Interpreting Culture Index
Trail of BitsOfficialPublished by Trail of Bits
- Skill
- Role or persona
- Business and productivity
- CC-BY-SA-4.0
- Medium risk
- Has scripts
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
This skill provides a structured methodology for analyzing Culture Index (CI) survey data. It emphasizes the importance of relative trait positioning over absolute scores, the distinction between hardwired survey traits and adaptive job behaviors, and the identification of burnout risks through energy utilization analysis. The skill guides users through interpreting individual profiles, assessing team composition using the Gas/Brake/Glue framework, and coaching managers based on behavioral patterns.
What it does
- Interprets individual behavioral profiles and identifies archetypes.
- Analyzes team composition to balance Gas, Brake, and Glue traits.
- Detects burnout risk by comparing survey traits against job-adaptive behaviors.
- Predicts behavioral traits from interview transcripts.
- Provides coaching recommendations for managers based on direct report profiles.
- Extracts and verifies CI data from PDF documents into structured JSON.
When to use it
- When you need to interpret an individual's Culture Index survey results.
- When assessing team dynamics or identifying gaps in team composition.
- When a team member shows signs of burnout or frustration in their role.
- When defining ideal behavioral profiles for new hiring roles.
- When mediating conflict between team members with different behavioral styles.
- When preparing for 1:1 coaching sessions with direct reports.
Advantages
- Prevents common interpretation errors like comparing absolute values.
- Provides a clear, data-driven approach to identifying burnout and flight risk.
- Standardizes the process of extracting and analyzing behavioral data.
- Offers actionable management and communication strategies for different archetypes.
- Reduces subjectivity in hiring and team development decisions.
Usage examples
- “I have a Culture Index PDF for a candidate. How do I interpret their profile?”
- The agent will guide you through the extraction process using the provided script, then analyze the resulting JSON to identify the candidate's archetype and key behavioral strengths.
- “Our team feels stuck. Can you analyze our composition?”
- The agent will request the CI profiles for the team members, assess the balance of Gas, Brake, and Glue traits, and identify potential gaps or areas of friction.
- “How do I manage a direct report who is a 'Craftsman' archetype?”
- The agent will provide specific management strategies, communication preferences, and motivational needs tailored to the Craftsman pattern.
- “Is this employee at risk of burnout?”
- The agent will compare the employee's survey traits with their job-adaptive behaviors to calculate energy utilization and identify stress signals.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/trailofbits/interpreting-culture-index/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip interpreting-culture-index.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Trail of Bits
<essential_principles>
Culture Index measures behavioral traits, not intelligence or skills. There is no "good" or "bad" profile.
<principle name="never-compare-absolutes"> **Never compare absolute trait values between people.**
The 0-10 scale is just a ruler. What matters is distance from the red arrow (population mean at 50th percentile). The arrow position varies between surveys based on EU.
Why the arrow moves: Higher EU scores cause the arrow to plot further right; lower EU causes it to plot further left. This does not affect validity—we always measure distance from wherever the arrow lands.
Wrong: "Dan has higher autonomy than Jim because his A is 8 vs 5" Right: "Dan is +3 centiles from his arrow; Jim is +1 from his arrow"
Always ask: Where is the arrow, and how far is the dot from it? </principle>
<principle name="survey-vs-job"> **Survey = who you ARE. Job = who you're TRYING TO BE.**
"You can't send a duck to Eagle school." Traits are hardwired—you can only modify behaviors temporarily, at the cost of energy.
Top graph (Survey Traits): Hardwired by age 12-16. Does not change. Writing with your dominant hand.
Bottom graph (Job Behaviors): Adaptive behavior at work. Can change. Writing with your non-dominant hand.
Large differences between graphs indicate behavior modification, which drains energy and causes burnout if sustained 3-6+ months. </principle>
<principle name="distance-interpretation"> **Distance from arrow determines trait strength.**
| Distance | Label | Percentile | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| On arrow | Normative | 50th | Flexible, situational |
| ±1 centile | Tendency | ~67th | Easier to modify |
| ±2 centiles | Pronounced | ~84th | Noticeable difference |
| ±4+ centiles | Extreme | ~98th | Hardwired, compulsive, predictable |
Key insight: Every 2 centiles of distance = 1 standard deviation.
Extreme traits drive extreme results but are harder to modify and less relatable to average people. </principle>
<principle name="l-and-i-exception"> **L (Logic) and I (Ingenuity) use absolute values.**
Unlike A, B, C, D, you CAN compare L and I scores directly between people:
Logic 8 means "High Logic" regardless of arrow position
Ingenuity 2 means "Low Ingenuity" for anyone
Only these two traits break the "no absolute comparison" rule. </principle>
</essential_principles>
When to Use
Interpreting Culture Index survey results (individual or team)
Analyzing CI profiles from PDF or JSON data
Assessing team composition using Gas/Brake/Glue framework
Detecting burnout risk by comparing Survey vs Job graphs
Defining hiring profiles based on CI trait patterns
Coaching managers on how to work with specific CI profiles
Predicting CI traits from interview transcripts
Mediating team conflict using CI profile data
When NOT to Use
For non-CI behavioral assessments (DISC, Myers-Briggs, StrengthsFinder, Predictive Index, Enneagram)
For clinical psychological assessments or diagnoses
As the sole basis for hiring/firing decisions — CI is one data point among many
<input_formats>
JSON (Use if available)
If JSON data is already extracted, use it directly:
import json
with open("person_name.json") as f:
profile = json.load(f)JSON format:
{
"name": "Person Name",
"archetype": "Architect",
"survey": {
"eu": 21,
"arrow": 2.3,
"a": [5, 2.7],
"b": [0, -2.3],
"c": [1, -1.3],
"d": [3, 0.7],
"logic": [5, null],
"ingenuity": [2, null]
},
"job": { "..." : "same structure as survey" },
"analysis": {
"energy_utilization": 148,
"status": "stress"
}
}Note: Trait values are [absolute, relative_to_arrow] tuples. Use the relative value for interpretation.
Check same directory as PDF for matching .json file, or ask user if they have extracted JSON.
PDF Input (MUST EXTRACT FIRST)
⚠️ NEVER use visual estimation for trait values. Visual estimation has 20-30% error rate.
When given a PDF:
Check if JSON already exists (same directory as PDF, or ask user)
If not, run extraction with verification:
uv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]Visually confirm the verification summary matches the PDF
Use the extracted JSON for interpretation
If uv is not installed: Stop and instruct user to install it (brew install uv or curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh). Do NOT fall back to vision.
PDF Vision (Reference Only)
Vision may be used ONLY to verify extracted values look reasonable, NOT to extract trait scores.
</input_formats>
<intake>
Step 0: Do you have JSON or PDF?
If JSON provided or found: Use it directly (skip extraction)
Check same directory as PDF for
.jsonfile with matching nameCheck if user provided JSON path
If only PDF: Run extraction script with
--verifyflaguv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]If extraction fails: Report error, do NOT fall back to vision
Step 1: What data do you have?
CI Survey JSON → Proceed to Step 2
CI Survey PDF → Extract first (Step 0), then proceed to Step 2
Interview transcript only → Go to option 8 (predict traits from interview)
No data yet → "Please provide Culture Index profile (PDF or JSON) or interview transcript"
Step 2: What would you like to do?
Profile Analysis:
Interpret an individual profile - Understand one person's traits, strengths, and challenges
Analyze team composition - Assess gas/brake/glue balance, identify gaps
Detect burnout signals - Compare Survey vs Job, flag stress/frustration
Compare multiple profiles - Understand compatibility, collaboration dynamics
Get motivator recommendations - Learn how to engage and retain someone
Hiring & Candidates: 6. Define hiring profile - Determine ideal CI traits for a role 7. Coach manager on direct report - Adjust management style based on both profiles 8. Predict traits from interview - Analyze interview transcript to estimate CI traits 9. Interview debrief - Assess candidate fit based on predicted traits
Team Development: 10. Plan onboarding - Design first 90 days based on new hire and team profiles 11. Mediate conflict - Understand friction between two people using their profiles
Provide the profile data (JSON or PDF) and select an option, or describe what you need.
</intake>
<routing>
| Response | Workflow |
|---|---|
| "extract", "parse pdf", "convert pdf", "get json from pdf" | workflows/extract-from-pdf.md |
| 1, "individual", "interpret", "understand", "analyze one", "single profile" | workflows/interpret-individual.md |
| 2, "team", "composition", "gaps", "balance", "gas brake glue" | workflows/analyze-team.md |
| 3, "burnout", "stress", "frustration", "survey vs job", "energy", "flight risk" | workflows/detect-burnout.md |
| 4, "compare", "compatibility", "collaboration", "multiple", "two profiles" | workflows/compare-profiles.md |
| 5, "motivate", "engage", "retain", "communicate" | Read references/motivators.md directly |
| 6, "hire", "hiring profile", "role profile", "recruit", "what profile for" | workflows/define-hiring-profile.md |
| 7, "manage", "coach", "1:1", "direct report", "manager" | workflows/coach-manager.md |
| 8, "transcript", "interview", "predict traits", "guess", "estimate", "recording" | workflows/predict-from-interview.md |
| 9, "debrief", "should we hire", "candidate fit", "proceed", "offer" | workflows/interview-debrief.md |
| 10, "onboard", "new hire", "integrate", "starting", "first 90 days" | workflows/plan-onboarding.md |
| 11, "conflict", "friction", "mediate", "not working together", "clash" | workflows/mediate-conflict.md |
| "conversation starters", "how to talk to", "engage with" | Read references/conversation-starters.md directly |
After reading the workflow, follow it exactly.
</routing>
<verification_loop>
After every interpretation, verify:
Did you use relative positions? Never stated "A is 8" without context
Did you reference the arrow? All trait interpretations relative to arrow
Did you compare Survey vs Job? Identified any behavior modification
Did you avoid value judgments? No traits called "good" or "bad"
Did you check EU? Energy utilization calculated if both graphs present
Report to user:
"Interpretation complete"
Key findings (2-3 bullet points)
Recommended actions
</verification_loop>
<reference_index>
Domain Knowledge (in references/):
Primary Traits:
primary-traits.md- A (Autonomy), B (Social), C (Pace), D (Conformity)
Secondary Traits:
secondary-traits.md- EU (Energy Units), L (Logic), I (Ingenuity)
Patterns:
patterns-archetypes.md- Behavioral patterns, trait combinations, archetypes
Archetype Deep Profiles (archetype-*.md):
archetype-administrator.md- The Administrator (High A, High B, Low C, Mid D)archetype-coordinator.md- The Coordinator (Low A, High B, Mid C, Low D)archetype-craftsman.md- The Craftsman (Low A, Low B, High C, High D)archetype-daredevil.md- The Daredevil (High A, Low B, Low C, Low D)archetype-debater.md- The Debater (Mid A, Mid-High B, Low C, High D)archetype-facilitator.md- The Facilitator (Low A, Mid B, Mid C, Low D)archetype-influencer.md- The Influencer (Low A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-operator.md- The Operator (Low A, Low B, High C, Mid-High D)archetype-persuader.md- The Persuader (High A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-philosopher.md- The Philosopher (Low A, Low B, High C, Low D)archetype-rainmaker.md- The Rainmaker (High A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-scholar.md- The Scholar (High A, Low B, Low C, High D)archetype-socializer.md- The Socializer (Low A, High B, Low C, Low D)archetype-specialist.md- The Specialist (Low A, Low B, High C, Mid D)archetype-technical-expert.md- The Technical Expert (Low A, Low B, High C, Low D)archetype-traditionalist.md- The Traditionalist (Low A, Low B, High C, High D)archetype-trailblazer.md- The Trailblazer (High A, Mid B, Mid C, Low D)
Application:
motivators.md- How to motivate each trait typeteam-composition.md- Gas, brake, glue frameworkanti-patterns.md- Common interpretation mistakesconversation-starters.md- How to engage each pattern and trait typeinterview-trait-signals.md- Signals for predicting traits from interviews
</reference_index>
<workflows_index>
Workflows (in workflows/):
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
extract-from-pdf.md | Extract profile data from Culture Index PDF to JSON format |
interpret-individual.md | Analyze single profile, identify archetype, summarize strengths/challenges |
analyze-team.md | Assess team balance (gas/brake/glue), identify gaps, recommend hires |
detect-burnout.md | Compare Survey vs Job, calculate EU utilization, flag risk signals |
compare-profiles.md | Compare multiple profiles, assess compatibility, collaboration dynamics |
define-hiring-profile.md | Define ideal CI traits for a role, identify acceptable patterns and red flags |
coach-manager.md | Help managers adjust their style for specific direct reports |
predict-from-interview.md | Analyze interview transcripts to predict CI traits before survey |
interview-debrief.md | Assess candidate fit using predicted traits from transcript analysis |
plan-onboarding.md | Design first 90 days based on new hire profile and team composition |
mediate-conflict.md | Understand and address friction between team members using their profiles |
</workflows_index>
<quick_reference>
Trait Colors:
| Trait | Color | Measures |
|---|---|---|
| A | Maroon | Autonomy, initiative, self-confidence |
| B | Yellow | Social ability, need for interaction |
| C | Blue | Pace/Patience, urgency level |
| D | Green | Conformity, attention to detail |
| L | Purple | Logic, emotional processing |
| I | Cyan | Ingenuity, inventiveness |
Energy Utilization Formula:
Utilization = (Job EU / Survey EU) × 100
70-130% = Healthy
>130% = STRESS (burnout risk)
<70% = FRUSTRATION (flight risk)Gas/Brake/Glue:
| Role | Trait | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Gas | High A | Growth, risk-taking, driving results |
| Brake | High D | Quality control, risk aversion, finishing |
| Glue | High B | Relationships, morale, culture |
Score Precision:
| Value | Precision | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Traits (A,B,C,D,L,I) | Integer 0-10 | 0, 1, 2, ... 10 |
| Arrow position | Tenths | 0.4, 2.2, 3.8 |
| Energy Units (EU) | Integer | 11, 31, 45 |
</quick_reference>
<success_criteria>
A well-interpreted Culture Index profile:
Uses relative positions (distance from arrow), never absolute values alone
Identifies the archetype/pattern correctly
Highlights 2-3 key strengths based on leading traits
Notes 2-3 challenges or development areas
Compares Survey vs Job if both are available
Provides actionable recommendations
Avoids value judgments ("good"/"bad")
Acknowledges Culture Index is one data point, not a complete picture
</success_criteria>
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer959 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer19.7 KiB
- SKILL.md14.0 KiB
- agents/openai.yaml246 B
- assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg3.0 KiB
- references/anti-patterns.md8.1 KiB
- references/archetype-administrator.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-coordinator.md3.9 KiB
- references/archetype-craftsman.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-daredevil.md3.3 KiB
- references/archetype-debater.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-facilitator.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-influencer.md2.9 KiB
- references/archetype-operator.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-persuader.md3.4 KiB
- references/archetype-philosopher.md3.6 KiB
- references/archetype-rainmaker.md2.6 KiB
- references/archetype-scholar.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-socializer.md3.3 KiB
- references/archetype-specialist.md4.1 KiB
- references/archetype-technical-expert.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-traditionalist.md3.7 KiB
- references/archetype-trailblazer.md4.0 KiB
- references/conversation-starters.md9.6 KiB
- references/interview-trait-signals.md8.1 KiB
- references/motivators.md6.6 KiB
- references/patterns-archetypes.md6.7 KiB
- references/primary-traits.md12.5 KiB
- references/secondary-traits.md8.3 KiB
- references/team-composition.md6.2 KiB
- scripts/check_deps.pyScript2.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/__init__.pyScript564 B
- scripts/culture_index/constants.pyScript3.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/extract.pyScript5.6 KiB
- scripts/culture_index/models.pyScript371 B
- scripts/culture_index/opencv_extractor.pyScript15.6 KiB
- scripts/extract_pdf.pyScript7.0 KiB
- scripts/pyproject.toml422 B
- scripts/uv.lock66.6 KiB
- templates/burnout-report.md3.2 KiB
- templates/comparison-report.md3.3 KiB
- templates/hiring-profile.md3.9 KiB
- templates/individual-report.md2.5 KiB
- templates/predicted-profile.md5.6 KiB
- templates/team-report.md3.1 KiB
- workflows/analyze-team.md5.1 KiB
- workflows/coach-manager.md8.8 KiB
- workflows/compare-profiles.md6.2 KiB
- workflows/define-hiring-profile.md7.6 KiB
- workflows/detect-burnout.md6.1 KiB
- workflows/extract-from-pdf.md3.9 KiB
- workflows/interpret-individual.md5.7 KiB
- workflows/interview-debrief.md7.5 KiB
- workflows/mediate-conflict.md9.9 KiB
- workflows/plan-onboarding.md9.2 KiB
- workflows/predict-from-interview.md8.0 KiB
references/anti-patterns.md
<overview>
Common mistakes when interpreting Culture Index profiles. Avoiding these errors is as important as understanding the methodology itself.
</overview>
<interpretation_mistakes>
<mistake name="comparing-absolutes">
Comparing absolute trait values between people
Wrong: "Dan has higher autonomy than Jim because his A is 8 vs 5"
Right: "Dan is +3 centiles from his arrow; Jim is +1 from his arrow"
Why it's wrong: The arrow position varies between surveys based on EU. An 8 with an arrow at 6 is only +2 from norm. A 5 with an arrow at 2 is +3 from norm.
Only exception: L and I use absolute values and CAN be compared directly.
</mistake>
<mistake name="ignoring-arrow">
Ignoring the red arrow position
The arrow is the population mean (50th percentile). All interpretation must be relative to it.
Wrong: "This person has low B (score of 3)"
Right: "This person's B is 2 centiles left of their arrow, indicating pronounced introversion"
</mistake>
<mistake name="value-judgments">
Treating traits as "good" or "bad"
Culture Index measures behavioral traits, not value or capability.
Wrong:
"High D is good because they're detail-oriented"
"Low B is bad because they're not social"
Right:
"High D indicates strong attention to detail - fits roles requiring precision"
"Low B indicates preference for focused work - fits analytical roles"
There is no universally "good" profile. Fit depends on role, team, and context.
</mistake>
<mistake name="stale-data">
Using outdated data (18+ months old)
Job behaviors update as environment, leadership, or projects change. Stale data leads to wrong conclusions.
Best practice: Resurvey job behaviors every 6 months, especially after major role or leadership changes.
</mistake>
<mistake name="single-trait-focus">
Over-indexing on a single trait
The pattern (relationship between traits) matters more than any individual dot.
Wrong: "They have High A, so they're a leader"
Right: "High A combined with High D suggests they can build new systems. High A with Low D suggests they'll drive fast but may miss details."
</mistake>
<mistake name="ignoring-survey-vs-job">
Not comparing Survey vs Job graphs
Missing burnout signals by only looking at one graph.
Always check:
Did the arrow move? (Stress/Frustration signal)
Did any dots flip sides? (Polarizing shift - flight risk)
What's the EU utilization? (>130% stress, <70% frustration)
</mistake>
<mistake name="confusing-traits-behaviors">
Confusing traits with behaviors
Survey (top) = hardwired traits (who you ARE) Job (bottom) = adaptive behaviors (who you're TRYING TO BE)
Traits don't change. Behaviors can be modified temporarily - but at an energy cost.
"You can't send a duck to Eagle school." - You can train behaviors, not traits.
</mistake>
</interpretation_mistakes>
<application_mistakes>
<mistake name="seeking-homogeneity">
Hiring for homogeneous teams
Hiring people who match the manager's profile creates blind spots.
Better approach: Build diverse teams with complementary traits. Every team needs Gas (High A), Brake (High D), and Glue (High B) in appropriate proportions.
</mistake>
<mistake name="overloading-high-a">
Overloading on High A's
High A's are "the single hardest trait to employ." They work for "me, Inc." first.
Too many High A's = power struggles, lack of follow-through, no one to execute.
You are only RENTING High A's - they need a mutually beneficial partnership.
</mistake>
<mistake name="neglecting-brake">
Neglecting the Brake (High D)
Every team needs quality control, risk management, and follow-through.
Without Brake: Erosion, mistakes, lawsuits, quality issues, things start but never finish.
</mistake>
<mistake name="assuming-fit-permanent">
Assuming job fit is permanent
People's roles evolve. Business needs change. What fit yesterday may not fit tomorrow.
Regular check-ins (resurvey every 6 months) catch misalignment before it becomes burnout or turnover.
</mistake>
<mistake name="using-ci-alone">
Using Culture Index as the only data point
Culture Index is ONE tool among many. It measures behavioral traits, not:
Skills or competencies
Intelligence
Experience
Values
Motivation
Best practice: Use CI alongside interviews, references, skills assessments, and performance data.
</mistake>
</application_mistakes>
<communication_mistakes>
<mistake name="sharing-raw-scores">
Sharing raw scores without context
Telling someone "Your A is 8" without explaining relative position is meaningless and potentially harmful.
Always communicate:
Position relative to arrow
What that means behaviorally
Why it's neither good nor bad
How it fits (or doesn't) with their role
</mistake>
<mistake name="labeling-people">
Using CI to label or box people
CI shows tendencies, not destiny.
Wrong: "You're a Persuader, so you should only do sales"
Right: "Your pattern shows strengths in influence and relationship building. How do you use those in your current role?"
</mistake>
<mistake name="public-comparison">
Comparing profiles publicly
Never compare individuals' profiles in group settings without their consent.
Discussing "Person A is more detail-oriented than Person B" creates hierarchy and judgment.
</mistake>
</communication_mistakes>
<red_flags>
Signals that suggest deeper investigation:
| Signal | What to Check |
|---|---|
| EU 0-10 (avoidant response) | Was survey completed properly? Trust issues? |
| All dots on or near arrow | Chameleon pattern - less than 0.57% of population. Verify validity. |
| Job behaviors completely opposite of Survey | Imminent flight risk. What's causing this extreme modification? |
| EU utilization > 150% | Severe stress. Immediate conversation needed. |
| EU utilization < 50% | Severe disengagement. May have already mentally quit. |
| D raised significantly in Job behaviors | Most common unsustainable stress pattern. Why do they feel they need to be so much more perfectionist? |
</red_flags>
<checklist>
Before finalizing any interpretation:
[ ] Did I use relative positions (distance from arrow)?
[ ] Did I avoid calling any trait "good" or "bad"?
[ ] Did I compare Survey vs Job if both available?
[ ] Did I calculate EU utilization?
[ ] Did I consider the full pattern, not just leading traits?
[ ] Is my data current (less than 18 months old)?
[ ] Did I note that CI is one data point among many?
</checklist>
<rationalization_table>
Common excuses that indicate you're about to make a CI interpretation mistake:
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Their A is higher so they're more autonomous" | Compare distance from arrow, not absolute values |
| "This is a bad profile for leadership" | No bad profiles - fit depends on role and context |
| "They need to change their C trait" | Survey traits are hardwired - change the environment instead |
| "Low B means they're not a team player" | Low B means they prefer focused work - they can still collaborate |
| "High D is always good for quality" | High D without other traits can mean paralysis and rigidity |
| "They should be more like their manager" | Different profiles bring complementary strengths |
| "This pattern can't do that job" | Patterns indicate tendencies, not hard limits |
| "Their EU is fine, the job is the problem" | EU tells you about energy, not about job design |
| "I remember their profile from last year" | Resurvey Job behaviors every 6 months - they change |
| "The arrow doesn't matter, just look at the dots" | The arrow IS the reference point - dots mean nothing without it |
| "L and I work the same as A, B, C, D" | L and I use absolute values, primary traits are relative |
| "Survey and Job will be the same" | Survey = hardwired, Job = adaptive. They often differ. |
| "High A means they're selfish" | High A means they're self-directed - not the same thing |
| "We need all High A's on this high-growth team" | You're renting High A's, and they'll clash with each other |
| "This hire looks good, skip the CI" | CI is one data point - use it WITH other assessments, not instead of |
</rationalization_table>
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Declares allowed tools, Needs network access, Needs Python
Security
What our scanner noticed· Medium risk
- Instructions that use the network
- Downloads piped into a shell
- Scripts that your agent may run
This skill includes scripts that your agent may run. Read them before you use it.
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Trail of Bits
- Publisher
- Trail of Bits (Official)
- Source
- trailofbits/skills · plugins/culture-index/skills/interpreting-culture-index · commit e4dd0bb
- Licence
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Trail of Bits.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download interpreting-culture-index.zip