hr-business-partner▌
borghei/claude-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
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.
HR Business Partner
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.
Workflow
- Diagnose the business need -- Meet with the business leader to understand their strategic priorities for the next 1-4 quarters. Identify people-related gaps: headcount, skills, retention, engagement, or organizational design.
- Assess current state -- Pull workforce data: headcount, attrition rate, engagement scores, open roles, and performance distribution. Validate data accuracy before proceeding.
- Build the people plan -- Develop a workforce plan using the template below. Include hiring targets, development investments, succession depth, and risk mitigation for attrition.
- Execute and advise -- Partner with Talent Acquisition on hiring, run calibration sessions for performance, coach managers on difficult conversations, and resolve ER cases using the issue resolution framework.
- Measure and report -- Track KPIs quarterly (see People Metrics). Present findings to leadership with recommendations.
- Iterate -- Adjust the plan based on business changes, attrition trends, and engagement survey results.
Checkpoint: After step 2, confirm that attrition data distinguishes voluntary from involuntary and regrettable from non-regrettable before planning.
People Metrics
| 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 Planning Template
# 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 |
Performance Management Cycle
| 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 |
Calibration Session Guide
- Prepare -- Collect manager-submitted ratings. Flag outliers (> 40% top-tier or > 20% bottom-tier in any team). Pull performance data and promotion history.
- Facilitate -- Walk through each team's distribution. Managers present evidence for outlier ratings. Challenge ratings that lack behavioral evidence.
- Align -- Reach consensus on final ratings. Ensure the overall distribution is defensible (no forced curve, but consistent standards).
- Document -- Record final ratings and rationale for any changes. Feed into compensation decisions.
Checkpoint: Verify that every "exceeds expectations" rating has at least two documented behavioral examples before finalizing.
Employee Relations: Issue Resolution Framework
- Listen -- Hear the concern fully. Take notes. Acknowledge the employee's experience without making commitments.
- Investigate -- Gather facts from all relevant parties. Review documentation, emails, and policies. Maintain confidentiality.
- Analyze -- Identify root cause. Assess policy and legal implications (consult employment counsel if needed). Evaluate options.
- Resolve -- Determine the appropriate action. Communicate the decision to all parties. Implement the resolution.
- Follow up -- Check on the outcome within 2 weeks. Document the case. Identify systemic patterns that may need policy changes.
Difficult Conversations Framework (SBI-E)
| 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." |
Example: Workforce Plan for a Scaling Engineering Org
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)
Compensation Philosophy
| 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 |
Offer Approval Workflow
- Recruiter proposes offer based on compensation band and candidate profile.
- Hiring manager confirms level, scope, and team fit.
- HRBP reviews for internal equity (compa-ratio within 0.90-1.10 for same level/geo).
- Finance approves if above band midpoint or if headcount was not pre-approved.
- Offer extended.
Reference Materials
references/talent_planning.md- Workforce planning guidereferences/performance.md- Performance managementreferences/employee_relations.md- ER best practicesreferences/compensation.md- Comp philosophy and guidelines
Scripts
# 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
Troubleshooting
| 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 |
Success Criteria
| 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% how to use hr-business-partner How to use hr-business-partner on CursorAI-first code editor with Composer 1 PrerequisitesBefore installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
2 Execute installation commandExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation: $npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill hr-business-partner The skills CLI fetches 3 Select Cursor when promptedThe CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor: ◆ Which agents do you want to install to? │ │ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ──── │ • Amp │ • Antigravity │ • Cline │ • Codex │ ●Cursor(selected) │ • Cursor │ • Windsurf 4 Verify installationConfirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location: .cursor/skills/hr-business-partner Reload or restart Cursor to activate hr-business-partner. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., ⚠ Security & Verification NoticeWe 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 development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment. List & Monetize Your SkillSubmit your Claude Code skill and start earning Use Cases▌User Story & Requirements GenerationCreate 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 Competitive AnalysisResearch 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 Roadmap PrioritizationEvaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs Example Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale ✓ 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 Guide▌Prerequisites
Time Estimate30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements Installation Steps
Common Pitfalls
Best Practices▌✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
When to Use This▌✓ Use WhenUse for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work. ✗ Avoid WhenAvoid 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▌
DiscussionProduct Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
general reviews Ratings4.6★★★★★72 reviews
showing 1-10 of 72 1 / 8 |