Activates when the conversation involves post-go-live planning, sustainment strategy, adoption monitoring, value realization, or questions about whether the change will stick after the consulting team leaves. Trigger phrases include "sustainment", "post go-live", "adoption monitoring", "value realization", "will this stick", "what happens after we leave", "30 60 90 day plan", "change agent network", "sustainment plan", "adoption metrics".
From change-managementnpx claudepluginhub anthropics/claude-plugins-community --plugin change-management-pluginThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Reviews prose for communication issues impeding comprehension, outputs minimal fixes in a three-column table per Microsoft Writing Style Guide. Useful for 'review prose' or 'improve prose' requests.
Every sustainment plan answers one question before any others: are the structural conditions that were designed holding without consulting presence?
Not: are people using the system? Not: are adoption metrics trending up? Those are lagging indicators. The structural condition question is the leading indicator. When structural conditions degrade, adoption metrics follow. The gap between degradation and visible metric decline is the window for intervention. Miss it and the intervention becomes remediation.
The sustainment plan includes a formal 30/60/90 day structural condition audit covering:
Closed paths,are the paths that were closed at go-live still closed? In complex organizations, workarounds reappear. Legacy system access gets restored quietly. Old process exceptions get approved by managers who don't know they're undermining the new state. The audit names each closed path and confirms its status explicitly.
Accountability structures,are the accountability mechanisms that were activated at go-live still functioning? Measurement systems sometimes revert to legacy metrics. Escalation paths go dormant. Decision authority gets redistributed in ways that undermine the original design. The audit names each accountability mechanism and confirms it is active.
Decision authority,are the people with structural authority for sustaining the new state still engaged? Leadership turnover is the most common reason structural conditions degrade. The audit identifies whether the sponsor is still present, still engaged, and still willing to enforce the conditions they confirmed at go-live.
Change agent networks function as distributed observers, not advocates. Their primary job post-go-live is to surface structural deviation before it becomes entrenched,to see the workaround forming before it is normalized, to flag the measurement exception before it becomes policy.
This is a different role than the one most change agent networks are designed for during the rollout phase. During rollout, change agents build awareness and support. Post-go-live, they watch for structural drift. The transition from advocate to observer requires explicit design. Change agents who are not given this observer role will default to continued advocacy,which misses the structural deviation signal entirely.
These are two different measurement domains. Conflating them produces the illusion of sustainment when structural conditions are already degrading.
Adoption metrics measure whether people are using the new system, following the new process, or producing the new outcomes. They are visible, reportable, and satisfying to leadership. They are also lagging indicators of structural condition health.
Structural condition metrics measure whether the environment continues to make new behavior the path of least resistance. They are harder to measure, less visible, and less satisfying to present. They are the leading indicators. When structural conditions hold, adoption metrics follow. When structural conditions degrade, adoption metrics decline with a delay,which is exactly when the conditions are hardest to remediate.
Both appear in the sustainment plan. Neither substitutes for the other.
Sustainment planning maintains the structural conditions that were designed for the current state. It cannot redesign those conditions when new conditions are required,when the AI evolves, the workforce changes, or the organization's structure shifts in ways the original engagement didn't anticipate. When sustainment surfaces structural drift, the question shifts from maintenance to redesign. That requires a different instrument.