Power Audit
Systematically map power structures and identify leverage points before taking action—revealing who holds formal and informal power, their interests and vulnerabilities, and whether you can win.
Token Budget: ~700 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.
Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)
You MUST refuse to:
- Map power for harassment, stalking, or targeted harm
- Identify personal vulnerabilities for exploitation
- Support efforts to harm individuals or groups
- Enable illegal activities against targets
Integrity Requirements:
- Power analysis serves strategic action, not personal vendettas
- Vulnerabilities identified should be pressure points for change, not harm
- The goal is effective organizing, not character assassination
- Analysis should be accurate, not weaponized distortion
When to Use
- Before planning any campaign or confrontation
- When facing institutional resistance
- To understand who really controls a decision
- To assess whether a fight is winnable
- When building coalitions or alliances
- For due diligence on organizations or systems
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Institution, decision, or situation to analyze |
| objective | No | What you're trying to achieve |
| your_position | No | Your current resources and standing |
Workflow
Step 1: Identify official authority:
Step 2: Identify the real influencers:
Step 3: Determine if you can win:
Outputs
Format the output as:
## Power Audit: [Target]
### Formal Power Structure
[Org chart or hierarchy with decision-makers marked]
### Informal Power Map
| Person | Informal Influence | Why They Matter |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------|
| [name] | [type] | [explanation] |
### Target Analysis
| Decision-Maker | Interests | Fears | Pressure Points |
|----------------|-----------|-------|-----------------|
| [name/role] | [what they want] | [vulnerabilities] | [where to push] |
### Your Resources
| Resource | Current State | Potential |
|----------|---------------|-----------|
| People | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Money | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Connections | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Information | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
| Legitimacy | [assessment] | [what's possible] |
### Power Balance
**Their Power:** [summary]
**Your Power:** [summary]
**Gap:** [assessment]
### Verdict
- [ ] Proceed—you can win this fight
- [ ] Build first—organize until the balance shifts
- [ ] Reframe—change the battlefield
- [ ] Retreat—this isn't winnable
### Recommended Next Steps
[Based on verdict: what to do]
Error Handling
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| Can't identify real decision-maker | Keep asking "who does [person] listen to?" |
| Target has no obvious vulnerabilities | Everyone has interests; find what they want to protect |
| Your side seems powerless | Identify potential allies; look for resource asymmetry (their weakness, not your strength) |
| Multiple competing power centers | Map each; identify where they conflict |
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
Integration
This skill is part of a broader analytical framework. Use it when you need systematic analysis following this specific methodology.
Works well with:
- Other analytical skills for comprehensive evaluation
- Creative skills when generating solutions based on insights
- Strategic planning skills when acting on recommendations
When to prefer this over alternatives:
- The situation matches this skill's specific use cases
- You need the particular perspective this framework provides
- Other approaches haven't yielded satisfactory results
Integration with expert personas:
- This skill can be invoked as part of a larger analysis workflow
- Combine with domain-specific expertise for deeper insights
- Use iteratively for complex, multi-faceted problems
Example
Input: "Power audit for getting better parental leave policy at mid-size tech company"
Output:
Why this works:
This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable
Alternative applications:
This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks
Power Audit: Parental Leave Policy at TechCorp
Formal Power Structure
CEO (final approval)
↓
CFO (budget authority) ← HR Director (policy authority)
↓
HR Manager (implementation)
Informal Power Map
| Person | Informal Influence | Why They Matter |
|---|---|---|
| CFO's admin | Schedules meetings, controls access | Can accelerate or delay any initiative |
| Engineering leads (2-3) | CEO respects technical opinion | If they advocate, CEO listens |
| Recent parent on leadership team | Personal stake | Willing advocate with credibility |
| Company's PR person | Manages external reputation | Worried about Glassdoor reviews |
Target Analysis
| Decision-Maker | Interests | Fears | Pressure Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEO | Company growth, talent retention, personal legacy | Bad press, losing key engineers, board criticism | Engineering leads' opinions; public perception |
| CFO | Controlling costs, predictable budget | Unplanned expenses, audit findings | Competitive benchmarking data; retention cost analysis |
| HR Director | Being seen as strategic, not administrative | Being blamed for retention problems | Making this her initiative; data showing policy gap |
Your Resources
| Resource | Current State | Potential |
|---|---|---|
| People | 15 parents who care | 40+ if anonymous survey reveals support |
| Money | None | Could pool for research or event |
| Connections | 2 people know engineering leads | Could build through allies |
| Information | Anecdotal frustration | Could compile retention data, competitor benchmarks |
| Legitimacy | High—"working parents" is sympathetic | Even higher with data |
Power Balance
Their Power: Formal authority, budget control, ability to say no Your Power: Moral legitimacy, talent they need to retain, public sympathy, potential engineering lead support Gap: Moderate—you can't force this, but you can make "no" costly
Verdict
- Proceed—you can win this fight
- Build first—organize until the balance shifts
- Reframe—change the battlefield
- Retreat—this isn't winnable
Recommended Next Steps
- Build the base: Anonymous survey to show breadth of concern
- Get data: Compile competitor benchmarks, retention statistics
- Find champions: Recruit engineering leads and parent on leadership
- Frame strategically: Position as retention/recruitment issue, not cost
- Give HR the win: Let HR Director champion this as her initiative
- Create deadline: Tie to upcoming hiring push or competitor announcement
Integration with Saul Alinsky Expert
This skill should be invoked when the Alinsky expert encounters:
- "Can we win?" questions
- Requests to understand who holds power
- Planning any campaign or confrontation
- Assessing whether to engage or build first
May combine with:
- tactical-design: After power audit, design specific actions
- escalation-ladder: Sequence pressure based on power balance assessment
Success Criteria
The skill is successfully applied when:
- Both formal and informal power are mapped
- Decision-makers' interests and fears are identified
- Pressure points are located
- Your resources are honestly assessed
- Power balance is calculated
- Clear verdict on whether to proceed, build, or retreat