Draft a role-specific onboarding learning and introduction plan

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Role goals

   Owner

   Manager

   Minimum scope

   Three approved learning objectives

   Quality check

   Keep requirements separate from assumptions about the person.

2. Name

   Learning catalogue

   Owner

   Learning owner

   Minimum scope

   Six fictional resources with prerequisites

   Quality check

   Check currency, language and access.

3. Name

   Timing and introductions

   Owner

   Manager and employee

   Minimum scope

   Start date, working pattern and team availability

   Quality check

   Allow the employee to correct constraints.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Use fictional goals and a local catalogue; omit resumes and interview notes from the first check.

2. Mark all assignments and dates as proposals.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: enabled plugins, learner access and trigger setup; linked activation and review pages were unavailable.

External actions requiring approval

1. Real employee-data access, course assignments, invitations and HR-record changes.

Why use this

1. A plan should explain why each activity matters and fit the employee’s working schedule. More assigned courses do not necessarily mean better preparation.

2. A draft can expose missing learning resources and unrealistic timing before tasks are assigned.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Relate approved goals to resource descriptions and sequence dependent activities.

Simpler alternative

Reuse an approved role template when responsibilities and learning needs are stable.

Unsuitable when

The request evaluates employability, predicts performance or treats uncertain skill inferences as facts.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

A draft onboarding plan with learning goals, selected resources, team introductions, proposed dates and questions for the manager and employee.

Critical checks

1. Every activity maps to an approved goal or agreed introduction.

2. Prerequisites precede dependent work.

3. The plan leaves missing resources unresolved and fits the stated work pattern.

Missing output evidence

Unknown: no actual tenant output or completed run independently inspected.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

One fictional role, three agreed goals, six course descriptions, a missing prerequisite, a part-time schedule and two proposed introductions.

Acceptance checks

1. Do not invent a missing course.

2. Respect prerequisites and working days.

3. Make no assessment, assignment or invitation.

Stop conditions

1. Real hiring materials, protected traits or any consequential employment decision.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Unsupported skill-gap label

   Why it matters

   An inference can become an unfair assessment.

   Proposed response

   Replace it with a question for the employee.

2. Signal

   Unavailable course

   Why it matters

   The plan can be impossible to follow.

   Proposed response

   Mark the gap and ask the learning owner.

3. Signal

   Overloaded first week

   Why it matters

   Good content can still create an impractical schedule.

   Proposed response

   Rebalance the draft with the manager.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Confirm goals, accessible resources and review ownership.

Ongoing review

1. Manager and employee revise pacing and resource choices.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: learning entitlements, configuration work and review time.

Limits

1. This is supportive planning, not a validated skills assessment or guarantee of readiness.