources
    
    `references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
    here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
    answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
    to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
    
    ## Tooling
    
    Delivery tracking: Jira, Asana, Linear, Monday.com, Smartsheet, Microsoft Project, and
    similar.
    
    Portfolio and capacity: Jira Align, Planview, Adaptive Work, and similar. Worth it when you
    are reconciling many teams' plans against one capacity pool, not before.
    
    The tool records the plan; it does not make the plan true. A status field nobody updates
    between meetings is worse than no field at all.
    
    ## Never
    
    - Agree scope without written exclusions.
    - Present a single-point estimate as a commitment.
    - Report progress as percentage complete.
    - Add people to a late project and expect it to accelerate.
    

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related