Standup Meeting

Use this skill when the job is to turn vague daily coordination into one honest cadence decision, one small evidence packet, and one follow-up path.

standup-meeting owns:

daily-coordination cadence truth
standup mode selection when a recurring sync is justified
blocker / handoff visibility
short facilitation flow and update templates
clear separation between the core sync and follow-up huddles
anti-status-theater guardrails
explicit less-frequent / no recurring standup outcomes when daily ritual is unjustified

Read these references before unusual cases or when the request starts to sprawl:

When to use this skill

A user asks for a daily standup, daily scrum, daily sync, or async check-in format.
A team needs to decide whether daily live cadence is still justified before choosing board-walk, blocker-first, async, hybrid, or classic three-question standups.
A daily ritual is running too long, drifting into status reporting, or generating too many side discussions.
A remote or hybrid team needs a lighter way to coordinate blockers and handoffs.
A launch / milestone / firefighting window may justify a temporary daily cadence even if the normal answer is lighter.
The best next artifact is a Coordination Cadence Brief with one cadence decision, one mode (if any), and one escalation path.

When not to use this skill

The real job is backlog decomposition, sprint prep, or execution-ready slicing → task-planning.
The real job is sizing, confidence framing, or capacity disagreement → task-estimation.
The real job is process reflection, recurring ceremony pain, or action follow-through after delivery → sprint-retrospective.
The real job is outage command, release war room, or incident triage → debugging / incident / launch-specific skills.
The user mainly wants manager-facing status collection or performance reporting. This skill is for lateral coordination, not upward theater.

Instructions

Step 1: Classify cadence first, then one primary mode if needed

Normalize the request before suggesting any format.

standup_intake:
  cadence_decision: live-daily | async-daily | hybrid-daily | less-frequent-sync | no-recurring-standup
  primary_mode: board-walk | blocker-first | async-check-in | hybrid-async-plus-live | classic-three-questions | none
  team_shape: colocated | hybrid | distributed | cross-functional | unknown
  work_source: jira | linear | github-projects | trello | docs | hacknplan | mixed | unknown
  main_problem:
    - blockers-hidden
    - too-long
    - status-theater
    - timezone-friction
    - board-stale
    - too-many-side-discussions
    - low-dependency-work
    - ritual-inertia
    - unclear
  current_signal: strong-board | weak-board | weak-updates | mixed | unknown
  delivery_risk: low | medium | high
  escalation_need: low | medium | high | unknown
  output_shape: coordination-cadence-brief | template-only | facilitation-reset | unknown

Use exactly one cadence decision per run:

live-daily — a live daily sync is justified by current blocker / dependency pressure
async-daily — daily visibility still matters, but live attendance cost is too high
hybrid-daily — written updates are daily; live talk is exception-only
less-frequent-sync — a recurring checkpoint still helps, but daily is overkill
no-recurring-standup — board/doc visibility plus ad hoc escalation is a better fit than ritualized daily sync

Choose a primary mode only when the cadence still includes a recurring standup shape:

board-walk — the board should drive the conversation
blocker-first — today’s main job is surfacing impediments and routing help fast
async-check-in — written updates are the default and live talk is optional
hybrid-async-plus-live — written visibility first, short live escalation second
classic-three-questions — only when the team is small and the format still carries real signal
none — use when the best answer is no-recurring-standup

Do not blend several cadence outcomes or modes into one mushy answer.

Step 2: Gather the smallest credible coordination packet

Use references/intake-packets-and-route-outs.md.

Minimum evidence packet:

current board / issue tracker / document source
in-progress and blocked work
near-term delivery goal or sprint goal if known
obvious handoffs or dependencies
timezone / hybrid constraints if relevant
whether the board is trusted, stale, or missing key work

If evidence is thin, lower confidence instead of inventing certainty.

Step 3: Decide whether daily cadence is justified, then pick the lightest mode that still catches risk

Default cadence rules:

high blocker frequency, dense dependencies, launch / milestone / incident pressure → live-daily
daily visibility matters but live overlap is costly → async-daily
written updates plus short exception-only huddle fits best → hybrid-daily
work is mostly independent, multi-day, or already visible in strong artifacts → less-frequent-sync
board/doc hygiene is strong and blockers should be escalated immediately instead of saved for a ritual → no-recurring-standup

Mode rules once cadence still justifies a standup shape:

trusted board + multiple active items → board-walk
blocked work or dependency pressure dominates → blocker-first
timezone spread or maker-time cost dominates → async-check-in
team wants written visibility plus a short exception-only sync → hybrid-async-plus-live
small colocated team, still high-signal, little ceremony drift → classic-three-questions

If the board is stale, call that out as part of the diagnosis. A standup cannot compensate forever for a broken source of truth. If the team only needs temporary higher cadence, say that explicitly: use the daily pattern for the risky window, then review whether to ratchet back down.

Step 4: Keep the core sync bounded when cadence still includes a sync

If the cadence is live-daily, async-daily, hybrid-daily, or less-frequent-sync:

keep the live core sync to 10-15 minutes max when one exists
focus on work movement, blockers, handoffs, and near-term delivery risk
move deep problem-solving into a follow-up huddle with only the relevant people
speak to the team and the work, not upward to management
say explicitly when the board, ticket hygiene, or update discipline is itself the blocker

If the cadence is no-recurring-standup:

say what artifact or channel replaces the ritual
name the escalation trigger for immediate blocker handling
say when to re-evaluate cadence if risk rises again

Step 5: Produce one Coordination Cadence Brief

Return one compact packet, not a general agile tutorial.

# Coordination Cadence Brief

## Recommended cadence
- Cadence:
- Why this cadence fits:
- Review trigger:

## Recommended mode
- Mode:
- Why this mode fits:

## Goal for this coordination loop
- ...

## Evidence used
- Work source:
- Strongest signals:
- Missing but important:

## Core facilitation flow or replacement path
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

## What each person should report or update
- ...

## Blocker / handoff routing
- Keep in core sync:
- Escalate immediately when:
- Move to follow-up huddle:
- Who should stay after:

## Template
```text
...

Anti-patterns to avoid

Adjacent handoffs

Use task-planning when ...
Use task-estimation when ...
Use sprint-retrospective when ...


### Step 6: Tailor the packet to the chosen mode or no-meeting outcome
Use [references/intake-packets-and-route-outs.md](references/intake-packets-and-route-outs.md) for stable packet shapes.

Mode reminders:
- **board-walk** — review blocked, aging, in-progress, and ready-for-review work before asking for personal diaries
- **blocker-first** — name owner, missing input, and next action quickly; do not solve the blocker in the room
- **async-check-in** — prefer prompts like “What moved?”, “What is stuck?”, and “What needs help today?” over ritualized filler
- **hybrid-async-plus-live** — treat written updates as the base layer and the live sync as escalation only
- **classic-three-questions** — keep only if it still stays short, lateral, and work-focused
- **none** — say which board/doc/channel replaces the ritual and exactly when the team should pull an ad hoc huddle

### Step 7: Route adjacent PM work explicitly
Before finalizing, say when the next job changed:
- use `task-planning` for backlog cleanup, sprint prep, or scope slicing
- use `task-estimation` for effort, confidence, or capacity disputes
- use `sprint-retrospective` when repeated daily-sync pain should become a process change
- do **not** turn this skill into roadmap planning, status theater, or incident command

## Output format
Always return a **Coordination Cadence Brief** with these qualities:
- exactly one cadence decision
- exactly one primary mode or `none`
- one small evidence packet
- explicit separation between core sync and follow-up huddle when a sync exists
- explicit replacement path when the answer is `no-recurring-standup`
- visible blocker / handoff routing
- short reusable template
- clear route-outs to the rest of the PM cluster when the job changes

## Examples

### Example 1: Overlong sprint standup
**Input**
> Tomorrow’s standup keeps running 25 minutes because everyone gives long updates. We have two blockers and one item waiting for review.

**Good output direction**
- cadence: `live-daily`
- mode: `board-walk` or `blocker-first`
- blocked and in-progress work comes first
- follow-up huddle only for the blocked items
- anti-pattern callout: no round-robin biographies

### Example 2: Distributed team
**Input**
> We have engineers in California, Europe, and Korea. Should our daily standup be async?

**Good output direction**
- cadence: `async-daily` or `hybrid-daily`
- mode: `async-check-in` or `hybrid-async-plus-live`
- written template centered on movement, blockers, and help needed
- explicit escalation path for urgent coordination

### Example 3: Manager-facing status theater
**Input**
> Our daily scrum feels like reporting to the manager. Fix it without changing our whole process.

**Good output direction**
- cadence may stay `live-daily`, but the answer must justify it rather than assume it
- mode: `board-walk` or `blocker-first`
- names status theater directly
- keeps the sync lateral and work-focused
- routes recurring ceremony pain to `sprint-retrospective`

### Example 4: Daily ritual no longer justified
**Input**
> Most of our work is independent and already tracked in Linear. The daily standup feels like obligation, not coordination. Should we keep it?

**Good output direction**
- cadence: `less-frequent-sync` or `no-recurring-standup`
- mode: `none` if the ritual should disappear
- replacement path uses board hygiene plus explicit blocker escalation
- review trigger says when the team should re-introduce temporary daily cadence

## Best practices
1. **Optimize for work movement, not recital** — the ritual should clarify today’s coordination job.
2. **Justify cadence before format** — first decide whether daily is warranted at all.
3. **Choose the lightest mode that still catches risk** — not every team needs the same ceremony weight.
4. **Triage blockers in the sync, solve them elsewhere** — follow-up huddles are a feature, not a failure.
5. **Protect maker time** — async or hybrid modes often beat default live meetings for distributed teams.
6. **Treat source-of-truth hygiene as a first-class issue** — stale boards and missing updates are real blockers.
7. **Route repeated pain outward** — planning, estimation, retrospectives, and incident work are different jobs.

## References
- Scrum Guide — https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html
- Scrum.org, *What is a Daily Scrum?* — https://www.scrum.org/resources/what-is-a-daily-scrum
- Atlassian, *Standups for agile teams* — https://www.atlassian.com/agile/scrum/standups
- GitLab Handbook, *Asynchronous communication* — https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/culture/all-remote/asynchronous/
- Martin Fowler / Jason Yip, *It’s Not Just Standing Up* — https://martinfowler.com/articles/itsNotJustStandingUp.html