Generated banner for Interpreting Culture Index
Generated logo for Interpreting Culture Index

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

From the author

Interprets Culture Index (CI) surveys, behavioral profiles, and personality assessment data. Supports individual profile interpretation, team composition analysis (gas/brake/glue), burnout detection, profile comparison, hiring profiles, manager coaching, interview transcript analysis for trait prediction, candidate debrief, onboarding planning, and conflict mediation. Accepts extracted JSON or PDF input via OpenCV extraction script. Use when the user shares a Culture Index PDF or JSON profile, asks what someone's CI traits mean, compares Culture Index profiles across a team or against a hiring profile, or asks about burnout risk from Survey-versus-Job gaps.
— the description by Trail of Bits

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

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/trailofbits/interpreting-culture-index/download
  2. Unzip 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.**

DistanceLabelPercentileInterpretation
On arrowNormative50thFlexible, situational
±1 centileTendency~67thEasier to modify
±2 centilesPronounced~84thNoticeable difference
±4+ centilesExtreme~98thHardwired, 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:

  1. Check if JSON already exists (same directory as PDF, or ask user)

  2. If not, run extraction with verification:

    uv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]
  3. Visually confirm the verification summary matches the PDF

  4. 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?

  1. If JSON provided or found: Use it directly (skip extraction)

    • Check same directory as PDF for .json file with matching name

    • Check if user provided JSON path

  2. If only PDF: Run extraction script with --verify flag

    uv run --no-project {baseDir}/scripts/extract_pdf.py --verify /path/to/file.pdf [output.json]
  3. 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:

  1. Interpret an individual profile - Understand one person's traits, strengths, and challenges

  2. Analyze team composition - Assess gas/brake/glue balance, identify gaps

  3. Detect burnout signals - Compare Survey vs Job, flag stress/frustration

  4. Compare multiple profiles - Understand compatibility, collaboration dynamics

  5. 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>

ResponseWorkflow
"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:

  1. Did you use relative positions? Never stated "A is 8" without context

  2. Did you reference the arrow? All trait interpretations relative to arrow

  3. Did you compare Survey vs Job? Identified any behavior modification

  4. Did you avoid value judgments? No traits called "good" or "bad"

  5. 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 type

  • team-composition.md - Gas, brake, glue framework

  • anti-patterns.md - Common interpretation mistakes

  • conversation-starters.md - How to engage each pattern and trait type

  • interview-trait-signals.md - Signals for predicting traits from interviews

</reference_index>

<workflows_index>

Workflows (in workflows/):

FilePurpose
extract-from-pdf.mdExtract profile data from Culture Index PDF to JSON format
interpret-individual.mdAnalyze single profile, identify archetype, summarize strengths/challenges
analyze-team.mdAssess team balance (gas/brake/glue), identify gaps, recommend hires
detect-burnout.mdCompare Survey vs Job, calculate EU utilization, flag risk signals
compare-profiles.mdCompare multiple profiles, assess compatibility, collaboration dynamics
define-hiring-profile.mdDefine ideal CI traits for a role, identify acceptable patterns and red flags
coach-manager.mdHelp managers adjust their style for specific direct reports
predict-from-interview.mdAnalyze interview transcripts to predict CI traits before survey
interview-debrief.mdAssess candidate fit using predicted traits from transcript analysis
plan-onboarding.mdDesign first 90 days based on new hire profile and team composition
mediate-conflict.mdUnderstand and address friction between team members using their profiles

</workflows_index>

<quick_reference>

Trait Colors:

TraitColorMeasures
AMaroonAutonomy, initiative, self-confidence
BYellowSocial ability, need for interaction
CBluePace/Patience, urgency level
DGreenConformity, attention to detail
LPurpleLogic, emotional processing
ICyanIngenuity, inventiveness

Energy Utilization Formula:

Utilization = (Job EU / Survey EU) × 100

70-130% = Healthy
>130% = STRESS (burnout risk)
<70% = FRUSTRATION (flight risk)

Gas/Brake/Glue:

RoleTraitFunction
GasHigh AGrowth, risk-taking, driving results
BrakeHigh DQuality control, risk aversion, finishing
GlueHigh BRelationships, morale, culture

Score Precision:

ValuePrecisionExample
Traits (A,B,C,D,L,I)Integer 0-100, 1, 2, ... 10
Arrow positionTenths0.4, 2.2, 3.8
Energy Units (EU)Integer11, 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

references/conversation-starters.md

<overview>

Conversation starters and engagement strategies based on Culture Index traits. Use these to build rapport, deliver feedback effectively, and engage team members based on their profile.

</overview>

<by_pattern>

<architect label="Architect/Visionary (High A, Low C, Low D)">

What engages them:

  • Strategic discussions, big picture thinking

  • Future vision and possibilities

  • ROI and business impact

  • Being asked for their opinion

Good conversation starters:

  • "What do you think is the biggest opportunity we're missing?"

  • "If you could redesign this from scratch, what would you change?"

  • "What's your take on [strategic topic]?"

  • "Where do you see this going in 2-3 years?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Focus on outcomes and impact, not process

  • Be direct and confident - don't hedge

  • Frame as investment in their success

  • Bullet points, not paragraphs

Topics to avoid:

  • Excessive detail about implementation

  • Step-by-step instructions

  • Past failures (they've moved on)

  • Lengthy consensus-building

</architect>

<rainmaker label="Rainmaker/Persuader (High A, High B, Low C)">

What engages them:

  • Relationship building

  • Competitive challenges

  • Public recognition opportunities

  • Stories and narratives

Good conversation starters:

  • "How did you land that account?"

  • "What's your read on [person/client]?"

  • "Tell me about your biggest win this quarter"

  • "Who should I talk to about [topic]?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Balance directness with relationship

  • Public praise, private criticism

  • Frame around their reputation and influence

  • Keep it brief - they'll want to talk

Topics to avoid:

  • Detailed process requirements

  • Solitary work expectations

  • Administrative tasks

  • Slow-moving, bureaucratic topics

</rainmaker>

<scholar label="Scholar/Specialist (Low B, High C, High D)">

What engages them:

  • Deep expertise discussions

  • Complex technical problems

  • Quality and precision topics

  • Learning opportunities

Good conversation starters:

  • "I'd like your expert opinion on [technical topic]"

  • "Can you walk me through how this works?"

  • "What do you think is the right way to approach this?"

  • "I'm trying to understand [complex topic] - can you help?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Be specific and fact-based

  • Reference documentation or standards

  • Give them time to process

  • Private, not public

  • Written follow-up appreciated

Topics to avoid:

  • Forced small talk

  • Vague, unstructured discussions

  • Expecting quick verbal responses

  • Public attention or praise

</scholar>

<technical_expert label="Technical Expert (Low A, Low B, Low C, High D)">

What engages them:

  • Efficient, focused discussions

  • Clear problems with clear solutions

  • Quality and accuracy

  • Getting things done

Good conversation starters:

  • "I need your help solving [specific problem]"

  • "What's the correct way to do this?"

  • "Can you review this for accuracy?"

  • "Here's the situation - what's your take?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Very direct and specific

  • Focus on the work, not the person

  • Provide clear standards to meet

  • Brief and efficient

Topics to avoid:

  • Extended social conversation

  • Vague or open-ended questions

  • Consensus-building meetings

  • Public recognition (uncomfortable)

</technical_expert>

<craftsman label="Craftsman (Low A, Low B, High C, High D)">

What engages them:

  • Mastery and expertise

  • Consistent, reliable processes

  • Quality discussions

  • Predictable environments

Good conversation starters:

  • "You're the expert on this - what should I know?"

  • "What's the best practice for [specific task]?"

  • "I want to make sure we do this right"

  • "Can you help me understand the proper process?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Frame as process improvement

  • Reference standards and best practices

  • One topic at a time

  • Allow time to process and respond

Topics to avoid:

  • Rapid-fire questions

  • Unstructured brainstorming

  • Public speaking or presentations

  • Frequent change of plans

</craftsman>

<accommodator label="Accommodator (Low A, High B, High C)">

What engages them:

  • Team and relationship discussions

  • Helping others succeed

  • Collaborative problem-solving

  • Stable, supportive environments

Good conversation starters:

  • "How's the team doing?"

  • "Who needs support right now?"

  • "What would make this easier for everyone?"

  • "How can I help you help the team?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Gentle but clear

  • Acknowledge their contributions

  • Frame around team impact

  • Give time to adjust

Topics to avoid:

  • Aggressive confrontation

  • Demanding immediate decisions

  • Forcing them to take sides

  • Public criticism

</accommodator>

<philosopher label="Philosopher (High A, Low B, High C)">

What engages them:

  • Deep analytical discussions

  • Strategic thinking

  • Independent problem-solving

  • Time to think and process

Good conversation starters:

  • "What's your analysis of [complex situation]?"

  • "I'd value your perspective on this"

  • "If you had to choose a direction, what would it be?"

  • "What patterns are you seeing?"

How to deliver feedback:

  • Logical, fact-based

  • Allow processing time

  • Written communication works well

  • Respect their independence

Topics to avoid:

  • Forced team activities

  • Rapid decision demands

  • Excessive small talk

  • Public group discussions

</philosopher>

</by_pattern>

<by_trait>

<high_a label="Engaging High A (Autonomous/Assertive)">

Do:

  • Ask for their opinion before sharing yours

  • Give outcomes, not instructions

  • Respect their time (be efficient)

  • Challenge them intellectually

  • Acknowledge their expertise

Don't:

  • Micromanage or over-explain

  • Expect consensus-building

  • Take too long to get to the point

  • Show hesitation or uncertainty

  • Dismiss their ideas without discussion

Feedback style:

  • Direct, confident, brief

  • Focus on ROI and impact

  • Their investment in success

</high_a>

<low_a label="Engaging Low A (Supportive/Collaborative)">

Do:

  • Include them in discussions

  • Acknowledge their contributions

  • Provide clear direction

  • Give specific praise

  • Allow time for input

Don't:

  • Put them on the spot for decisions

  • Expect aggressive initiative

  • Skip collaboration for speed

  • Interpret silence as agreement

  • Assume they'll speak up with concerns

Feedback style:

  • Specific, supportive

  • Private, not public

  • Clear expectations

</low_a>

<high_b label="Engaging High B (Social/Relational)">

Do:

  • Start with personal connection

  • Allow time for rapport

  • Include in group activities

  • Praise publicly

  • Ask about relationships and team

Don't:

  • Skip small talk

  • Isolate with solo work

  • Give criticism publicly

  • Expect brief, task-only interaction

  • Forget they process verbally

Feedback style:

  • Start with relationship

  • Verbal praise matters

  • Private for criticism

</high_b>

<low_b label="Engaging Low B (Reserved/Task-Focused)">

Do:

  • Get to the point

  • Respect their focus time

  • Use written communication

  • Give private recognition

  • Allow solo work time

Don't:

  • Force extended social interaction

  • Expect verbal processing

  • Praise publicly (uncomfortable)

  • Require constant meetings

  • Mistake quiet for disengagement

Feedback style:

  • Efficient, task-focused

  • Written is appreciated

  • Private, not public

</low_b>

<high_c label="Engaging High C (Patient/Steady)">

Do:

  • Send agendas in advance

  • One topic at a time

  • Give advance notice of changes

  • Respect their routines

  • Allow processing time

Don't:

  • Surprise them with changes

  • Rush decisions

  • Interrupt their focus time

  • Multi-topic meetings

  • Create unnecessary urgency

Feedback style:

  • Scheduled, predictable

  • Advance notice helpful

  • One issue at a time

</high_c>

<low_c label="Engaging Low C (Urgent/Fast-Paced)">

Do:

  • Put deadlines in subject lines

  • Keep them busy with variety

  • Accept their urgency

  • Use their energy productively

  • Be ready for interruptions

Don't:

  • Expect patient waiting

  • Give slow, drawn-out responses

  • Bore them with routine

  • Slow-walk decisions

  • Be surprised by multitasking

Feedback style:

  • Quick and direct

  • Deadlines motivate

  • Don't delay

</low_c>

<high_d label="Engaging High D (Detail/Precise)">

Do:

  • Be accurate and specific

  • Reference standards and process

  • Provide documentation

  • Acknowledge their precision

  • Build trust carefully

Don't:

  • Make it personal

  • Skip details that matter

  • Break commitments

  • Expect flexibility on quality

  • Give vague instructions

Feedback style:

  • Process improvement framing

  • Specific, documented

  • Don't break trust

</high_d>

<low_d label="Engaging Low D (Flexible/Big-Picture)">

Do:

  • Give creative problems

  • Provide options

  • Focus on outcomes

  • Accept 80% solutions

  • Allow flexibility

Don't:

  • Over-structure

  • Expect precise documentation

  • Hold grudges for missed details

  • Box them in with rules

  • Require perfection

Feedback style:

  • Focus on what matters

  • Pick your battles

  • Options over mandates

</low_d>

</by_trait>

<quick_reference>

PatternOpen WithAvoidFeedback Style
Architect"What's your vision..."Detail-heavyDirect, ROI-focused
Rainmaker"How did you..."Solitary topicsPublic praise, private critique
Scholar"Walk me through..."Small talkWritten, specific
Technical Expert"I need help with..."Open-endedDirect, efficient
Craftsman"What's the right way..."Rapid-fireProcess improvement
Accommodator"How's the team..."ConfrontationGentle, supportive
Philosopher"What's your analysis..."Forced socialLogical, written

</quick_reference>

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