Mentoring & Training Discovery — Capability Development Assessment

Inputs

• $1 — Path to team documentation, skills matrices, or project root (default: current working directory)
• $2 — Analysis depth: full (default), executive (sections S1, S5, S6 only)

Parse from $ARGUMENTS.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
  • piloto-auto: Auto para inventario de skills y gap analysis, HITL para diseno de learning paths y modelo de delivery.
  • desatendido: Cero interrupciones. Analisis completo automatizado. Supuestos documentados.
  • supervisado: Autonomo con reportes al completar cada seccion.
  • paso-a-paso: Confirma antes de cada seccion del analisis.
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — sections S1, S5, S6 only) | tecnica (full, default)

Input Requirements

Mandatory:

• Current team composition and role definitions
• Target skills or technology stack for the engagement
• Timeline constraints for capability readiness
• Stakeholder expectations on delivery model

Recommended:

• Existing skills matrix or competency assessments
• Previous training program results or satisfaction surveys
• Certification inventory per team member
• Project history (technologies used, complexity levels)
• Industry benchmarks for role competencies

Assumptions & Limits

Assumptions:

• Team members are available for assessment (self-assessment or evaluation)
• Target competency model is defined or can be inferred from project requirements
• Organization supports dedicated training time (not 100% billable expectation)
• Documentation in English or Spanish

Cannot do:

• Individual performance evaluation (requires HR processes and manager input)
• Psychometric assessment (requires specialized tools and certified evaluators)
• Salary benchmarking (requires market data and compensation expertise)
• Real-time skill verification through technical interviews (requires live sessions)

Workarounds When Inputs Missing

6-Section Framework

S1: Capability Assessment

• Current skills inventory: Per role/team member — technical skills, soft skills, domain knowledge. Proficiency levels: Foundational (1), Developing (2), Proficient (3), Advanced (4), Expert (5)
• Target skills definition: Per role — required competencies for engagement success. Mapped to SFIA framework or MetodologIA role catalog where applicable
• Gap analysis: Current vs target delta per role/team. Heat map visualization. Critical gaps (delta >= 3 levels) flagged
• Competency model mapping: Role-based competency clusters (technical, methodological, interpersonal, domain). Weight by business criticality
• Critical skill identification: Skills where gap + business impact = HIGH. Single points of failure (one person holds critical knowledge)
• Market benchmark comparison: How team capabilities compare to industry standards for similar roles/technologies

Conditional logic:

• IF critical gaps > 30% of required skills: flag CRITICAL — project readiness at risk
• IF single points of failure identified: flag HIGH — knowledge concentration risk
• IF no formal competency model exists: recommend adoption of SFIA or equivalent as foundational step

S2: Learning Path Design

• Role-based learning paths: Per role, structured progression:
  • Foundational (weeks 1-4): Core concepts, tools setup, coding standards, team processes
  • Intermediate (weeks 5-12): Applied skills, supervised deliverables, code review participation
  • Advanced (months 4-9): Independent delivery, mentoring others, architecture decisions
  • Expert (months 10+): Innovation, thought leadership, community contribution
• Certification milestones: Industry certifications mapped to progression (AWS, Azure, Scrum, ISTQB, etc.). Per certification: preparation time, exam cost magnitude, validity period
• Self-paced vs instructor-led balance: Recommendation per topic area. Self-paced for tools/syntax, instructor-led for architecture/design patterns/soft skills
• MetodologIA University model integration: Alignment with existing MetodologIA training catalog, reuse of certified content, gap identification for new content development
• Prerequisites and dependencies: Learning path dependency graph. Blocking prerequisites identified

Conditional logic:

• IF team has < 1 year experience in target stack: recommend intensive bootcamp (Phase 1)
• IF certification is client requirement: prioritize certification track with dedicated study time
• IF MetodologIA University content covers > 60% of needs: leverage existing content, develop delta only

S3: Knowledge Transfer Planning

• Documentation needs: What must be documented — architecture decisions, runbooks, coding standards, deployment procedures. Format and location standards
• Pairing/shadowing programs: Structure for knowledge transfer through practice. Senior-junior pairing ratios, rotation cadence, session format
• Workshop design: Topic-specific workshops with hands-on exercises. Per workshop: duration, audience, prerequisites, deliverables, facilitator requirements
• Hands-on labs: Practical exercises mapped to learning objectives. Sandbox environments, realistic scenarios, progressive difficulty
• Code review mentoring: Structured code review as learning tool. Review checklists, feedback templates, escalation criteria
• Tribal knowledge capture: Strategy for documenting undocumented expertise. Knowledge mining sessions, decision log creation, architecture decision records (ADR)
• Knowledge base creation plan: Platform selection, taxonomy design, contribution guidelines, maintenance ownership

Conditional logic:

• IF tribal knowledge concentration > 3 critical areas per person: flag CRITICAL — bus factor risk
• IF no documentation standards exist: recommend documentation-first approach before content creation
• IF remote/distributed team: emphasize asynchronous knowledge transfer methods

S4: Training Delivery Model

Per audience segment, recommend optimal blend:

• Blend recommendation per audience: Matrix of audience segment x delivery model with rationale
• Facilitator requirements: Internal vs external trainers, subject matter expert availability, train-the-trainer needs
• Infrastructure needs: LMS platform, lab environments, video conferencing, recording/playback capabilities
• Schedule integration: Training time allocation within sprint/delivery cadence. Recommended: 10-20% of capacity for ongoing learning

Conditional logic:

• IF timeline < 3 months AND gap is foundational: recommend bootcamp model
• IF team > 20 people: recommend train-the-trainer + CoP model for scalability
• IF budget constrained: prioritize on-the-job training + self-paced with curated content

S5: Measurement Framework

• Skill acquisition metrics: Pre/post assessment scores per competency area. Minimum improvement threshold: 1 proficiency level per quarter
• Time-to-productivity: Days from onboarding to first independent deliverable. Benchmark per role complexity
• Certification pass rates: First-attempt pass rate target (> 80%). Retake policy and support
• Knowledge retention: 30/60/90 day knowledge checks. Spaced repetition integration. Decay rate monitoring
• Business impact indicators:
  • Velocity: Story points/sprint trend post-training
  • Quality: Defect density trend post-training
  • Satisfaction: Team confidence survey (quarterly)
  • Autonomy: Escalation rate reduction over time
• ROI indicators: Productivity gain magnitude, reduced dependency on external experts, faster onboarding of new team members. Expressed in effort-days saved, NOT monetary values

Conditional logic:

• IF no baseline metrics exist: establish baseline in first 2 weeks before training starts
• IF retention at 90 days < 60%: flag delivery model effectiveness, recommend reinforcement strategy
• IF certification pass rate < 70%: review preparation adequacy and study time allocation

S6: Training Roadmap

Phased plan with certification milestones and success metrics:

Phase 1: Foundation (Month 1-2)

• Target audience: Full team
• Delivery model: Bootcamp (intensive) + documentation sprint
• Content focus: Core technology stack, team processes, coding standards
• Success metrics: All members reach Foundational (L1) proficiency, initial documentation complete
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Phase 2: Acceleration (Month 3-6)

• Target audience: Role-specific groups
• Delivery model: Mentoring (1:many) + on-the-job training + certification prep
• Content focus: Role-specific deep dives, advanced patterns, first certifications
• Success metrics: 70% reach Proficient (L3), first certification cohort complete
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Phase 3: Mastery (Month 7-12)

• Target audience: Advanced practitioners + new joiners (cycle restart)
• Delivery model: CoP facilitation + advanced workshops + train-the-trainer
• Content focus: Architecture decisions, innovation, knowledge multiplication
• Success metrics: Team self-sufficient, internal trainers certified, CoP active
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Per phase: dependencies on previous phase, risk factors, contingency if timeline compressed.

Casos Borde

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Mentoring & Training Core"]
        A[metodologia-mentoring-training-discovery]
        A1[S1: Capability Assessment]
        A2[S2: Learning Path Design]
        A3[S3: Knowledge Transfer Planning]
        A4[S4: Training Delivery Model]
        A5[S5: Measurement Framework]
        A6[S6: Training Roadmap]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        I1[Team Composition]
        I2[Target Skills / Tech Stack]
        I3[Timeline Constraints]
        I4[Existing Skills Matrix]
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        O1[Training Discovery Report]
        O2[Gap Analysis Heatmap]
        O3[Phased Training Roadmap]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        R1[metodologia-stakeholder-mapping]
        R2[metodologia-workshop-design]
        R3[metodologia-roadmap-poc]
        R4[metodologia-sector-intelligence]
    end
    I1 --> A
    I2 --> A
    I3 --> A
    I4 --> A
    A --> A1 --> A2 --> A3 --> A4 --> A5 --> A6
    A --> O1
    A --> O2
    A --> O3
    R1 --> A
    R2 --- A
    A --> R3
    R4 --> A

Output Templates

Formato MD (default):

# Mentoring & Training Discovery — {proyecto}
## Resumen Ejecutivo
> Roles evaluados: N. Gaps criticos: X. Tiempo estimado a productividad: Y meses.
## S1: Capability Assessment
| Rol | Skill | Nivel Actual | Nivel Objetivo | Gap | Criticidad |
## S2: Learning Paths
```mermaid
flowchart LR
    Foundational --> Intermediate --> Advanced --> Expert

S3-S6: [secciones completas]

Roadmap de Training

gantt
    title Training Roadmap
    ...

**Formato XLSX (para RRHH y gestores de talento):**

Hoja 1: Resumen Ejecutivo (gaps criticos + recomendaciones top 5) Hoja 2: Skills Matrix (rol x skill x nivel actual x nivel objetivo x gap) Hoja 3: Learning Paths (por rol, con milestones de certificacion) Hoja 4: Calendario de Training (actividad x fecha x audiencia x facilitador) Hoja 5: Metricas de Medicion (baseline x target x frecuencia de tracking) Hoja 6: Budget de Training (esfuerzo en trainer-days, NO precios)

**Formato HTML (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{project}_{WIP}.html`
- Estructura: HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Light-First Technical. Incluye heatmap de skills gap por rol, flowchart de learning paths con milestones de certificacion, y roadmap faseado con timeline visual. WCAG AA, responsive, print-ready.

**Formato DOCX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `{fase}_Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx`
- Generado via python-docx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Portada con logo y metadatos, TOC automatico, headers/footers con nombre del skill y numeracion, tablas zebra, titulos Poppins navy, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold.

**Formato PPTX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `{fase}_Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx`
- Generado via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master navy gradient, titulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold. Max 20 slides variante ejecutiva / 30 variante tecnica. Speaker notes con referencias de evidencia [DOC]/[INFERENCIA]/[SUPUESTO].

## Evaluacion

| Dimension | Peso | Criterio | Umbral Minimo |
|-----------|------|----------|---------------|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | El skill se activa ante prompts de training, mentoring, capability assessment, upskilling | 7/10 |
| Completeness | 25% | Las 6 secciones pobladas; gap analysis por rol/equipo; learning paths con niveles de progresion y certificaciones | 7/10 |
| Clarity | 20% | Heatmap de gaps es visualmente claro; modelo de delivery tiene justificacion por audiencia | 7/10 |
| Robustness | 20% | Edge cases cubiertos (zero experience, bus factor, no training time, outside expertise); workarounds documentados | 7/10 |
| Efficiency | 10% | Profundidad adaptada (full vs executive); MetodologIA University content reutilizado donde aplica | 7/10 |
| Value Density | 15% | Metricas de medicion definidas con baseline y target; ROI expresado en esfuerzo-dias ahorrados; single points of failure abordados | 7/10 |

**Umbral minimo global: 7/10.** Si alguna dimension cae por debajo, el entregable requiere revision antes de entrega.

## Escalation to Human Architect

- Team assessment reveals organizational issues beyond training (motivation, leadership, culture)
- Client expectations on timeline are incompatible with realistic skill acquisition curves
- Certification requirements conflict with project delivery timeline
- Training needs span domains outside MetodologIA expertise
- Individual performance issues require HR intervention, not training

## Validation Gate

- [ ] Capability assessment complete with gap analysis per role/team
- [ ] Learning paths designed with progression levels and certification milestones
- [ ] Knowledge transfer plan includes documentation, pairing, and tribal knowledge capture
- [ ] Training delivery model recommended per audience segment with rationale
- [ ] Measurement framework defined with baseline, tracking, and business impact indicators
- [ ] Training roadmap phased with effort magnitudes (trainer-days, NOT prices)
- [ ] All findings tagged with evidence source [DOC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO]
- [ ] Single points of failure (key-person dependencies) identified and addressed
- [ ] MetodologIA University integration points identified where applicable
- [ ] Recommendations sequenced by criticality and dependency

## Output Artifact

**Primary:** `Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{project}.md` (o `.html` si `{FORMATO}=html|dual`) — 6-section capability development assessment with gap analysis, learning path design, delivery model recommendation, measurement framework, and phased training roadmap.

**Diagramas incluidos:**
- Heatmap: Skills gap matrix (current vs target per role)
- Flowchart: Learning path progression with certification milestones
- Timeline: Phased training roadmap with dependencies

---
**Autor:** Javier Montaño · Comunidad MetodologIA | **Ultima actualizacion:** 14 de marzo de 2026