Windsurf + Aider targets, MCP server, and demo placement (#33)

Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-17 23:15:38 +01:00
parent 123aabe5e3
commit 036511ab3e
358 changed files with 60408 additions and 38 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Ambiguity Resolver Skill
+
+Turn vague briefs and half-formed opportunities into structured, actionable problem statements — so you can reply with clarity instead of asking for three more meetings.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **The vague brief or opportunity description** (even a single sentence is enough)
+- **Who asked for this** (stakeholder context shapes the framing)
+- **Known constraints** (timeline, budget, team size — if any are known)
+
+## Three-Stage Process
+
+### Stage 1: Reframe
+- Restate the vague input as 3-5 explicit questions that need answering
+- Identify the unstated assumptions hidden in the brief
+- Surface the real decision this feeds into (what will someone do differently once this is resolved?)
+
+### Stage 2: Scope
+- Define what is explicitly IN scope
+- Define what is explicitly OUT of scope (equally important)
+- Identify the deadline pressure: is this urgent/important, important/not urgent, or unclear?
+- Name who owns the final decision and who needs to be consulted
+
+### Stage 3: Action
+- Define the minimum viable research: 2-3 activities maximum that would give enough signal to move forward with confidence
+- Time estimate for each activity
+- What each activity would tell you (and what it wouldn't)
+- Proposed check-in point: when to regroup before committing to more
+
+**Validate** — Confirm every reframed question maps to at least one research activity. Verify scope boundaries are specific enough to say "no" to something concrete.
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Problem Brief: [Opportunity Area]
+
+**Restated as questions:**
+1. [Question 1]
+2. [Question 2]
+3. [Question 3]
+
+**Unstated assumptions we should surface:**
+- [Assumption 1]
+- [Assumption 2]
+
+**In scope:** [Clear boundary]
+**Out of scope:** [Clear boundary]
+**Decision owner:** [Name/role]
+**Timeline:** [Real deadline if known, or "unclear — recommend setting one"]
+
+**Minimum viable research:**
+| Activity | Time required | What it tells us | What it won't tell us |
+|----------|--------------|------------------|-----------------------|
+| [activity] | [time] | [insight] | [limitation] |
+
+**Proposed check-in:** After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed or pivot.
+
+## Example (Partial)
+
+Input: *"We need to figure out what to do about our enterprise customers."*
+
+**Restated as questions:**
+1. Are enterprise customers churning, underperforming on expansion, or both?
+2. Is this a product gap, a support/service gap, or a pricing/packaging issue?
+3. What does "do something" look like — a new initiative, a policy change, or a resource shift?
+
+**In scope:** Enterprise accounts ($50K+ ARR) showing declining health scores in the last two quarters
+**Out of scope:** SMB segment, new enterprise acquisition strategy
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not reframe the brief into questions that are still too broad to research — each reframed question must be answerable by a specific activity
+- [ ] Do not list a research activity without stating what it would tell you and what it would NOT tell you
+- [ ] Do not leave the decision owner as "leadership" or "the team" — name a specific person or role
+- [ ] Do not omit an explicit out-of-scope boundary — without it, scope will expand organically and the brief becomes meaningless
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Every reframed question is specific enough to research (not "how do we improve things?")
+- [ ] Scope boundaries name something concrete that is excluded
+- [ ] Research activities are achievable within the stated timeline
+- [ ] Decision owner is identified (not "leadership" — a specific person or role)
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Competitive Intelligence Monitor Skill
+
+Turn scattered competitor updates into structured weekly intelligence — not just "what they did" but "what changed since last week and what it means for us."
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **Competitors to monitor** (list of company names)
+- **Your current roadmap or strategic priorities** (to assess relevance of signals)
+- **Previous brief or last run summary** (for diff mode — what's new vs. last time)
+- **Time period** (this week, this month)
+
+## Signal Categories to Monitor
+- **Product signals:** New features, removals, UX changes, beta programmes
+- **Pricing signals:** Changes to tiers, free limits, enterprise terms
+- **Hiring signals:** Job postings revealing strategic bets
+- **Partnership signals:** Integrations, acquisitions, ecosystem moves
+- **Messaging signals:** Changes in positioning, audience, value proposition
+
+## Process
+
+### First Run (Full Report)
+1. For each competitor provided, scan all five signal categories
+2. Categorise each signal found
+3. Assess: reactive (responding to market) or proactive (setting direction)?
+4. Rate threat level: High / Medium / Low / Watch
+5. Connect each signal to a specific item on the provided roadmap
+6. Recommend response: Accelerate / Deprioritise / Monitor / Investigate
+7. **Validate** — Every High signal must have a specific recommended action and owner. "Monitor" is only acceptable for Low and Watch ratings.
+
+### Subsequent Runs (Diff Only)
+1. Compare current signals against previous run summary
+2. Output ONLY what is new or changed since last run
+3. Flag if a previously Low signal has escalated to High
+4. Keep output under 300 words — brevity is the point
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Competitive Intelligence Brief — [Date]
+**New Since Last Run:** [n signals]
+
+#### 🔴 High Priority
+**[Competitor]:** [Signal] → [Implication] → [Recommended action + owner]
+
+#### 🟡 Watch
+**[Competitor]:** [Signal] → [Why it matters now]
+
+#### ✅ No Change
+[Competitors with no new signals this week]
+
+**This Week's Strategic Summary:**
+[2 sentences max — what is the overall competitive landscape doing?]
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not mark a signal as Low priority simply because it is new and unfamiliar — unknown competitive moves often deserve investigation before dismissal
+- [ ] Do not provide "monitor" as the recommended response for a High-priority signal — High signals require a specific action with a named owner
+- [ ] Do not include signals from competitors that are not relevant to the stated roadmap or strategic priorities — noise reduces the brief's usefulness and trains the team to ignore it
+- [ ] Do not produce a diff-mode brief that is longer than the full report — if the diff output exceeds 300 words, it is a full report, not a diff
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Every High-priority signal has a specific response action and owner
+- [ ] Signals are categorised (not just listed as "they did X")
+- [ ] Roadmap connections are specific (not "generally relevant")
+- [ ] Diff mode output is under 300 words
+- [ ] Strategic summary describes the landscape trend, not just repeats individual signals
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Competitor Signal Tracker Skill
+
+Turn scattered competitor information into structured strategic intelligence — not just "what they did" but "what it means for us."
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **Competitor name(s)** and the signals/updates to analyse
+- **Your product's current roadmap or strategic priorities** (to assess relevance)
+- **Time period** the signals cover (this week, this month, etc.)
+
+## Signal Categories to Track
+- **Product signals:** New features, removals, UX changes, beta programmes
+- **Pricing signals:** Changes to tiers, free limits, enterprise terms
+- **Hiring signals:** Job postings that reveal strategic bets (e.g., hiring ML engineers = AI investment)
+- **Partnership signals:** Integrations, acquisitions, ecosystem moves
+- **Messaging signals:** Changes in positioning, target audience, value proposition
+
+## Process
+1. For each competitor update provided, categorise the signal type
+2. Assess: Is this reactive (responding to market) or proactive (setting direction)?
+3. Rate strategic threat level: High / Medium / Low / Watch
+4. Connect to your roadmap: does this accelerate, validate, or challenge any of your bets?
+5. Recommend a response: Accelerate existing initiative / Deprioritise / Monitor / Investigate further
+6. **Validate** — Confirm every High threat has a specific recommended response with an owner. "Monitor" is not an acceptable response for High-rated threats.
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Competitive Intelligence Report — [Date]
+
+#### [Competitor Name]
+**Signal:** [What they did]
+**Signal Type:** [Product / Pricing / Hiring / Partnership / Messaging]
+**Reactive or Proactive:** [assessment]
+**Threat Level:** [High / Medium / Low / Watch]
+**Implication for Us:** [Specific connection to our roadmap or strategy]
+**Recommended Response:** [Action + owner + timeline]
+
+#### Strategic Summary
+[2-3 sentences on the overall competitive landscape shift this period]
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not rate a signal as High threat without explaining the specific roadmap item or customer segment it threatens — unjustified threat ratings lose credibility over time
+- [ ] Do not treat a hiring signal as definitive proof of a strategic bet — hiring signals require corroboration from product, messaging, or pricing signals before acting on them
+- [ ] Do not conflate a competitor's announcement with a competitor's shipped capability — press releases and blog posts often describe aspirations, not production features
+- [ ] Do not recommend "accelerate existing initiative" for every High signal — sometimes the right response is to differentiate harder in an adjacent area rather than race the competitor directly
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Every signal is categorised (not just described)
+- [ ] Threat level is justified — not assigned arbitrarily
+- [ ] High-threat signals have specific recommended responses (not "monitor")
+- [ ] Implications connect to specific roadmap items or strategic bets
+- [ ] Strategic summary gives a landscape-level view, not just a list of individual signals
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# Executive Update Skill
+
+Produce a stakeholder update that busy executives will actually read — structured around what they care about: decisions, risks, and numbers.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **Product update or notes** (raw input to transform — even bullet points work)
+- **Audience** (CEO, board, specific exec, or general leadership)
+- **Period** (this week / sprint / month / quarter)
+- **Key metrics** (what numbers matter to this audience)
+
+## Executive Communication Principles
+- Lead with the headline, not the context
+- Every update should answer: "So what does this mean for the business?"
+- Flag decisions needed clearly — don't bury asks in paragraphs
+- Be honest about risks — executives hate surprises more than bad news
+
+## Process
+1. Read the full product update provided
+2. Identify: key metric movements, decisions required, risks to flag, wins to celebrate
+3. Write in reverse pyramid style — most important first
+4. Limit to 250 words maximum for the main body
+5. Add a "Decisions Needed" section with clear options and your recommendation
+6. **Validate** — Confirm every decision needed has a specific option and recommendation (not just "TBD"), and every risk has a mitigation or watch plan
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Product Update — [Date / Sprint / Month]
+**Headline:** [One sentence on the most important thing]
+
+**By the Numbers:**
+- [Metric 1]: [value] ([vs. target / last period])
+- [Metric 2]: [value] ([vs. target / last period])
+- [Metric 3]: [value] ([vs. target / last period])
+
+**Progress This Period:**
+[3-4 bullet points, outcome-focused not activity-focused]
+
+**Risks & Watch Items:**
+[2-3 bullets — be direct, include mitigation]
+
+**Decisions Needed:**
+1. [Decision] — Options: [A] or [B] — Recommendation: [your view] — Needed by: [date]
+
+**What's Next:**
+[2-3 bullets on next period priorities]
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Whole update is under 250 words (if not, cut ruthlessly)
+- [ ] Every metric includes a comparison point (vs. target or last period)
+- [ ] Every risk has a mitigation or watch action
+- [ ] Every decision needed has at least two options and a recommendation
+- [ ] Written for a CFO or CEO — no jargon, all outcomes
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not lead with context or background — executives read the headline first; bury the important thing below two sentences of setup and they will miss it
+- [ ] Do not present metrics without a comparison point — a number without context (vs. target, vs. last period) cannot be interpreted and will prompt follow-up questions
+- [ ] Do not soften or spin risks — executives rely on these updates to make resource and escalation decisions; sanitised risk sections destroy the update's utility
+- [ ] Do not present a "Decisions Needed" item without a recommendation — asking an executive to decide without your view forces them to do the analytical work the PM should have done
+- [ ] Do not exceed 250 words in the main body — length signals the author has not done the compression work; every word over 250 reduces the chance the update is read
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# Stakeholder Influence Mapper Skill
+
+Turn a product initiative into a structured influence plan — who needs to be aligned, in what order, and exactly what to say to each person in their language.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **Initiative description** (what you want to do and why)
+- **List of key stakeholders** (name, role, relationship to initiative)
+- **Timeline pressure** (when do you need a decision?)
+- **Any known objections or political context** (what you're already aware of)
+
+## Process
+1. Build stakeholder map with: role, primary concern, decision authority (blocker / influencer / informed), current stance (supportive / neutral / resistant / unknown)
+2. Identify the critical path of conversations — who must be won before others
+3. For each stakeholder, lead with their concern, not your ask
+4. Prepare one likely objection per stakeholder and a prepared response
+5. Flag any stakeholders who should NOT be approached until others are aligned
+6. **Validate** — Confirm every "blocker" stakeholder has a specific tactic (not just "have a conversation"), and that the sequence accounts for political dependencies
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Stakeholder Map: [Initiative Name]
+
+| Stakeholder | Role | Primary Concern | Authority | Current Stance |
+|-------------|------|-----------------|-----------|----------------|
+| [name] | [role] | [concern] | [type] | [stance] |
+
+### Recommended Conversation Sequence
+1. **[Name first]** — because [reason they unlock others]
+2. **[Name second]** — once [first] is aligned
+[continue...]
+
+### Talking Points by Stakeholder
+
+#### [Stakeholder Name]
+**Lead with:** [Their concern, not your feature]
+**Your ask:** [One specific thing you need from them]
+**Likely objection:** [What they'll push back on]
+**Prepared response:** [How to address it without being defensive]
+**What success looks like:** [What alignment from them looks like]
+
+## Notes
+- Never send the same message to all stakeholders — calibrate every time
+- Engineering leads want technical feasibility acknowledged first
+- Finance stakeholders want ROI framing before anything else
+- Legal/compliance stakeholders want risk mitigation addressed upfront
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Every blocker has a specific tactic (not just "have a chat")
+- [ ] Conversation sequence accounts for political dependencies
+- [ ] Each stakeholder's talking points lead with their concern, not your agenda
+- [ ] At least one "do not approach until X is aligned" flag is considered
+- [ ] The ask from each stakeholder is a single, specific thing (not a vague "support")
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not approach high-influence blockers before aligning their sponsors — approach order determines outcome
+- [ ] Do not create talking points that lead with your agenda — always lead with the stakeholder's stated concern
+- [ ] Do not treat every stakeholder as equally important — focus depth on the decision-makers and key influencers
+- [ ] Do not omit the "do not approach until X is aligned" flags — sequencing mistakes can permanently close doors
+- [ ] Do not build the map based only on org chart position — influence often lives outside formal authority
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Strategic Narrative Generator Skill
+
+Turn a prioritised initiative list into a strategic narrative — the story that explains not just what you're building but why, why now, and why this sequence.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Ask the user for these if not provided:
+- **Prioritised initiative list** (with rough timelines)
+- **Current OKRs or strategic priorities** (1-3)
+- **Audience** (board, leadership team, all-hands, investors)
+- **Competitive or market context** (optional but improves output significantly)
+
+## Process
+1. Identify 2-3 natural strategic themes from the initiative list
+2. For each theme: articulate the problem, the customer it serves, and the metric it moves
+3. Build the progression narrative: how does Q1 set up Q2? How does H1 set up H2?
+4. Write executive summary in under 100 words (the version someone can repeat)
+5. Anticipate the 3 hardest questions a sceptical board member would ask — draft answers
+6. Identify what's NOT on the roadmap and why
+7. **Validate** — Confirm every initiative maps to a theme. If an initiative is orphaned, either create a theme for it or flag it as a narrative gap.
+
+## Output Structure
+
+### Product Strategy Narrative: [Period]
+
+**The One-Paragraph Context:**
+[Market moment + key challenge + our response — for the CFO, not the engineer]
+
+**Strategic Theme 1: [Name]**
+- The problem: [customer pain in plain language]
+- Our response: [initiatives in this theme]
+- The metric it moves: [specific and measurable]
+- Why now: [timing rationale]
+
+**Strategic Theme 2: [Name]**
+[Same structure]
+
+**The Progression Story:**
+[How each quarter sets up the next — this is the narrative arc]
+
+**Executive Summary (under 100 words — shareable):**
+[Version someone can quote at a board meeting]
+
+**Questions to Prepare For:**
+1. [Hard question] → [Prepared answer]
+2. [Hard question] → [Prepared answer]
+3. [Hard question] → [Prepared answer]
+
+**What's Not on the Roadmap (and Why):**
+[2-3 items — shows strategic discipline, not just prioritisation]
+
+## Tone
+- Write for a CFO, not an engineer
+- Lead with outcomes, not features
+- Every sentence should answer "so what?"
+- Avoid jargon — if you can't say it plainly, the strategy isn't clear enough yet
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] Executive summary is under 100 words and can stand alone
+- [ ] Every initiative in the input maps to a strategic theme
+- [ ] Each theme has a specific, measurable metric (not "improve engagement")
+- [ ] Progression story shows causal links between quarters, not just chronological listing
+- [ ] "Not on the roadmap" section includes at least 2 items with clear rationale
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not produce a narrative that lists initiatives chronologically without showing causal progression — the story must show why each phase enables the next
+- [ ] Do not use abstract strategic language that cannot be repeated by a non-technical listener — test whether someone could explain it back without the document
+- [ ] Do not omit the "what's not on the roadmap" section — what you are choosing not to do is as important as what you are doing
+- [ ] Do not set themes without measurable metrics — a theme without a metric cannot be tracked or held to account
+- [ ] Do not skip the hard questions section — preparing for objections in advance is the purpose of the narrative exercise