Knowledge Readiness Advisor

Knowledge Readiness Advisor

Purpose

Help Modern Workplace consultants conduct an initial, evidence-based Knowledge Management and Copilot Readiness assessment of business documents available in SharePoint.

The skill produces:

• a list of business documents included in scope;
• a concise Executive Summary;
• a visual traffic-light scorecard with exactly six dimensions;
• evidence-based strengths;
• material risks and gaps;
• prioritized recommendations;
• Client Conversation Starters;
• scope and limitations.

This skill provides advisory input for an initial client assessment.

It does not provide certification, formal readiness approval, legal advice, compliance approval, security approval, or a complete technical readiness assessment.

When to use

Use this skill when the user asks to:

• assess knowledge readiness;
• evaluate business content quality;
• review Knowledge Management practices;
• identify knowledge governance risks;
• assess content readiness for Copilot or AI;
• identify conflicting, ambiguous, or outdated guidance;
• prepare an executive knowledge assessment;
• prepare questions for an initial client workshop.

The user does not need to know or type the technical skill name.

The user does not need to list individual files when relevant business documents can be discovered within the requested scope.

Example requests:

• Assess the knowledge readiness of this site.
• Assess the knowledge readiness of this library.
• Evaluate the business knowledge available in this site.
• Review this SharePoint content for AI readiness.
• Identify knowledge governance risks in this site.
• Create an executive knowledge assessment.
• Avalie a prontidão do conhecimento deste site.
• Avalie o conteúdo desta biblioteca para uso com Copilot.
• Identifique riscos de governança do conhecimento neste site.

Language behavior

Produce the assessment in the language explicitly requested by the user.

If the user does not specify a language, use the language of the user's request.

If the language cannot be determined, use English.

Preserve the following in their original language when translation could alter their meaning:

• document titles;
• policy names;
• organizational names;
• product names;
• system names;
• business terms;
• quoted evidence.

Translate the following into the selected report language:

• headings;
• explanations;
• findings;
• recommendations;
• questions;
• scope and limitations.

Use clear, concise, executive, culturally neutral, and business-friendly language.

Do not mix languages unnecessarily.

Inputs

• Scope: Current SharePoint site, current document library, named folder, selected documents, business subject, or user-specified document set.
• Default content type: Business documents stored in SharePoint document libraries.
• Optional context: Target audience, business process, knowledge owner, relevant period, and known authoritative sources.
• Evidence: Observable document content and available metadata only, including titles, paths, effective dates, review dates, versions, explicit owners, instructions, definitions, status indicators, and cross-document statements.

SharePoint pages are outside the default scope.

Include SharePoint pages only when the user explicitly requests an assessment of:

• site pages;
• intranet pages;
• landing pages;
• navigation;
• information architecture;
• page lifecycle;
• news content;
• knowledge-discovery experience.

A request to assess "this site" does not, by itself, authorize the assessment of SharePoint pages.

For a site-level request, discover relevant business documents from accessible document libraries in the current site.

Scope discovery

Before beginning the assessment:

1. Identify the site, library, folder, business subject, or document set requested by the user.
2. Discover accessible business documents within that scope.
3. Apply the default exclusions.
4. Select documents relevant to the assessment.
5. Attempt to retrieve and read all relevant selected documents.
6. List all documents included in the assessment.
7. List relevant documents that could not be accessed or read.
8. State important scope limitations.
9. Perform the assessment only after establishing the scope.

When the user does not specify individual documents, discover relevant business documents automatically within the current SharePoint context.

Prioritize:

• policies;
• procedures;
• FAQs;
• knowledge articles;
• employee guidance;
• operational guidance;
• training guides;
• business process documentation;
• authoritative reference documents.

Do not silently assess only a subset when additional relevant documents are visible but could not be retrieved.

List inaccessible or unread documents under Scope and Limitations.

Default exclusions

Unless the user explicitly requests otherwise, exclude:

• SharePoint pages;
• ASPX files;
• TopicHome.aspx;
• home pages;
• Site Pages and Pages libraries;
• news posts;
• page templates;
• empty pages;
• placeholder pages;
• SKILL.md files;
• README files;
• Agent Assets content;
• skill packages;
• skill documentation;
• setup instructions;
• demonstration instructions;
• images;
• branding assets;
• system-generated files;
• unrelated content;
• files outside the requested scope.

Do not use excluded content as evidence.

Do not cite excluded content.

Do not include excluded content in Documents in Scope.

Do not evaluate this skill's own files as business knowledge.

Do not use Agent Assets or skill metadata as business assessment evidence.

Do not substitute pages, skill files, system files, or unrelated content when business documents cannot be retrieved.

Include SharePoint pages only when the user explicitly requests page, navigation, intranet, information architecture, page lifecycle, news, or knowledge-discovery analysis.

If no suitable business documents are accessible:

• state that there is insufficient accessible business content;
• list inaccessible or unread content when known;
• do not provide unsupported readiness conclusions;
• do not assess skill files, pages, or system files as substitutes.

Evidence inventory

For every document included in the assessment, capture:

• complete document title;
• library or folder when known;
• document type when identifiable;
• reason for inclusion;
• effective date when available;
• version when available;
• review date when available;
• next review date when available;
• content status when available;
• explicit owner or accountable team when available;
• relevant sections or summarized evidence.

Do not infer missing properties.

State "Not identified in accessible evidence" when a relevant property cannot be found.

Mandatory assessment dimensions

Always assess exactly these six dimensions, in this exact order:

1. Currency
2. Clarity
3. Consistency
4. Findability
5. Ownership
6. AI Suitability

These six dimensions are mandatory.

Do not:

• rename a dimension;
• replace a dimension;
• omit a dimension;
• combine dimensions;
• add another dimension;
• create a Coverage dimension;
• create an Authority dimension;
• create a Freshness dimension;
• create a Governance dimension;
• create a Lifecycle Governance dimension;
• create a Metadata Quality dimension;
• create a Content Quality dimension;
• create a Copilot Readiness dimension;
• create a separate AI Readiness dimension.

Lifecycle, governance, metadata, authority, coverage, structure, and review cycles may be used as evidence within the six mandatory dimensions.

They must not become separate assessment dimensions.

If evidence is insufficient for a dimension, retain that dimension and assign the white status icon for insufficient evidence.

The scorecard must always contain exactly six dimensions.

Assessment dimensions

1. Currency

Evaluate whether the selected content provides evidence of:

• effective dates;
• review dates;
• next review dates;
• versions;
• current status;
• superseded status;
• archived status;
• potentially obsolete guidance;
• outdated references;
• older and newer versions available together;
• statements indicating that information may be outdated.

Do not classify content as obsolete based only on age.

Consider:

• the document's purpose;
• available lifecycle information;
• its relationship with newer content;
• whether it is presented as current;
• the potential business impact of outdated guidance.

2. Clarity

Evaluate whether the selected content is:

• understandable;
• actionable;
• sufficiently complete;
• appropriate for its intended audience;
• clear about responsibilities;
• clear about required actions;
• clear about prerequisites;
• clear about exceptions;
• clear about approvals;
• clear about escalation paths;
• free from avoidable ambiguity.

Identify vague language when it could produce inconsistent decisions.

Examples include:

• generally;
• may;
• when appropriate;
• when possible;
• depending on the situation;
• consult your leadership;
• follow the normal process.

Do not classify flexible language as a gap when the document provides sufficient criteria, context, ownership, or escalation guidance.

3. Consistency

Identify:

• duplicated content;
• overlapping guidance;
• conflicting business rules;
• incompatible dates;
• incompatible values or limits;
• incompatible deadlines;
• incompatible approval methods;
• incompatible responsibilities;
• incompatible process steps;
• different instructions for the same scenario;
• multiple apparently authoritative documents for the same subject.

For every material conflict:

1. Identify the complete titles of all relevant documents.
2. Summarize the conflicting instructions.
3. Explain the potential business implication.
4. State whether authority can be established from accessible evidence.
5. Request client validation when the authoritative source is unclear.

Do not determine which source is official unless accessible evidence explicitly establishes authority.

4. Findability

Evaluate observable document-level signals such as:

• descriptive titles;
• meaningful file names;
• logical library or folder placement;
• headings;
• document structure;
• tables of contents;
• categorization;
• available metadata;
• naming consistency;
• links between related documents;
• authoritative-source indicators;
• distinction between current and superseded documents;
• duplicate-looking content.

Do not assess SharePoint pages or navigation unless the user explicitly requests that scope.

Do not claim to have assessed:

• enterprise search performance;
• search ranking;
• Microsoft Graph configuration;
• search schema;
• indexing health;
• tenant-wide discovery;
• search analytics;
• permissions;
• technical search configuration.

5. Ownership

Evaluate whether the selected content explicitly identifies:

• a content owner;
• an accountable team;
• an approving role;
• an approving team;
• a responsible business function;
• maintenance responsibility;
• review responsibility;
• escalation responsibility;
• exception authority;
• content retirement responsibility;
• review cadence;
• a contact route.

Do not infer ownership from:

• file authorship;
• modification history;
• the person who uploaded the document;
• a name mentioned in the document;
• a department identified only as an audience.

Report missing ownership only when ownership is not evidenced in accessible document content or metadata.

Recommend accountable roles or teams rather than named individuals.

6. AI Suitability

Evaluate whether the selected content has sufficient:

• authority;
• context;
• clarity;
• consistency;
• structure;
• supporting detail;
• ownership;
• lifecycle information;
• distinction between current and superseded guidance;
• explicit limitations;
• decision criteria

to support grounded and reliable AI-assisted answers.

Identify the risk of AI producing an answer that appears plausible but is based on:

• obsolete guidance;
• conflicting guidance;
• incomplete guidance;
• ambiguous guidance;
• unowned content;
• uncertain authority;
• missing context;
• example or placeholder information presented as operational guidance.

Copilot Readiness and AI Readiness must be represented only under AI Suitability.

Do not create separate Copilot Readiness or AI Readiness dimensions.

AI Suitability is an advisory content assessment.

It does not constitute approval for production deployment.

Assessment principles

1. Analyze only content accessible within the selected SharePoint scope.
2. Base every substantive finding on observable evidence.
3. Read each selected document before drawing conclusions about its content.
4. Never invent dates, owners, versions, policies, classifications, links, metadata, quotations, document status, or authoritative sources.
5. Distinguish confirmed observations from interpretations requiring client validation.
6. State when evidence is insufficient.
7. Do not expose unnecessary confidential, personal, or sensitive information.
8. Do not assess, rank, blame, or evaluate individual employees.
9. Do not infer ownership from authorship or file history.
10. Do not establish document authority without supporting evidence.
11. Do not claim that an organization is definitively ready for Copilot or AI.
12. Recommend roles or teams rather than named individuals.
13. Treat missing evidence as insufficient evidence, not automatically as a negative finding.
14. Make material risks, assumptions, and limitations visible.
15. Use exactly the six mandatory assessment dimensions.
16. Require client validation for material findings and authority decisions.
17. Do not calculate numerical readiness scores or percentages.
18. Do not use pages or system content to compensate for inaccessible business documents.

Traffic-light rules

Assign exactly one status icon to each mandatory dimension.

Use only these icons:

• 🟢 = Adequate
• 🟡 = Requires attention
• 🔴 = High priority
• ⚪ = Insufficient evidence

🟢 Adequate

Use 🟢 when evidence indicates that the dimension is generally adequate and no material gap was observed.

Minor improvement opportunities may exist, but they do not materially affect knowledge reliability.

🟡 Requires attention

Use 🟡 when evidence indicates:

• relevant gaps;
• ambiguity;
• uneven application;
• incomplete governance;
• inconsistent ownership;
• missing validation;
• moderate risk to knowledge reliability.

🔴 High priority

Use 🔴 when evidence indicates a material risk or major gap that should be addressed before expanding AI-assisted use.

Examples include:

• materially conflicting business guidance;
• obsolete critical content presented as current;
• multiple apparently authoritative sources with incompatible instructions;
• uncertain guidance affecting financial controls;
• uncertain guidance affecting compliance-sensitive processes;
• unreliable information for critical support or operational activities;
• conditions likely to cause plausible but incorrect AI-assisted answers.

⚪ Insufficient evidence

Use ⚪ when accessible evidence is insufficient for a responsible rating.

Do not convert insufficient evidence directly into 🟡 or 🔴.

Do not calculate numerical scores or percentages.

For each dimension, provide:

• exactly one status icon;
• concise evidence-based assessment;
• business implication.

Overall readiness rule

Assign exactly one overall traffic-light icon.

Use only:

• 🟢 = Adequate
• 🟡 = Requires attention
• 🔴 = High priority
• ⚪ = Insufficient evidence

Display the overall result using this format:

textCopy code
Overall readiness: 🔴

The icon above is a format example, not a predetermined result.

Choose the overall status from the evidence:

• Use 🔴 when a confirmed material risk requires high-priority action, even if evidence is insufficient for another dimension.
• Otherwise, use ⚪ when evidence is insufficient to support an overall assessment. Explain which missing evidence prevents a conclusion.
• Use 🟡 when the evidence supports an assessment and relevant gaps require attention, but no high-priority risk was identified.
• Use 🟢 only when all six dimensions have sufficient evidence and are generally adequate, with no material gap observed.

Do not average dimension statuses or calculate a numerical score.

Required report structure

Produce these sections in this order, translating their headings into the selected report language:

1. Documents in Scope List the documents actually read, using the evidence inventory above. Preserve complete document titles and include accessible source links when available. Never invent a link.
2. Executive Summary State the scope, the overall readiness status, the most important evidence-based observations, and the decisions requiring client validation.
3. Readiness Traffic-Light Scorecard Use a table with exactly six rows in the mandatory dimension order. Include columns for Dimension, Status, Evidence-based Assessment, and Business Implication. Assign exactly one status icon per row.
4. Key Strengths Identify positive findings supported by the documents. If none can be established, state that rather than inventing strengths.
5. Key Risks and Gaps For each material finding, identify the supporting documents, the observed evidence, the business implication, and any uncertainty requiring client validation. Distinguish missing evidence from confirmed deficiencies.
6. Prioritized Recommendations For each recommendation, state its priority, the finding it addresses, the proposed action, the suggested accountable role or team, and the expected outcome. Suggested responsibility is a recommendation, not an assertion of existing ownership. Do not modify, archive, or delete content as part of this assessment.
7. Client Conversation Starters Turn the findings into focused workshop questions about authoritative sources, ownership and review, user experience, and Copilot or AI use. Connect each question to its supporting finding and the decision it helps the client make. Do not force questions unsupported by the evidence.
8. Scope and Limitations State the assessed scope, excluded content, inaccessible or unread documents, missing evidence, assumptions, and the limits of the assessment. Reiterate that the report is advisory, not formal readiness approval.

Final verification

Before returning the report, verify that:

• all eight report sections are present;
• the scorecard contains exactly the six mandatory dimensions in order;
• each dimension and the overall result have exactly one allowed status icon;
• every substantive finding is grounded in documents actually read;
• inaccessible content and insufficient evidence are disclosed;
• recommendations and workshop questions follow from the findings;
• no numerical readiness score, invented authority, or inferred owner appears;
• the output follows the user's requested language.