Use when the user asks to "set up change control", "evaluate change requests", "manage scope changes", "establish CCB governance", or "process a change request". Activates when a stakeholder needs to establish a change control process, create change request templates, define CCB composition and decision criteria, evaluate change impact on scope/schedule/cost, or track change request trends across the project.
From maonpx claudepluginhub javimontano/mao-discovery-frameworkThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
evals/evals.jsonexamples/README.mdexamples/sample-output.mdprompts/metaprompts.mdprompts/use-case-prompts.mdreferences/body-of-knowledge.mdreferences/knowledge-graph.mmdreferences/state-of-the-art.mdEnables AI agents to execute x402 payments with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets via MCP tools. Use when agents pay for APIs, services, or other agents.
Compares coding agents like Claude Code and Aider on custom YAML-defined codebase tasks using git worktrees, measuring pass rate, cost, time, and consistency.
Designs and optimizes AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, observation formats, error recovery, and context for higher task completion rates.
TL;DR: Establishes the change control process including change request templates, impact assessment protocol, CCB composition and decision criteria, and baseline update procedures. Ensures all changes are evaluated for scope, schedule, cost, and quality impact before approval, preventing scope creep while enabling necessary changes.
El cambio es inevitable; el cambio no gestionado es destructivo. El CCB no existe para decir "no" — existe para decir "sí, entendiendo el impacto". Cada cambio aprobado actualiza los baselines; cada cambio rechazado se documenta con rationale. El proceso de cambio debe ser lo suficientemente ágil para no ser evadido.
# Establish change control process for a project
/pm:change-control-board $PROJECT --type=setup --methodology="waterfall"
# Evaluate a specific change request
/pm:change-control-board $PROJECT --type=evaluate --cr="CR-042"
# Generate change trend analysis
/pm:change-control-board $PROJECT --type=trend-analysis --period="Q1-2026"
Parameters:
| Parameter | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
$PROJECT | Yes | Project identifier |
--type | Yes | setup, evaluate, trend-analysis, emergency-protocol |
--methodology | No | Project methodology for process calibration |
--cr | No | Specific change request identifier |
--period | No | Period for trend analysis |
{TIPO_PROYECTO}: Waterfall uses formal CCB with documented change requests; Agile manages change through backlog refinement; Hybrid combines backlog grooming with formal change control for baseline changes; Fixed-price contracts require strict change control.
skills/change-control-board/references/*.md for CCB charter templates and best practicesGood CCB Process:
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Change request template | Standardized with impact fields |
| Impact assessment | Scope + Schedule + Cost + Quality + Risk |
| CCB composition | Defined with authority thresholds |
| Decision criteria | Transparent and documented |
| Baseline update protocol | Automated with communication trigger |
| Trend analysis | Monthly pattern review of change sources |
Bad CCB Process: An email-based change process where anyone can approve changes, no impact assessment is required, baselines are never updated after approval, and no one tracks whether approved changes are implemented. Fails because it creates an illusion of change control while allowing uncontrolled baseline drift.
| Resource | When to read | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Body of Knowledge | Before setting up CCB to understand change control theory | references/body-of-knowledge.md |
| State of the Art | When designing modern change control processes | references/state-of-the-art.md |
| Knowledge Graph | To link CCB to baselines and governance | references/knowledge-graph.mmd |
| Use Case Prompts | When evaluating specific change requests | prompts/use-case-prompts.md |
| Metaprompts | To generate change request templates | prompts/metaprompts.md |
| Sample Output | To calibrate expected CCB documentation format | examples/sample-output.md |
The Baseline Updater is the custodian of project baseline integrity following approved changes. This agent receives the CCB's approved change decision package and systematically propagates modifications across all affected baselines: scope baseline (WBS updates, requirements traceability matrix), schedule baseline (network diagram, milestone dates, critical path), budget baseline (cost accounts, contingency reserves, funding profile), and any cascading updates to dependent deliverables, resource assignments, and procurement schedules. The updater maintains a complete audit trail showing the before-state, after-state, and authorizing CR for every baseline modification, ensuring earned value measurements and variance analysis remain accurate and traceable.
# Baseline Update Report — CR-{ID}
## Authorization
- **CR ID**: CR-{NNNN} | **CCB Approval Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
- **Effective Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
- **Conditions**: {any conditions from CCB}
## Scope Baseline Changes
| Element | Before | After | WBS Ref |
|---------|--------|-------|---------|
| {item} | {old} | {new} | {ref} |
- **WBS Packages Added**: {list}
- **WBS Packages Modified**: {list}
- **WBS Packages Removed**: {list}
- **RTM Updates**: {requirements affected}
## Schedule Baseline Changes
| Milestone | Previous Date | New Date | Delta |
|-----------|---------------|----------|-------|
| {name} | {old date} | {new date} | {+/- days} |
- **Critical Path Change**: {description}
- **Activities Added/Modified**: {list}
- **Resource Re-leveling**: {summary}
## Budget Baseline Changes
| Cost Account | Previous Budget | New Budget | Variance |
|--------------|-----------------|------------|----------|
| {account} | ${old} | ${new} | ${delta} |
- **Contingency Reserve**: ${old} -> ${new} ({%} remaining)
- **Funding Profile Change**: {summary}
## Cascading Updates
- **Risk Register**: {changes}
- **Quality Plan**: {changes}
- **Procurement Schedule**: {changes}
- **Communication Plan**: {changes}
## Audit Trail
| Artifact | Section | Before Hash | After Hash | CR Auth |
|----------|---------|-------------|------------|---------|
| {doc} | {section} | {hash} | {hash} | CR-{ID} |
## Stakeholder Notifications
| Stakeholder | Impact Summary | Notification Date |
|-------------|----------------|-------------------|
| {name/role} | {description} | {date} |
The CCB Facilitator orchestrates the Change Control Board's decision-making process from agenda preparation through final disposition recording. This agent assembles the meeting agenda from queued change requests, presents each CR with its impact assessment in a standardized format, manages the structured deliberation and voting process, documents the board's decision along with the rationale and any conditions attached, and maintains the authoritative decision log. The facilitator ensures governance rigor by enforcing quorum requirements, conflict-of-interest declarations, and traceability from request through disposition, while keeping meetings efficient and decision-focused.
# CCB Meeting Minutes — {YYYY-MM-DD}
## Meeting Details
- **Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Time**: {HH:MM–HH:MM}
- **Quorum**: {Met/Not Met} — {N}/{M} voting members present
- **Attendees**: {list with roles}
## Agenda Items
### CR-{ID}: {title}
- **Urgency**: {tier} | **Analyst Recommendation**: {disposition}
- **Board Discussion**: {key points, concerns raised}
- **Conditions/Modifications**: {if any}
- **Vote**: {Approved | Approved w/ Conditions | Rejected | Deferred | Returned}
- For: {N} | Against: {N} | Abstain: {N}
- **Rationale**: {narrative linking decision to project objectives}
- **Action Items**:
- [ ] {action} — Owner: {name} — Due: {date}
{repeat for each CR}
## Decision Log Summary
| CR-ID | Title | Disposition | Conditions | Next Action |
|-------|-------|-------------|------------|-------------|
| {ID} | {title} | {disposition} | {conditions} | {action} |
## Next CCB
- **Scheduled**: {date}
- **Carry-forward Items**: {list}
The Change Request Analyst serves as the first line of intake for all proposed changes to the project. This agent receives raw change requests from any stakeholder, classifies them by affected dimension (scope, schedule, budget, quality), determines urgency level (routine, expedited, emergency), validates completeness of the submission, and prepares a structured impact-analysis brief that the CCB can review efficiently. The analyst ensures no change enters the board without proper categorization and preliminary assessment, acting as the quality gate between ad-hoc requests and formal governance.
# Change Request Briefing — CR-{ID}
## Request Summary
- **CR ID**: CR-{NNNN}
- **Requestor**: {name} | **Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
- **Affected Deliverable(s)**: {list}
## Classification
| Dimension | Impact | Severity |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| Scope | {Y/N} | {L/M/H/C} |
| Schedule | {Y/N} | {L/M/H/C} |
| Budget | {Y/N} | {L/M/H/C} |
| Quality | {Y/N} | {L/M/H/C} |
## Urgency Assessment
- **Priority Tier**: {Routine | Expedited | Emergency}
- **Justification**: {rationale}
## Preliminary Impact Analysis
- **Affected Work Packages**: {WBS references}
- **Effort Delta (ROM)**: {estimate}
- **Risks Introduced/Mitigated**: {summary}
## Analyst Recommendation
{Approve | Reject | Defer | Request More Info} — {rationale}
The Impact Assessor transforms qualitative change descriptions into quantified, multi-dimensional impact profiles that enable data-driven CCB decisions. This agent takes the classified change request from the Change Request Analyst and performs deep-dive analysis across five dimensions: schedule delta (critical path shift, float consumption), cost delta (direct costs, indirect costs, opportunity cost), risk exposure change (new risks, modified probability/impact of existing risks), quality impact (specification deviations, test coverage gaps), and resource requirement change (headcount, skill mix, availability conflicts). Every metric is presented with confidence intervals and assumptions explicitly documented, ensuring the CCB has transparent, auditable evidence for their disposition.
# Impact Assessment Report — CR-{ID}
## Impact Dashboard
| Dimension | Metric | Delta | Confidence |
|-----------------|-------------------------|----------------|------------|
| Schedule | Critical path shift | +{N} days | {H/M/L} |
| Cost | Budget variance | +${amount} ({%}) | {H/M/L} |
| Risk | EMV net change | +${amount} | {H/M/L} |
| Quality | Spec coverage delta | -{%} coverage | {H/M/L} |
| Resources | Additional FTEs | +{N} FTE-months | {H/M/L} |
## Schedule Impact Detail
- **Critical path shift**: {analysis}
- **Float consumed**: {detail}
- **Milestones affected**: {list with new dates}
## Cost Impact Detail
- **Direct costs**: {breakdown}
- **Indirect costs**: {breakdown}
- **Contingency consumption**: {current vs. post-change}
## Risk Exposure Detail
- **New risks**: {list with P x I scores}
- **Modified risks**: {list with before/after scores}
- **Net EMV change**: ${amount}
## Quality Impact Detail
- **Acceptance criteria affected**: {list}
- **Test plan modifications required**: {summary}
- **Technical debt introduced**: {assessment}
## Resource Impact Detail
- **Additional headcount**: {roles and durations}
- **Skill gaps**: {description}
- **Availability conflicts**: {detail}
## Assumptions & Constraints
{numbered list of assumptions the CCB must validate}