Best for
- Use when mapping processes, designing workflows, or improving operational efficiency.
travisjneuman/.claude/skills/process-flowchart-designer/SKILL.md
Create process flowcharts and workflow diagrams from descriptions, with optimization suggestions and bottleneck identification. Use when mapping processes, designing workflows, or improving operational efficiency.
Decision brief
Frameworks for translating business processes into clear visual diagrams, identifying inefficiencies, and designing optimized workflows.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/travisjneuman/.claude --skill "skills/process-flowchart-designer"Inspect the Agent Skill "process-flowchart-designer" from https://github.com/travisjneuman/.claude/blob/b8b4dd55d61b9f25d33e3b5427870641a1c8c39c/skills/process-flowchart-designer/SKILL.md at commit b8b4dd55d61b9f25d33e3b5427870641a1c8c39c. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Review the “Process Mapping” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Process Documentation Template” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Workflow Optimization” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Process Improvement Template” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Cross-Functional Process Map” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 93/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 94 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Frameworks for translating business processes into clear visual diagrams, identifying inefficiencies, and designing optimized workflows.
FLOWCHART SYMBOL REFERENCE:
┌─────────┐
│ Rectangle│ = Process / Action step
└─────────┘
◇ Diamond = Decision point (Yes/No, True/False)
┌─────────┐
│/ Parallel/│ = Parallelogram = Input/Output
└─────────┘
( Oval ) = Start / End (Terminal)
┌─────────┐
│ Cylinder │ = Database / Data store
└─────────┘
┌─────────┐
│ Document │ = Document / Report
└~~~~~~~~~~┘
○ Circle = Connector (links to another part)
→ Arrow = Flow direction
PROCESS FLOWCHART: [Process Name]
Version: [X.X]
Owner: [Department/Role]
Last Updated: [Date]
( START )
│
▼
┌──────────────┐
│ Step 1: │
│ [Action] │
└──────┬───────┘
│
▼
◇ Decision?
/ \
Yes No
│ │
▼ ▼
┌────┐ ┌────┐
│ A │ │ B │
└──┬─┘ └──┬─┘
│ │
└──┬───┘
│
▼
( END )
PROCESS MAP: [Name]
METADATA:
Process Owner: [Name/Role]
Department: [Department]
Frequency: [Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Ad hoc]
Average Duration: [Time]
Trigger: [What initiates this process]
Output: [What the process produces]
STEPS:
# | Step Name | Actor | Action | System/Tool | Duration | Notes
---|--------------------| ------------|----------------------|-------------|----------|------
1 | [Name] | [Role] | [What they do] | [Tool] | [Time] |
2 | [Name] | [Role] | [What they do] | [Tool] | [Time] |
3 | DECISION: [Query] | [Role] | [Evaluate criteria] | [Tool] | [Time] |
3a | [If Yes] | [Role] | [Action] | [Tool] | [Time] |
3b | [If No] | [Role] | [Action] | [Tool] | [Time] |
4 | [Name] | [Role] | [What they do] | [Tool] | [Time] |
HANDOFFS:
From → To | Trigger | Method
[Role A] → [Role B] | [When] | [Email/System/etc.]
EXCEPTIONS:
Exception | Handling Procedure | Escalation Path
[What can go wrong] | [What to do] | [Who to contact]
SIPOC: [Process Name]
S - SUPPLIERS I - INPUTS P - PROCESS O - OUTPUTS C - CUSTOMERS
(Who provides?) (What's needed?) (High-level steps) (What's produced?) (Who receives?)
[Supplier 1] [Input 1] 1. [Step] [Output 1] [Customer 1]
[Supplier 2] [Input 2] 2. [Step] [Output 2] [Customer 2]
[Supplier 3] [Input 3] 3. [Step] [Output 3] [Customer 3]
[Input 4] 4. [Step]
5. [Step]
BOUNDARIES:
Start: [Trigger event]
End: [Completion criteria]
BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS: [Process Name]
For each step, evaluate:
Step | Duration | Wait Time | Handoff? | Rework Rate | Bottleneck Score
-----|----------|-----------|----------|-------------|------------------
1 | [time] | [time] | Yes/No | [%] | [1-10]
2 | [time] | [time] | Yes/No | [%] | [1-10]
3 | [time] | [time] | Yes/No | [%] | [1-10]
BOTTLENECK SCORING:
Duration weight: x3 (longest steps)
Wait time weight: x4 (idle time is waste)
Handoff weight: x2 (each handoff adds delay and error risk)
Rework weight: x5 (rework multiplies all other costs)
Score = (Duration x 3) + (Wait x 4) + (Handoff x 2) + (Rework x 5)
TOP BOTTLENECKS (highest scores):
1. Step [N]: [Description] — Score: [X]
Root cause: [Why this step is slow/problematic]
Recommendation: [How to fix]
2. Step [N]: [Description] — Score: [X]
Root cause: [Why]
Recommendation: [Fix]
| Waste Type | Definition | Signs | Solution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiting | Idle time between steps | Queues, backlogs | Parallel processing, SLAs |
| Overprocessing | Doing more than needed | Excessive approvals, gold-plating | Simplify, reduce sign-offs |
| Rework | Fixing errors | High rejection rate, loops | Error-proofing, validation |
| Motion | Unnecessary movement | Multiple systems, context switching | Consolidate tools |
| Transport | Moving information unnecessarily | Excessive handoffs | Direct routing |
| Inventory | Work piling up | Large queues at steps | Flow-based processing |
| Overproduction | Producing more than needed | Reports no one reads | Demand-driven output |
| Defects | Errors that reach downstream | Customer complaints | Quality at source |
IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL: [Process Name]
CURRENT STATE:
Total steps: [N]
Total duration: [Time]
Number of handoffs: [N]
Rework rate: [%]
Customer satisfaction: [Score]
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Change #1: [Description]
Current: [How it works now]
Proposed: [How it will work]
Impact: [Time saved / errors reduced / etc.]
Change #2: [Description]
Current: [How it works now]
Proposed: [How it will work]
Impact: [Time saved / errors reduced / etc.]
FUTURE STATE:
Total steps: [N] (was [N])
Total duration: [Time] (was [Time])
Number of handoffs: [N] (was [N])
Rework rate: [%] (was [%])
Expected satisfaction: [Score]
IMPLEMENTATION:
Phase 1: [Quick wins — Week 1-2]
Phase 2: [System changes — Week 3-6]
Phase 3: [Training and rollout — Week 7-8]
SWIMLANE DIAGRAM: [Process Name]
TIME →
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
Customer │ (Request) ──→ [Wait] ──→ [Receive] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
Sales │ [Review] ──→ [Approve] ──→ │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
Ops │ [Fulfill] ──→ │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
Finance │ [Invoice] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
LEGEND:
( ) = External event
[ ] = Process step
──→ = Flow direction
Each row = one actor/department
RACI MATRIX: [Process Name]
Task / Step | Role A | Role B | Role C | Role D
-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------
1. [Step name] | R | A | C | I
2. [Step name] | I | R | A |
3. [Decision point] | C | R | A | I
4. [Step name] | A | I | R |
R = Responsible (does the work)
A = Accountable (approves / owns the outcome)
C = Consulted (provides input before)
I = Informed (notified after)
RULES:
- Every task has exactly ONE "A"
- Every task has at least one "R"
- Minimize C's and I's (reduce communication overhead)
- "A" should not also be "R" if possible (separation of duties)
DECISION TREE: [Decision Name]
Question 1: [First evaluation criterion]
│
├── YES → Question 2a: [Follow-up]
│ ├── YES → OUTCOME A: [Action/Result]
│ └── NO → OUTCOME B: [Action/Result]
│
└── NO → Question 2b: [Alternative path]
├── YES → OUTCOME C: [Action/Result]
└── NO → OUTCOME D: [Action/Result]
DECISION CRITERIA:
Criterion | Threshold | Data Source
[What to evaluate] | [Pass/fail line] | [Where to check]
ESCALATION MATRIX: [Process Name]
Severity | Definition | Response Time | Escalation To | Communication
---------|-------------------------|---------------|------------------|---------------
P1 | [Service down] | 15 min | [VP + On-call] | All-hands alert
P2 | [Major degradation] | 1 hour | [Manager] | Team channel
P3 | [Minor issue] | 4 hours | [Team lead] | Ticket update
P4 | [Enhancement request] | Next sprint | [Product owner] | Backlog
AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT: [Process Name]
For each step, score automation potential:
Step | Repetitive? | Rule-Based? | Digital? | Volume | Error Rate | Score
| (1-5) | (1-5) | (1-5) | (1-5) | (1-5) | (sum)
-----|-------------|-------------|----------|--------|------------|------
1 | [score] | [score] | [score] | [score]| [score] | [/25]
2 | [score] | [score] | [score] | [score]| [score] | [/25]
SCORING GUIDE:
5 = Highly automatable (always the same, clear rules, fully digital)
3 = Partially automatable (some variation, some judgment needed)
1 = Not automatable (creative, subjective, requires human judgment)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Score 20-25: Automate fully (RPA, workflow automation)
Score 15-19: Automate with human review checkpoints
Score 10-14: Augment with tools (templates, checklists)
Score 5-9: Keep manual (human judgment essential)
TOP AUTOMATION CANDIDATES:
1. Step [N]: Score [X]/25 — Tool: [Recommended tool]
2. Step [N]: Score [X]/25 — Tool: [Recommended tool]
| Tool | Type | Best For | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mermaid | Code-based | Developers, version control | Free |
| draw.io | Visual editor | General business users | Free |
| Lucidchart | Cloud visual | Teams, collaboration | Freemium |
| Figma/FigJam | Collaborative | Design teams | Freemium |
| Whimsical | Simple visual | Quick wireframes | Freemium |
| PlantUML | Code-based | Developers, UML | Free |
graph TD
A[Start] --> B{Decision?}
B -->|Yes| C[Process A]
B -->|No| D[Process B]
C --> E[End]
D --> E
Frequently asked questions
Frameworks for translating business processes into clear visual diagrams, identifying inefficiencies, and designing optimized workflows.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/travisjneuman/.claude --skill "skills/process-flowchart-designer". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Alternatives
oaustegard/claude-skills
Generate hierarchical _FEATURES.md files that describe what a codebase DOES from a user/consumer perspective, anchored to source symbols via tree-sitting. Supports large complex codebases through feature-driven decomposition into sub-feature files. Uses a multi-pass synthesis: orientation → detail → overview rewrite. Use when someone says "what does this do", "document features", "feature inventory", "_FEATURES.md", or needs to understand a codebase's purpose before modifying it. Complements tre
NintendaDev/unikit-ai
Generate and maintain the project's TECHNICAL documentation from its codebase — scans the project structure, tech stack, and module boundaries, then writes a lean README landing page plus detailed topic pages (architecture, modules, setup, build, APIs), only the docs that are relevant. Use whenever the user wants to create, update, or validate documentation of the CODE or the project itself, e.g. "generate documentation", "create docs", "write the README", "update the project docs", "document th
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
ISO 13485 Quality Management System implementation and maintenance for medical device organizations. Provides QMS design, documentation control, internal auditing, CAPA management, and certification support. Use when working with medical device quality systems, preparing for ISO 13485 audits, managing regulatory compliance documentation, setting up corrective actions, or building audit preparation programs. Useful for quality management, audit preparation, regulatory compliance, medical device d
Postpartum-genushyacinthus29/dotnet-skills
Design and implement Minimal APIs in ASP.NET Core using handler-first endpoints, route groups, filters, and lightweight composition suited to modern .NET services.