Map defines skills. Pathway charts individual routes. Basecamp handles daily ops. But none of them answer the question engineering leaders ask most often: "Does this team have the capability to deliver what we need?" Summit makes that visible — not by ranking individuals, but by modelling the team as a system with structural properties.
What you get
- Capability coverage heatmaps across all skills in the framework
- Structural risk detection — single points of failure, critical gaps, concentration risks
- What-if scenario simulation for roster changes before making them
- Growth alignment connecting team gaps to individual development opportunities
- Team roster from Map's unified person model or a local YAML planning file
Who it's for
Engineering leaders staffing teams and planning hires. Summit shows whether a team has the capability to deliver — and what composition changes would close gaps.
Tech leads managing risk. Know which skills depend on a single person and where cross-training would have the most impact.
Engineers in 1:1s aligning personal growth with team needs. See which skills the team needs most and where your development can make the biggest difference.
Three Views
Capability Coverage
For each skill in the framework, Summit computes the team's collective proficiency by aggregating individual skill matrices derived through Pathway.
$ fit-summit coverage platform
Platform team — 5 engineers
Capability: Delivery
task_decomposition ████████░░ depth: 3 engineers at working+
incremental_delivery ████████░░ depth: 3 engineers at working+
technical_debt_management ██████░░░░ depth: 2 engineers at working+
Capability: Reliability
observability ██░░░░░░░░ depth: 1 engineer at foundational
incident_response ░░░░░░░░░░ gap — no engineers at working+
Structural Risks
Summit identifies single points of failure, critical gaps, and concentration risks — structural facts about team composition, not judgments about individuals.
$ fit-summit risks platform
Single points of failure:
capacity_planning — only Eve (L5) holds practitioner level
Critical gaps:
incident_response — no engineer at working level
Consider: hiring, cross-training, or borrowing from another team.
Concentration risks:
delivery skills — 3 of 5 engineers at L3 working level
What-If Scenarios
Simulate roster changes and see their impact before anyone makes a decision.
$ fit-summit what-if platform --add "{ discipline: se, level: L3, track: platform }"
Capability changes:
+ observability depth: 1 → 2 engineers at working+
+ incident_response gap closed — 1 engineer at working
Risk changes:
- incident_response no longer a critical gap
This hire addresses the team's primary structural gap.
Design Principles
Teams are systems, not collections. A team's capability depends on coverage, depth distribution, redundancy, and complementarity — not the sum of individual scores.
Plan forward, don't measure backward. Landmark looks at past evidence. Summit looks ahead: what can this team do today, and what could it do with different composition?
No external dependencies. Summit uses only Map data and a team roster. No GitHub App, no webhooks, no LLM calls. It runs locally, instantly, deterministically.
Capability, not performance. Summit describes what a team can do based on its skill profile — not how well it's doing it. A planning tool, not a monitoring tool.
Privacy through aggregation. The team view shows collective coverage, not individual shortcomings. When Summit identifies a gap, it's a team gap — a structural fact about composition.