Purpose
Diagnose whether a nonprofit network's structure actually creates more value for members than they could achieve alone — and deliver a ranked set of design changes across governance, shared services, knowledge exchange, and accountability. Solves the common failure where the hub grows heavy, members disengage, and no one can articulate why the network is worth belonging to.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Evaluate whether a network, coalition, federation, or affiliate model is serving its members
- Redesign network governance or clarify hub vs. member roles and decision rights
- Launch, restructure, or fix shared services (finance, HR, data, fundraising, comms)
- Diagnose member disengagement, dues resistance, or "what do we get for membership?" pushback
- Rebalance a network where the hub is overloaded or members feel controlled rather than served
- Prepare a network for growth, merger of affiliates, or a strategic planning cycle
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Network type and mission: Federation, coalition, affiliate model, collective impact, franchise — and what the network exists to accomplish
- Members: Number of member organizations, their size range, and how similar or diverse they are
- Hub structure: Staffing, budget, and what the central/backbone organization currently does
- Governance model: How decisions get made, who sits on the board, voting rights, member representation
- Shared services offered: What the hub provides centrally today (or intends to)
- Funding flows: Dues, grants, pass-through funding, and who controls the money
- Presenting problem: The specific tension or decision prompting this analysis
If funding flows or member size range are missing, note the assumption and flag it as a data gap that materially affects the recommendations.
Instructions
Step 1: Network Purpose and Value Logic Test
Establish why the network should exist before critiquing how it's built.
- State the network's value proposition to members in one sentence: what can members do together that none could do alone? (economies of scale, collective voice, shared learning, quality standards, brand, access to funding)
- State the network's value proposition to the field/beneficiaries — what changes at scale because the network exists
- Apply the "leave test": if a typical member quit tomorrow, what would they lose? If the answer is weak, the design problem is fundamental, not operational
- Classify the network archetype: Coordination (light hub, member autonomy), Aggregation (shared services, moderate hub), Standardization (brand/quality control, strong hub), or Collective Impact (backbone + shared measurement)
Step 2: Governance Structure Diagnosis
Evaluate whether decision rights match the archetype.
- Map who decides what across: network strategy, budget, admitting/removing members, shared service scope, brand use
- Test for the two failure modes: hub capture (central staff/board make decisions members should own) and paralysis (every decision requires full member consensus)
- Assess member voice: is representation proportional, rotating, and real — or symbolic?
- Check subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the most local level capable of making them well. Flag anything centralized that members could own, and anything left to members that needs consistency
- Rate governance health: Strong / Adequate / Fragile with the specific reason
Step 3: Shared Services Efficiency Analysis
Evaluate what's centralized and whether it should be. For each shared service (or proposed service), assess against three tests:
- Scale test: Does centralizing it actually lower per-member cost or raise quality? (finance, HR, IT, insurance usually pass; program delivery usually fails)
- Standardization test: Do members benefit from doing it the same way, or does local variation matter?
- Willingness test: Will members actually use it, or will they build shadow versions? Recommend each service as: Centralize, Offer as opt-in, Leave to members, or Sunset. Flag any service the hub provides that fails all three tests.
Step 4: Knowledge Exchange Mechanisms
Evaluate how learning moves between members — the most undervalued network asset.
- Inventory current mechanisms: communities of practice, peer cohorts, shared data/dashboards, convenings, tool libraries, mentoring
- Diagnose the flow: is knowledge hub-to-member (broadcast), member-to-member (peer), or member-to-hub (aggregated intelligence)? Healthy networks have all three; struggling ones only broadcast
- Identify the highest-value untapped exchange: what does one member know that would materially help others but has no channel to travel?
- Recommend 2–3 specific mechanisms to add or strengthen, with cadence and owner
Step 5: Accountability and Standards Systems
Evaluate how the network maintains quality and mutual obligation.
- Assess member obligations: what members owe the network (dues, data, brand standards, participation) — and whether these are enforced or aspirational
- Assess hub obligations: what the hub owes members — and whether members can hold it accountable
- Evaluate the accountability direction: healthy networks have mutual accountability; failing ones only flow one direction (usually hub-to-member surveillance)
- Test the consequence gap: what happens when a member underperforms or a hub fails to deliver? If "nothing," the system is decorative
- Recommend accountability mechanisms proportional to the archetype (light for coordination networks, firm for standardization/brand networks)
Step 6: Member vs. Hub Value Balance Scorecard
Score whether the design serves members or the center. Rate each dimension 1–5:
- Value received vs. cost paid (do members get more than dues/effort?)
- Voice vs. control (are members governed with, or managed?)
- Autonomy preserved (does membership constrain what members can't afford to lose?)
- Hub load sustainability (is the center overextended relative to its resources?)
- Peer value (do members get value from each other, not just the hub?) Any dimension scoring 1–2 is a design defect requiring a named fix.
Step 7: Ranked Redesign Recommendations
Produce 8–10 specific design changes, ranked by impact-to-effort:
- Each recommendation names the dimension it fixes, the specific change, who owns it, and the risk of not acting
- Lead with structural fixes that unlock member value, not administrative tidiness
- Distinguish reversible experiments (pilot with willing members) from structural changes (require governance approval)
Step 8: Phased Implementation Roadmap
Sequence the changes over 12–18 months:
- Phase 1 (0–3 months): Quick wins and diagnostics that build member trust before asking for structural change
- Phase 2 (3–9 months): Governance and shared services changes requiring member buy-in
- Phase 3 (9–18 months): Structural redesign and scaling of what worked For each phase: the change, the decision required, who must approve, and the signal that it's working.
Output Format
- Structure: 8 sections following the diagnostic sequence; scorecard as a table; recommendations as a ranked list; roadmap as a phased plan
- Length: 1,400–1,900 words
- Format: Structured strategic document — headed sections, tables for scorecard and shared services analysis, ranked list for recommendations
- Sections: Value logic test → Governance diagnosis → Shared services analysis → Knowledge exchange → Accountability systems → Member/hub scorecard → Ranked recommendations → Phased roadmap
- Tone: Executive strategy advisor — candid, systems-oriented, willing to name uncomfortable structural truths without jargon
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] The network is classified into one of the four archetypes, and every recommendation is consistent with that archetype
- [ ] The "leave test" is answered explicitly — not left implicit
- [ ] Each shared service receives a specific verdict (Centralize / Opt-in / Leave to members / Sunset), not just discussion
- [ ] The member/hub scorecard rates all 5 dimensions with a named fix for any score of 1–2
- [ ] Recommendations are ranked by impact-to-effort and each names an owner and a risk of inaction
- [ ] The roadmap sequences trust-building quick wins before structural asks
Notes
- The most common design flaw is a hub built for one archetype (e.g., standardization/control) serving members who expected another (coordination/peer value) — surface this mismatch early
- Subsidiarity is the sharpest diagnostic tool: most struggling networks over-centralize decisions and under-centralize services, when the healthy pattern is often the reverse
- Governance changes fail without member trust; when confidence is low, always sequence a visible shared-service win before proposing structural change
- If the presenting problem is "members won't pay dues," the real diagnosis is almost always in Step 1 (value logic) and Step 6 (value balance) — not in fundraising
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills