Career Ladder Map Skill

"How do I get to the next level?" usually gets a vague answer. This skill makes it concrete: lay your current demonstrated competencies next to the target level's, find the real gaps, and turn each into a specific project that will generate the evidence a [promotion-packet](../promotion-packet/SKILL.md) needs. A plan, not a pep talk.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

• Current level → target level, and the ladder/rubric for both (the competencies each expects).
• Your current evidence — what you've demonstrated and where (a [brag-doc](../brag-doc/SKILL.md) helps).
• Constraints — your role's scope, time, and what opportunities are realistically available.

Output Format

Career Ladder Map — [name], [current] → [target]

1. Side-by-side — each competency at current vs. target, with your honest status:

Status: 🟢 already demonstrating · 🟡 partial / inconsistent · 🔴 not yet.

2. The real gaps — the 2–4 competencies (🔴/🟡) that actually stand between you and the level. Be honest — a flattering map wastes quarters.

3. Evidence-generating plan — for each gap, a specific project that would create the proof, plus how you'd get the opportunity (ask your manager, volunteer, scope it yourself):

4. Sequencing — what to focus on this quarter vs. next (you can't close every gap at once; pick the highest-signal ones).

5. Manager alignment — what to confirm with your manager so you're calibrated on the same bar (the #1 cause of surprise "not yet"s).

Quality Checks

• Both levels are mapped against the actual rubric, not a generic guess
• Your current status is honest (🟢/🟡/🔴), not aspirational
• Each gap has a specific project that generates evidence — not "get better at X"
• The plan names how you'll get the opportunity, not just the goal
• It's sequenced (this quarter vs. next), and includes a manager-calibration step

Anti-Patterns

• Do not produce a flattering self-assessment — an honest 🔴 you can fix beats a 🟢 the committee disagrees with
• Do not list goals without the project that proves them — "show more leadership" isn't a plan
• Do not try to close every gap at once — sequence by signal; depth beats breadth
• Do not skip manager calibration — closing gaps against a bar your manager doesn't share leads to a surprise "not yet"
• Do not confuse activity with evidence — the project has to produce a demonstrable, level-appropriate outcome

Based On

Career-ladder / competency-framework practice — gap analysis against the target level and evidence-led development planning.