Summit

A post-mortem surfaces the same skill gap that caused the last incident — nobody saw it before staffing. A team's capability depends on coverage, depth, redundancy, and complementarity — not the sum of individual scores. Summit makes that visible.

What becomes possible

For Engineering Leaders

Make staffing decisions you can defend by seeing what each role requires. Spot capability gaps and check whether a candidate fills them. Simulate roster changes and see their impact before anyone makes a decision.

• Capability coverage per skill across the team
• Structural risk identification (single points of failure, critical gaps)
• What-if scenario simulation (add / remove / move / promote before acting)
• Side-by-side team comparison and quarterly trajectory tracking
• Optional: --evidenced for practiced capability, --outcomes for GetDX-weighted growth recommendations

For Empowered Engineers

Align personal growth with what the team actually needs. See which skills make the biggest difference and where your development closes a real gap.

• Growth alignment connecting team gaps to individual development
• Team capability views that show where depth is needed

---

Three Views

Capability Coverage

For each skill in the agent-aligned engineering standard, Summit computes the team's collective proficiency by aggregating individual skill matrices derived through Pathway.

$ npx fit-summit coverage platform

  platform team — 3 members

  Capability: Delivery
    Planning              ░░░░░░░░░░  gap — no engineers at working+
    Task Completion       ██████████  depth: 1 engineer at working+

  Capability: Reliability
    Incident Response     ░░░░░░░░░░  gap — no engineers at working+

For project teams with allocation, coverage reports allocation-weighted effective depth:

$ npx fit-summit coverage --project migration-q2

  migration-q2 project — 3 members (2.0 FTE)

  Capability: Delivery
    Task Completion       ██████████  effective depth: 1.6 at working+

Structural Risks

Summit identifies single points of failure, critical gaps, and concentration risks — structural facts about team composition, not judgments about individuals.

$ npx fit-summit risks platform

  platform team — structural risks

  Single points of failure:
    task_completion — only Bob holds working level [low]

  Critical gaps:
    planning — no engineer at working level
      supporting skill for software_engineering discipline.
    incident_response — no engineer at working level
      broad skill for software_engineering discipline.

The severity tag on single points of failure reflects the engineer's allocation to the team: high when allocation is below 0.5 (less than half-time), medium between 0.5 and 1.0 (part-time), and low at 1.0 (full-time). In reporting teams where members default to full allocation, every SPOF shows [low]. The tag differentiates in project teams where partial allocation makes a single point of failure more acute.

What-If Scenarios

Simulate roster changes and see their impact before anyone makes a decision.

Adding an engineer may resolve existing risks, but can also introduce new ones (for example, two engineers at the same level creates a concentration risk in skills neither covers at working+). Summit shows both directions:

$ npx fit-summit what-if platform --add "{ discipline: software_engineering, level: J060 }"

  Adding software_engineering J060 to platform:

  Capability changes:
    + task_completion  depth: 1 → 2

  Risk changes:
    - task_completion no longer single point of failure
    + incident_response concentration risk: 2 engineers, none at working+

- lines are risks resolved by the change. + lines are risks the change introduces. A staffing change that looks straightforwardly positive can still surface second-order gaps — Summit shows both so you can make the decision with the full picture.

---

Getting Started

npm install @forwardimpact/summit
npx fit-summit coverage platform --roster ./summit.yaml
npx fit-summit risks platform --roster ./summit.yaml