Optimize capability transition network

Plan training and hiring as integral capacity flows through a time-expanded skill network, maximizing multi-period demand value net of transition cost and lead time.

What it's for

Turns static skill inventories into an executable build-versus-buy capability roadmap with explicit opportunity cost during training.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

Field Type Role Required
demands array of objects (5 fields) Evidence Yes
hiring_options array of objects (5 fields) Evidence Yes
horizon_periods integer ≥ 1, ≤ 24 Your calibration Yes
skills array of objects (2 fields) Evidence Yes
training_options array of objects (7 fields) Evidence Yes

Each training_options record

Field Type Required
cost_per_capacity number (≥ 0) Yes
from_skill string (non-empty) Yes
id string (non-empty) Yes
lead_periods integer (≥ 1) Yes
max_capacity integer (≥ 1, ≤ 500) Yes
start_period integer (≥ 0) Yes
to_skill string (non-empty) Yes
Example input
{
  "demands": [
    {
      "id": "backend-now",
      "period": 0,
      "required_capacity": 2,
      "skill_id": "backend",
      "value_per_capacity": 10
    },
    {
      "id": "data-next",
      "period": 1,
      "required_capacity": 1,
      "skill_id": "data",
      "value_per_capacity": 100
    },
    {
      "id": "data-later",
      "period": 2,
      "required_capacity": 1,
      "skill_id": "data",
      "value_per_capacity": 100
    }
  ],
  "hiring_options": [
    {
      "cost_per_capacity": 150,
      "id": "hire-data",
      "max_capacity": 1,
      "skill_id": "data",
      "start_period": 1
    }
  ],
  "horizon_periods": 3,
  "skills": [
    {
      "current_capacity": 2,
      "id": "backend"
    },
    {
      "current_capacity": 0,
      "id": "data"
    }
  ],

Truncated for display — the full payload is 56 lines.

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

Example output
{
  "baseline": {
    "capacity_paths_used": 2,
    "captured_demand_value": 20,
    "demands": [
      {
        "captured_value": 20,
        "demand_id": "backend-now",
        "period": 0,
        "required_capacity": 2,
        "served_capacity": 2,
        "skill_id": "backend",
        "unmet_capacity": 0
      },
      {
        "captured_value": 0,
        "demand_id": "data-next",
        "period": 1,
        "required_capacity": 1,
        "served_capacity": 0,
        "skill_id": "data",
        "unmet_capacity": 1
      },
      {
        "captured_value": 0,
        "demand_id": "data-later",
        "period": 2,
        "required_capacity": 1,
        "served_capacity": 0,
        "skill_id": "data",
        "unmet_capacity": 1
      }
    ],
    "hiring": [],
    "investment_cost": 0,
    "net_value": 20,
    "training": []
  },
  "demand_coverage": 0.75,
  "governance": {
    "named_person_assignment": false,
    "note": "Validate training feasibility, hiring lead times, labor constraints, and non-fungible expertise before operational adoption.",
    "unit_of_decision": "aggregate_fungible_capacity"
  },

Truncated for display — the full payload is 95 lines.

How it works

Network & dependency analysis — Trace how load, failure and knowledge propagate through a graph of teams, services or components.

  1. 1 Plan training and hiring as integral capacity flows through a time-expanded skill network, maximizing multi-period demand value net of transition cost and lead time.
  2. 2 Evaluate the method-specific diagnostics and gates returned by the function, then abstain unless the declared decision clears them under locally governed thresholds.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Assumptions & guardrails

  • Nodes, edges, direction, time window, missing-link policy, and aggregation boundary represent the coordination or dependency mechanism of interest.
  • Structural centrality, fragility, or clustering describes a modeled graph and must not be interpreted as intent, guilt, or personal value.

Minimum evidence

  • skills: required and organization-defined
  • demands: required and organization-defined
  • training_options: required and organization-defined
  • hiring_options: required and organization-defined
  • horizon_periods: required and organization-defined

How to validate it

Validate on held-out periods or aggregate units, perturb edge definitions and missing links, and report sensitivity to graph construction before using structural rankings.

Calibrating it to your org

Same for everyone

The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.

Specific to you

  • metric/outcome definitions, entity grain, observation window, costs, thresholds, priors, and constraints represented by the function inputs

Calibration workflow

  1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
  2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
  3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
  4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
  5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
  6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "plan training and hiring as integral" }
  → finds "optimize_capability_transition_network"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "optimize_capability_transition_network" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_capability_transition_network", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Capacity, staffing & flow →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?

Request a free demo