The agent operates as a strategic HRBP, partnering with business leaders to align people strategy with organizational goals across talent planning, performance management, employee relations, and compensation.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionhr-business-partnerExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches hr-business-partner from borghei/claude-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate hr-business-partner. Access via /hr-business-partner in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
77
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
77
stars
The agent operates as a strategic HRBP, partnering with business leaders to align people strategy with organizational goals across talent planning, performance management, employee relations, and compensation.
Checkpoint: After step 2, confirm that attrition data distinguishes voluntary from involuntary and regrettable from non-regrettable before planning.
| Category | Metric | Formula / Source | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Headcount | Total HC | HRIS snapshot | -- |
| Attrition | Voluntary turnover | Voluntary exits / Avg HC x 100 | 10-15% |
| Attrition | Regrettable turnover | Regrettable exits / Total exits | < 30% |
| Hiring | Time to fill | Req open to offer accept | 30-45 days |
| Engagement | eNPS | Promoters - Detractors | 20-40 |
| Performance | High-performer ratio | Top-tier ratings / HC | 15-20% |
| Diversity | Representation | Demographic breakdown by level | Org-specific targets |
| Compensation | Compa-ratio | Actual pay / Band midpoint | 0.95-1.05 |
# Workforce Plan: [Department] -- [Year]
## Current State
- Headcount: [X]
- Open roles: [X]
- Voluntary attrition (trailing 12 mo): [X]%
- Engagement score: [X] / 100
- Regrettable turnover: [X]%
## Future State (12 months)
- Target headcount: [X] (growth: [X]%)
- Critical skills needed: [list]
- Organizational design changes: [if any]
## Gap Analysis
| Role / Skill | Current | Needed | Gap | Action |
|-------------|---------|--------|-----|--------|
| [Role A] | 3 | 5 | +2 | Hire Q1-Q2 |
| [Skill B] | Low proficiency | Intermediate | Gap | Training program |
## Hiring Plan
| Quarter | Roles | Headcount | Budget |
|---------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Q1 | [Roles] | [X] | $[Y] |
| Q2 | [Roles] | [X] | $[Y] |
## Succession Plan
| Critical Role | Incumbent | Ready Now | Ready 1-2 yr |
|---------------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| [VP Engineering] | [Name] | [Name] | [Name, Name] |
## Risk Register
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| Key-person dependency | High | Critical | Cross-train 2 backups by Q2 |
| Attrition spike in Sales | Medium | High | Retention bonuses, stay interviews |
| Quarter | Activity | HRBP Role |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Goal setting -- cascade company OKRs to individual goals | Review goal quality, ensure alignment |
| Q2 | Mid-year check-in -- progress review, feedback exchange | Coach managers on feedback delivery |
| Q3 | Ongoing development -- 1:1s, real-time feedback, training | Monitor development plan completion |
| Q4 | Year-end review -- self-assessment, manager assessment, calibration | Facilitate calibration, advise on ratings |
Checkpoint: Verify that every "exceeds expectations" rating has at least two documented behavioral examples before finalizing.
| Element | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | When and where | "In last Tuesday's team standup..." |
| Behavior | Observable action | "...you interrupted two colleagues mid-sentence." |
| Impact | Effect on team/work | "The team hesitated to share updates afterward." |
| Expectation | What needs to change | "Going forward, let each person finish before responding." |
CONTEXT
Current: 45 engineers, 8% attrition, 3 open reqs, engagement 74/100
Business goal: Launch 2 new products requiring +15 engineers in 12 months
WORKFORCE PLAN
Gap Analysis:
Frontend engineers: have 12, need 18 (+6)
ML engineers: have 3, need 8 (+5)
Engineering managers: have 5, need 7 (+2, promote from within if possible)
Platform engineers: have 10, need 14 (+4)
Hiring Plan:
Q1: 5 hires (3 frontend, 2 ML) -- $25K recruiting cost
Q2: 5 hires (2 ML, 2 platform, 1 frontend) -- $25K
Q3: 4 hires (2 platform, 1 frontend, 1 ML) -- $20K
Q4: 1 hire (manager backfill if internal promo) -- $5K
Succession:
Promote 2 senior engineers to EM by Q2 (already in leadership program)
Backfill their IC roles in Q3
Risks:
ML talent market is tight -- offer 75th percentile comp, sign-on bonus
2 senior engineers flagged as flight risk -- schedule stay interviews Q1
Budget: $75K recruiting + $120K incremental comp (15 new heads, partial year)
| Element | Approach |
|---|---|
| Market positioning | Target 50th-75th percentile for base; equity for upside |
| Pay components | Base (70%), variable/bonus (15%), equity (15%) |
| Pay decisions | Based on role level, performance, market data, internal equity |
| Review cadence | Annual merit cycle + promotion adjustments + market corrections |
| Transparency | Share band ranges with employees; publish leveling framework |
references/talent_planning.md - Workforce planning guidereferences/performance.md - Performance managementreferences/employee_relations.md - ER best practicesreferences/compensation.md - Comp philosophy and guidelines# Score organizational health from workforce metrics
python scripts/org_health_scorer.py --file org_metrics.csv
python scripts/org_health_scorer.py --file org_metrics.csv --json
# Analyze compensation for pay equity
python scripts/compensation_analyzer.py --file comp_data.csv
python scripts/compensation_analyzer.py --file comp_data.csv --json
# Generate workforce dashboard from HR data
python scripts/workforce_dashboard.py --file workforce.csv
python scripts/workforce_dashboard.py --file workforce.csv --json
| Problem | Root Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Business leaders treat HRBP as transactional HR | Unclear role definition, reactive posture, or lack of business acumen | Establish a formal operating model: 70% strategic / 30% operational; present quarterly people plans tied to business OKRs; delegate administrative tasks to HR shared services |
| Calibration sessions devolve into arguments | No shared rubric, manager defensiveness, or lack of pre-work | Require managers to submit ratings with 2+ behavioral evidence examples before the session; facilitate with a neutral framework; start with aligned ratings and work through outliers |
| Workforce plan disconnected from business strategy | HRBP not included in business planning, or plan built in isolation | Attend leadership team meetings; build workforce plan as an appendix to the business plan; tie every headcount request to a revenue or product milestone |
| High regrettable turnover in specific teams | Manager quality issues, compensation misalignment, or stalled career paths | Run stay interviews with high performers; analyze exit data by manager; benchmark comp by role and level; publish career ladders with clear promotion criteria |
| Employee relations cases escalate unnecessarily | Late intervention, poor documentation, or inconsistent policy application | Train managers on early issue identification; standardize the ER intake and investigation framework; conduct monthly ER case reviews to identify patterns |
| Performance review cycle seen as bureaucratic | Too many forms, unclear purpose, or ratings disconnected from comp | Simplify to a 2-page template; connect review outcomes directly to merit and promotion decisions; train managers on feedback delivery (SBI-E model) |
| Change management initiatives fail to stick | Insufficient sponsorship, poor communication cadence, or no measurement | Apply Kotter's 8-step model; secure visible executive sponsorship; communicate in 5+ channels; measure adoption at 30/60/90 days |
| Dimension | Metric | Target | Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Impact | Business leader satisfaction with HRBP | > 4.0 / 5.0 | Annual stakeholder survey |
| Strategic Impact | % time spent on strategic activities | > 60% ✓ Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster Stakeholder CommunicationDraft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations Example Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement ✓ Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead Implementation GuidePrerequisites
Time Estimate 30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements Steps
Common Pitfalls
Best Practices✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
When to Use This✓ Use when Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work. ✗ Avoid when Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed. Learning Path
Related Skillsgrill-me704mattpocock/skills Productivitysame category premortem218parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 Productivitysame category deslop164cursor/plugins Productivitysame category travel-planner145ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills Productivitysame category nutritional-specialist141ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills Productivitysame category framer-motion140pproenca/dot-skills Productivitysame category Reviews4.6★★★★★72 reviews
showing 1-10 of 72 1 / 8 DiscussionComments — not star reviews
|