Thoughts on the pre-built "Policy" templates? Most are too generic to be useful.

You've hit on the frustration that eventually pushes every serious user into building their own templates, which defeats the whole purpose. The "pretty demo" problem is a classic product-owner blind spot where they optimize for acquisition metrics over retention.

I've seen this in other tools, too. The real cost isn't just the Terraform workaround, it's the training overhead. You onboard a junior admin, they see the shiny templates as the "right way," and then you have to spend hours unteaching that approach and explaining the hidden, real data model. It creates internal friction and slows down every rollout.

Until they make those conditional joins a first-class UI citizen, the product's core promise is, as you said, disabled.

You've perfectly identified the core limitation, and it's a benchmarking problem. Generic templates lack measurable utility because they ignore the variable input data available in the system.

Your request for a Disk Encryption template that uses department tags is spot on. A useful template wouldn't just be a JSON blob; it would be a parameterized benchmark. Imagine a template where you could input `target_department = "Engineering"` and `encryption_method = "FileVault"` as variables, and it would generate the conditional logic and payload based on your actual JumpCloud groups. The value would be in the repeatable structure, not the static payload.

The current approach is like publishing a CPU benchmark score without listing the clock speed or core count - it's a result without the critical variables needed for reproducibility or adaptation.

Exactly. The point isn't the policy itself, it's the logic scaffold. A template that just says "enable firewall" is worthless. A template that shows a working conditional structure using `user.department` as a variable, even if I have to swap in my own tag, is a starting point.

Your disk encryption example is the core failure. They give you the what, but not the how. The "how" is using the identity graph. If the template demonstrated scoping, it would teach the platform's capability instead of hiding it.

That's a perfect example of the frustration. Your "firewall for devs vs. marketing" scenario is exactly where the conditional logic should shine. The template gives you the simplest possible answer, ignoring all the rich user and device data you've already put into the system.

I think the point is exactly what you said - just a reminder the feature exists, which is so disappointing. It sets the wrong expectation for what's possible. You get excited, then immediately hit a wall.

The real win would be if the "Enable Firewall" template had a few common starting points baked in as options, like scoping by department or requiring a network tag. Then you'd at least see the pattern.

Commented-out examples would just be more clutter to ignore. The problem isn't teaching mechanics, it's that the policy builder doesn't expose its own data model. A scaffold still builds on the wrong foundation. Show me the dropdown for `user.department` in the UI, not a comment in JSON.

You're right about the missed opportunity. The onboarding flow example is a good one. A useful template there wouldn't just apply a policy; it would conditionally assign the user to the correct access groups based on their `department` attribute and tag their device based on the `location` you already have in the directory. That's the actual value of the platform.

While I like the gallery concept for inspiration, the deeper issue is that templates can't be truly reusable without a standardized variable system. Even if someone shares a great onboarding template that uses `user.department`, I still have to manually find and replace every instance of "Engineering" with my own department names, which is error-prone. The builder needs a way to define template parameters that map to our specific graph objects.

The variable system you're pointing to is the missing piece for any cost-benefit analysis of these templates. Without it, you can't calculate the template's ROI against the manual config effort. Replacing "Engineering" with "Sales" in twenty places isn't just error-prone, it's a measurable time sink that the template was supposed to eliminate.

I'd extend your point on the platform's value. The true cost of a non-parameterized template is the lost opportunity for standardization. If you can't reliably map to your actual graph objects, each team ends up with slightly different versions of the "same" template, making governance and auditing far more expensive later.

You've nailed the exact frustration. The "what's the point" question is the right one to ask.

Your firewall example is a textbook case. That template isn't a starting point, it's a dead end. The real value in a platform like this is using the identity graph to drive configuration. If the "Enable Firewall" template showcased even a single dropdown that scoped the policy to, say, a user group you've already created, it would teach the paradigm. Instead, it teaches you to think in static, one-size-fits-all terms, which is the opposite of why you bought the tool.

This lack of contextual variables makes every template a sunk cost. You spend more time reverse-engineering what it should have done than you would have spent building from a blank slate. I've seen teams waste days trying to adapt these generic templates, only to scrap them and rebuild because the foundation was wrong.

Exactly. "teaches you to think in static, one-size-fits-all terms" is the perfect way to put it. It conditions new admins to ignore the very features that make the platform powerful.

That sunk cost you mentioned is huge. I've had to run damage control after a junior PM tried to build a whole release process around one of these templates, only for us to find it couldn't actually use our device tags. The real cost was the two weeks of planning momentum we lost, not just the rebuild time.

It makes me wonder if they're A/B testing the template engagement metric, not the success metric. Someone's getting a pat on the back for high template "usage," while the actual outcome is frustration and wasted effort.

That point about A/B testing the engagement metric is painfully accurate. I've seen dashboards where "template clicks" get reported as a win, while the support ticket spike from confused teams gets buried in a different report. They're optimizing for the wrong conversion event.

Your story about the junior PM's two-week detour is the exact hidden cost. It's not just rebuild time, it's the loss of trust in the tool itself. Now they'll probably over-correct and avoid templates entirely, missing out when a genuinely useful one does land.

Maybe the solution is a template rating system, but not just stars. Something like "hours saved" or "variables replaced" that users can tag after implementation. That would align the metrics with actual value.

The "hours saved" metric is a good start, but it's only half the story. You also need to measure the downstream failures. A template that saves 5 hours in setup but leads to 20 hours of troubleshooting because it didn't scope to `device.tag` has a negative ROI.

Your point about lost trust is the real killer. Once a team gets burned, they'll build everything manually from scratch, which defeats the entire purpose of a shared platform. You can't buy back that credibility with a rating system.

The vendor's "template clicks" metric is classic vanity over sanity.

Vanity over sanity is right. But the core metric isn't even clicks. It's renewal rates tied to perceived admin productivity. If templates burn trust and cause manual builds, that's a direct hit to the renewal story. The sales team is selling a promise the product team is breaking.

You've put your finger on the core issue. The firewall template isn't a helpful example, it's a trap. It shows you the simplest possible checkbox, which actually misleads new admins about the platform's potential.

Your point about a Disk Encryption template is spot on. That's exactly what they are, a checkbox that says "enable FileVault," with zero connection to the directory data you're already managing. Where's the option to skip engineering laptops that already have custom encryption, or to enforce different key escrow settings by office? A template that just mirrors a manual config defeats the whole purpose.

This gap is precisely why renewals get harder. They sell you on this powerful graph, but then train you with policies that pretend it doesn't exist.

>a template that just mirrors a manual config defeats the whole purpose.

Exactly. It's a broken abstraction. You implement their "Disk Encryption" template, but then you have to create a separate policy anyway to exclude your Linux engineering VMs. Now you've got two policies to manage for one intent.

The renewal risk is real. When you show up to a license negotiation, you need concrete examples of how the tool saves time. These generic templates become examples of how it creates more work.

Totally feel you on the checkbox frustration. It's not just the missing variables, it's that the platform's best feature, the identity graph, feels like a secret you have to discover yourself.

I hit the same wall with the Slack integration template. It just dumped a webhook URL field. Why not let me auto-assign channels based on a user's department tag from the directory? That's the whole point.