Autonomous influence diagramming mapping relationships, influence flows, and power dynamics between stakeholders. Produces influence matrices, centrality analysis, coalition detection, and strategic recommendations with Mermaid diagrams and optional PNG export.
npx claudepluginhub ssiertsema/claude-code-plugins --plugin influence-diagrammingThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
You perform autonomous influence analysis. You research influence dynamics yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
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.
Analyzes BMad project state from catalog CSV, configs, artifacts, and query to recommend next skills or answer questions. Useful for help requests, 'what next', or starting BMad.
You perform autonomous influence analysis. You research influence dynamics yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
This skill complements stakeholder-mapping (which identifies and classifies stakeholders) by analyzing the relationships and influence flows between them.
Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:
| Dimension | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Project/initiative context | Yes | — |
| Stakeholder mapping output | No | Will identify stakeholders itself |
| Known relationships | No | Will be researched/inferred |
| Focus | No | All (change management, risk, communication, coalition) |
Exit interview when: Project context is clear enough to identify stakeholders and research influence dynamics.
Accept one of:
From the input (or interview results), identify:
Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:
**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholder source**: [imported from mapping / will identify]
**Known relationships**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Focus**: [areas]
Ask the user to confirm or adjust. Ask diagram render mode and output path per the diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins.
Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the autonomous-research mixin.
Research typical influence patterns for this type of project/industry:
Research factors that shape influence relationships:
Import stakeholders with their attributes:
Identify 10-20 key stakeholders with basic attributes:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| ID | S01, S02, etc. |
| Name/Role | Generic role or specific title |
| Organization | Department or external entity |
| Attitude | Supportive / Neutral / Resistant |
Present stakeholder list for user confirmation before proceeding.
Target: 10-20 stakeholders. For small-scope projects, minimum 6 with explicit note.
For each pair of stakeholders with a meaningful relationship, assess:
| Field | Description | Values |
|---|---|---|
| From | Influencing stakeholder | Stakeholder ID |
| To | Influenced stakeholder | Stakeholder ID |
| Direction | Flow direction | Unidirectional (→) / Bidirectional (↔) |
| Strength | Influence intensity | 1-5 (1=minimal, 2=weak, 3=moderate, 4=strong, 5=dominant) |
| Type | Influence mechanism | One or more of 7 types (see below) |
| Nature | Relationship quality | Supportive / Neutral / Adversarial |
| Basis | Why this influence exists | Brief explanation |
| Type | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Formal authority | Decision-making power from position | CEO approves budgets |
| Resource control | Controls budget, staffing, equipment | CFO controls funding |
| Information access | Privileged access to critical data | Data analyst controls reporting |
| Expertise | Domain knowledge others depend on | Architect defines technical direction |
| Social capital | Trust, relationships, reputation | Senior developer mentors the team |
| Political leverage | Alliances, institutional memory | Long-tenured manager knows the history |
| Referent power | Charisma, role model status | Respected leader inspires followership |
| # | From | To | Direction | Strength | Type | Nature | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S01 | S02 | → | 4 | Formal authority | Supportive | CEO sponsors the initiative |
| 2 | S03 | S04 | ↔ | 3 | Expertise, Social capital | Neutral | Peer architects collaborate |
Build an N×N matrix where:
| S01 | S02 | S03 | ... | Out Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | — | 4 | 0 | ... | [sum] |
| S02 | 2 | — | 3 | ... | [sum] |
| S03 | 0 | 3 | — | ... | [sum] |
| In Total | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] | ... |
Calculate for each stakeholder:
Degree centrality = (number of connections) / (N-1)
Betweenness centrality = fraction of shortest paths between all pairs that pass through this stakeholder
Closeness centrality = (N-1) / (sum of shortest distances to all other stakeholders)
| Role | Identification criteria | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Hub | Degree centrality > 0.6 | Central connector; failure disrupts many relationships |
| Gatekeeper | Betweenness centrality > 0.4 | Controls information flow; bottleneck risk |
| Bridge | Connects two otherwise disconnected subgroups | Critical for cross-group communication |
| Broker | High betweenness + connections to multiple coalitions | Mediator between factions |
| Isolate | Degree centrality < 0.1 | Excluded from influence network; risk of disengagement |
| Connector | High closeness centrality | Can reach all stakeholders efficiently |
Thresholds are guidelines — adjust if the network is very small or very large.
| ID | Stakeholder | Degree | Betweenness | Closeness | Role(s) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | [0-1] | [0-1] | [0-1] | [role] | [why this matters] |
Identify clusters of stakeholders who form natural groupings.
A coalition exists when 3+ stakeholders share:
For each coalition:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Name | Descriptive label (e.g., "Engineering Supporters", "Operations Resistance") |
| Members | Stakeholder IDs and roles |
| Stance | Supportive / Opposed / Neutral / Mixed |
| Combined influence | Sum of outgoing influence totals of members |
| Internal density | Average influence strength between members |
| Leader | Most influential member (highest outgoing within coalition) |
| Swing members | Members with cross-coalition ties who could shift allegiance |
| Vulnerabilities | What could weaken or split this coalition |
| From Coalition | To Coalition | Relationship | Key bridges | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [name] | Supportive/Adversarial/None | [bridge stakeholders] | [what could go wrong] |
Map how influence flows through the network.
| Pathway | Route | Purpose | Strength | Bottleneck |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision → Implementation | S01→S03→S07→S12 | Budget approval to team execution | [weakest link strength] | [stakeholder where path is weakest] |
| Sponsor → Resistant group | S01→S05→S09 | Change adoption influence | [weakest link] | [bottleneck] |
| Bottleneck | Stakeholder | Why | Impact if removed | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [type] | [ID + name] | [reason] | [what breaks] | [alternative path or engagement strategy] |
Identify stakeholders whose removal would disconnect parts of the network. For each:
Based on network analysis, provide actionable strategies. Every recommendation must reference specific network findings.
1. Key influencer strategy
2. Gatekeeper management
3. Coalition strategy
4. Bridge activation
5. Isolate engagement
6. Risk mitigation
| # | Category | Recommendation | Based on | Priority | Stakeholders involved |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [category] | [specific action] | [finding reference] | Critical/High/Medium/Low | [IDs] |
flowchart LR
classDef supportive fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#333,color:#fff
classDef neutral fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#333,color:#fff
classDef resistant fill:#F44336,stroke:#333,color:#fff
subgraph Coalition_A["Supportive Coalition"]
S01["CEO\n(Hub)"]:::supportive
S02["CTO\n(Bridge)"]:::supportive
end
subgraph Coalition_B["Resistant Group"]
S05["Ops Director\n(Gatekeeper)"]:::resistant
S06["Ops Manager"]:::resistant
end
S01 ==>|"5: Formal authority"| S02
S02 -->|"3: Expertise"| S05
S05 -.->|"2: Information"| S06
Edge styling by strength:
==> (thick) for strength 4-5--> (normal) for strength 2-3-.-> (dotted) for strength 1Node styling by attitude:
supportive class) for supportiveneutral class) for neutralresistant class) for resistantLabel edges with strength and primary influence type.
Represent as a styled table using Mermaid flowchart with nodes arranged in a grid pattern, or fall back to a markdown table with emoji indicators if the matrix is too large for a clean Mermaid diagram.
Strength indicators:
xychart-beta
title Centrality Analysis — Top 10 Stakeholders
x-axis [S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S07, S08, S09, S10]
y-axis "Centrality Score" 0 --> 1
bar [0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.4, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2]
bar [0.6, 0.3, 0.8, 0.2, 0.7, 0.1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1]
bar [0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.4, 0.5, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.3]
Three bars per stakeholder: degree, betweenness, closeness centrality.
flowchart TB
subgraph CS["Supportive Coalition\n(Combined influence: 28)"]
direction LR
S01["S01: CEO ⭐"]
S02["S02: CTO"]
S03["S03: PM"]
end
subgraph CO["Opposed Coalition\n(Combined influence: 18)"]
direction LR
S05["S05: Ops Dir ⭐"]
S06["S06: Ops Mgr"]
end
subgraph CN["Neutral Group\n(Combined influence: 12)"]
direction LR
S08["S08: HR Dir"]
S09["S09: Finance"]
end
CS -->|"Bridge: S02↔S05"| CO
CS -->|"Bridge: S03↔S08"| CN
S09 -.->|"Swing member"| CO
Show coalitions as subgraphs with stance label and combined influence. Mark leaders with ⭐. Show cross-coalition bridges and swing members.
influence-network.mmd / .pnginfluence-matrix.mmd / .pngcentrality-chart.mmd / .pngcoalition-map.mmd / .pngRender diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.
Assemble the complete report:
# Influence Diagramming: [Project/Initiative]
**Date**: [date]
**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholders analyzed**: [count]
**Relationships mapped**: [count]
**Coalitions identified**: [count]
## Executive Summary
[Key findings: most influential stakeholders, critical gatekeepers, coalition dynamics, primary risks, top recommendations]
## Stakeholder Overview
[Table: ID, Name/Role, Organization, Attitude — imported or identified]
## Influence Relationships
[Phase 4 relationship table]
## Influence Network Diagram
[Phase 10 diagram 1]
## Influence Matrix
[Phase 5 matrix with totals + Phase 10 diagram 2 heat map]
## Centrality Analysis
[Phase 6 table + Phase 10 diagram 3 chart]
## Coalition Analysis
[Phase 7 coalition profiles + cross-coalition dynamics + Phase 10 diagram 4]
## Influence Pathways
[Phase 8 critical paths, bottlenecks, single points of failure]
## Strategic Recommendations
[Phase 9 recommendation table with all 6 categories]
## Sources
[Numbered list of all web sources consulted]
## Assumptions & Limitations
[Explicit list of assumptions made and data gaps]
Present for user approval. Save only after explicit confirmation.
Per the autonomous-research mixin, plus:
| Situation | Behavior |
|---|---|
| No project context | Enter interview mode — ask what project or initiative to analyze |
| Context too vague | Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions |
| Too few stakeholders (< 6) | Report limitation, produce simplified output without full network metrics |
| Stakeholder mapping output malformed | Ask user to verify, attempt partial import |
| No meaningful relationships identifiable | Report limitation, use role-based inference with [Assumption] labels |
| Network too sparse for centrality | Calculate available metrics, note limitations |
| mmdc / web search failures | See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins |
| Out-of-scope request | "This skill analyzes influence relationships between stakeholders. [Request] is outside scope." |
Before presenting output, verify:
[] 10-20 stakeholders with influence relationships mapped (6+ for small scope)
[] Influence relationships assessed with direction, strength, type, nature, basis
[] Influence matrix complete with row/column totals
[] Top influencers and most influenced identified from matrix
[] Centrality metrics calculated for all stakeholders (degree, betweenness, closeness)
[] Network roles assigned (hub, gatekeeper, bridge, broker, isolate, connector)
[] Coalitions detected with stance, strength, leader, vulnerabilities
[] Cross-coalition dynamics mapped
[] Influence pathways identified with bottlenecks and single points of failure
[] Strategic recommendations cover all 6 categories
[] Every recommendation traces to a specific network finding
[] All 4 Mermaid diagrams render valid syntax
[] Sources listed for all major claims
[] Assumptions explicitly labeled
[] No fabricated relationships, politics, or centrality scores