Fake Work Detector

Fake Work Detector

Distinguish between activities that feel productive (motion) and activities that move metrics (progress), identifying organizational dysfunction and recommending focus areas.

Token Budget: ~750 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Use this framework to justify eliminating safety-critical activities
• Dismiss compliance, security, or ethics work as "fake" without analysis
• Recommend eliminating activities without understanding their purpose
• Apply this analysis to undermine legitimate organizational processes

Important distinction: Some activities that appear as "motion" serve essential purposes (building relationships, maintaining culture, ensuring compliance). The goal is not to eliminate all non-shipping activities, but to identify genuinely wasteful ones.

When to Use

• Team is busy but nothing ships
• User asks "Why aren't we making progress?"
• Sprint retrospective reveals activity without outcomes
• Before process audits or reorganizations
• When someone asks "Is this worth doing?"
• Calendar is full but metrics are flat

Inputs

Workflow

Step 1: 1. Define "Progress" Concretely

Before classifying, establish what progress looks like:

• What metrics matter?
• What constitutes "shipped" in this context?
• What does the customer/user see?

Output: Clear definition of progress for this context.

Step 2: 2. Classify Each Activity

For each activity, apply the Altman test:

Output: Categorized activity list with rationale.

Step 3: 3. Identify Patterns

Common fake work patterns:

• Meeting inflation: Meetings that exist because they've always existed
• Premature optimization: Optimizing before validating the approach
• Process theater: Following process to appear professional rather than to achieve outcomes
• Planning addiction: Planning as a substitute for doing
• Update culture: Status updates that take more time than the work they describe

Output: Which patterns are present and their prevalence.

Step 4: 4. Calculate the Ratio

Estimate time allocation:

• Progress activities: X%
• Motion activities: Y%
• Essential motion: Z%

Healthy benchmark: 60%+ on progress, 20% on essential motion, <20% on pure motion.

Output: Current ratio with comparison to benchmark.

Step 5: 5. Recommend Eliminations

For each motion activity, ask:

• What happens if we stop doing this?
• Who would notice?
• What's the worst-case outcome?

Output: Specific activities to eliminate or reduce, with risk assessment.

Outputs

Fake Work Analysis

## Fake Work Analysis

**Scope:** {activities analyzed}
**Period:** {time_period}
**Progress Definition:** {what progress means in this context}

### Activity Classification

| Activity | Time % | Classification | Rationale |
|----------|--------|----------------|-----------|
| {activity} | X% | PROGRESS/MOTION/ESSENTIAL | {why} |

### Patterns Detected

**Present patterns:**
- {pattern 1}: {evidence and impact}
- {pattern 2}: {evidence and impact}

### Time Allocation

| Category | Current | Benchmark | Gap |
|----------|---------|-----------|-----|
| Progress | X% | 60%+ | {+/- Y%} |
| Essential Motion | X% | ~20% | {+/- Y%} |
| Pure Motion | X% | <20% | {+/- Y%} |

### Recommendations

**Stop immediately:**
1. {activity}: {risk of stopping is minimal because...}

**Reduce significantly:**
1. {activity}: {reduce from X to Y by...}

**Keep but restructure:**
1. {activity}: {change to... because...}

### The Compressed Insight
> "{One memorable sentence capturing the key finding}"

Error Handling

Constraints

• Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
• Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
• Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
• Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
• Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
• Recognize the limits of the methodology

Additional Notes

Best practices:

• Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
• Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
• Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

Common variations:

• Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
• Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
• Adapt the output format to audience needs

When to skip this skill:

• The situation doesn't match the core use cases
• Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
• Time constraints require faster methods

Example

Input:

Activities:
- Daily standup (30 min/day)
- Sprint planning (4 hours biweekly)
- Code review (6 hours/week)
- Feature development (15 hours/week)
- Slack/email (10 hours/week)
- Architecture committee meetings (2 hours/week)
- Documentation (3 hours/week)

Goals: Ship new payment integration by end of quarter

Output:

Fake Work Analysis

Scope: Weekly engineering activities Period: Current sprint Progress Definition: Code merged and deployed toward payment integration

Activity Classification

Patterns Detected

Present patterns:

• Meeting inflation: 11% in meetings (standup + planning + committee)
• Update culture: 25% in communication that may not require immediate response

Time Allocation

Recommendations

Stop immediately:

1. Architecture committee: Not relevant to current quarter goal. Rejoin next quarter.

Reduce significantly:

1. Daily standup: Switch to 15-min async updates. Save 1.25 hours/week.
2. Slack/email: Batch to 3x daily. Target 50% reduction.

Keep but restructure:

1. Sprint planning: Cap at 2 hours. Pre-work required.

Potential gain: 6+ hours/week redirected to feature development (40% increase in core work).

The Compressed Insight

"You're spending more time talking about work than doing work. Cut the meetings, batch the messages, ship the feature."

Integration

Source Expert: sam-altman

This skill embodies Altman's observation: "Meetings, emails, and planning sessions feel like work. Shipping product, talking to users, and closing deals are actual work."

Success Criteria

Analysis is complete when:

• "Progress" clearly defined for the specific context
• All activities classified with rationale
• Fake work patterns explicitly identified
• Time ratio calculated and compared to benchmark
• Specific elimination/reduction recommendations provided
• Recommendations include risk assessment
• Compressed insight is memorable and actionable