fix: sync all skill updates and new skills into plugin bundles
- Synced 97 existing skill SKILL.md files from skills/ to their plugin bundle copies - Added 7 new skills to plugin bundles: - seo-content-brief, media-pitch -> pm-gtm - tax-planning-checklist -> pm-finance - change-management-plan -> pm-hr - sales-forecasting-model -> pm-sales - workshop-facilitation-guide -> pm-operations - teaching-lesson-plan -> pm-cross Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
@@ -1,12 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: feature-prioritisation
|
||||
description: Applies prioritisation frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, ICE, Opportunity Scoring) to rank features and backlog items. Use when asked to prioritise features, rank a backlog, decide what to build next, or evaluate tradeoffs. Triggers on "prioritise features", "what should we build", "backlog grooming", "RICE score", "MoSCoW".
|
||||
description: "Apply prioritisation frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, ICE, Opportunity Scoring) to rank features and backlog items. Use when asked to prioritise features, rank a backlog, decide what to build next, or evaluate tradeoffs between competing ideas. Produces a scored, ranked feature list with framework-specific tables, recommended build order, deprioritised items, and assumptions made."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Feature Prioritisation Skill
|
||||
|
||||
Apply the right prioritisation framework to any backlog and produce a clear, defensible ranking with rationale — not just a sorted list.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **List of features or initiatives to prioritise**
|
||||
- **Goal or metric** being prioritised against (OKR, launch, sprint)
|
||||
- **Preferred framework** (or recommend based on context below)
|
||||
- **Team data**: reach estimates, effort estimates, velocity (for RICE)
|
||||
|
||||
## Framework Selection Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user which framework they prefer, or recommend based on context:
|
||||
@@ -102,3 +110,11 @@ Recommend building: all Basic features first → Performance features for key us
|
||||
- If stakeholder politics are influencing prioritisation, name it explicitly and suggest separating the framework score from the final decision
|
||||
- Recommend revisiting priorities every 2 weeks minimum
|
||||
- Never produce a single-column ranked list without rationale — explain the top 3 and bottom 3 decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every item is scored against the same goal or metric (not different goals per item)
|
||||
- [ ] Deprioritised items are explicitly listed with reasons (not just absent from the ranked list)
|
||||
- [ ] Assumptions used in scoring are documented
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholder politics or personal preferences are separated from framework score
|
||||
- [ ] Prioritisation is anchored to a specific scope (sprint / quarter / launch)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: okr-builder
|
||||
description: Creates well-structured OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) for product teams, startups, and individuals. Use when asked to write OKRs, set quarterly goals, define key results, or review existing OKRs. Triggers on "OKR", "objective and key results", "quarterly goals", "north star metric".
|
||||
description: "Create well-structured OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) for product teams, startups, and individuals. Use when asked to write OKRs, set quarterly goals, define key results, or review existing OKRs. Produces a complete OKR set with objectives, measurable key results, baselines, and a scoring guide."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# OKR Builder Skill
|
||||
@@ -60,6 +60,15 @@ At quarter end, score each KR:
|
||||
- 0.4–0.6 = Made progress but missed
|
||||
- 0.0–0.3 = Missed — needs retrospective discussion
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Team or individual** the OKRs are for
|
||||
- **Quarter and year**
|
||||
- **Company or product North Star metric** (OKRs should connect to this)
|
||||
- **Top 3 priorities or goals for this quarter** (rough notes are fine)
|
||||
- **Any existing OKRs to review or improve** (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Always ask for the company-level or product-level North Star metric before writing OKRs
|
||||
@@ -67,3 +76,11 @@ At quarter end, score each KR:
|
||||
- If user provides output-based goals, always reframe as outcomes
|
||||
- Include a "health check" section flagging which KRs have no current baseline data
|
||||
- Remind user: OKRs are not performance reviews — they should be ambitious enough that missing them is okay
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Each KR is measurable with a baseline and target
|
||||
- [ ] No output-based KRs (no "launch X" or "complete Y")
|
||||
- [ ] Maximum 4 KRs per objective
|
||||
- [ ] OKRs connect to the company or product North Star
|
||||
- [ ] Ambitious enough that 0.7 attainment is the expected score
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: pricing-strategy
|
||||
description: Structures pricing strategy decisions, packaging options, and pricing page design for SaaS and digital products. Use when reviewing or setting pricing, designing pricing tiers, evaluating freemium vs paid, or preparing a pricing change. Triggers on "pricing strategy", "pricing tiers", "freemium", "pricing page", "how should we price", "pricing change".
|
||||
description: "Structure pricing strategy decisions, packaging options, and tier design for SaaS and digital products. Use when reviewing or setting pricing, designing pricing tiers, evaluating freemium vs paid, or preparing a pricing change. Produces a pricing strategy recommendation with model rationale, tier structure, competitive positioning, and rollout plan."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Pricing Strategy Skill
|
||||
@@ -110,6 +110,25 @@ Positioning options:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Product or service** being priced
|
||||
- **Current pricing** (if any — and why it's being reviewed)
|
||||
- **Target customer segments** (size, role, willingness to pay)
|
||||
- **Key competitors and their pricing** (if known)
|
||||
- **Business model** (SaaS / Marketplace / Usage-based / Other)
|
||||
- **Primary goal** (grow adoption / increase ARPU / reduce churn / new market entry)
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Value metric is defined (the unit that scales with customer value)
|
||||
- [ ] Free-to-paid upgrade trigger is specific (not "when they need more")
|
||||
- [ ] Competitive positioning is chosen and justified (premium / parity / value)
|
||||
- [ ] Pricing change rollout plan includes grandfathering decision
|
||||
- [ ] Counter-metrics are defined to catch perverse incentives
|
||||
- [ ] Risks have specific mitigations (not just listed)
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Never price based on cost — price based on value delivered to the customer
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: rice-impact-matrix
|
||||
description: Score features using RICE and plot against strategic alignment for nuanced prioritisation
|
||||
tool_integration: Miro, Jira
|
||||
description: "Score features using RICE and plot against strategic alignment for nuanced prioritisation. Use when asked to prioritise features, build a priority matrix, combine quantitative scoring with strategic fit, or decide what to build next with multiple competing initiatives. Produces a scored priority matrix with RICE scores, strategic alignment ratings, quadrant placement, and sequencing recommendations."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# RICE + Strategic Alignment Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qualitative strategic fit — because the highest RICE score isn't always the right next bet.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **List of initiatives or features to prioritise** (names and brief descriptions)
|
||||
- **Current strategic priorities or OKRs** (needed to rate strategic alignment)
|
||||
- **Reach estimates** (users affected per quarter — even rough estimates work)
|
||||
- **Effort estimates** (person-months — from engineering if available)
|
||||
- **Quarter or planning period**
|
||||
|
||||
## Two-Stage Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 1: RICE Scoring
|
||||
@@ -18,7 +26,7 @@ Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qua
|
||||
- RICE = (R × I × C) / E
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 2: Strategic Alignment Score
|
||||
Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provide these as input):
|
||||
Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provided as input):
|
||||
- Directly supports top OKR: +3
|
||||
- Supports secondary OKR: +2
|
||||
- Neutral: +1
|
||||
@@ -27,7 +35,9 @@ Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provide these as
|
||||
### Final Priority Score
|
||||
Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
**Validate** — Flag any initiative where RICE score and strategic alignment conflict sharply (e.g., high RICE, low alignment). These require an explicit team conversation before sequencing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Priority Matrix — [Quarter]
|
||||
| Initiative | RICE Score | Strategic Alignment | Combined Score | Quadrant | Recommendation |
|
||||
@@ -42,3 +52,11 @@ Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Recommendations
|
||||
[Top 5 initiatives with rationale for sequencing]
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All RICE components have an estimate (even if low confidence — flag those)
|
||||
- [ ] Strategic alignment is rated against specific OKRs, not general "feels strategic"
|
||||
- [ ] Conflicts between RICE rank and strategic alignment are explicitly flagged
|
||||
- [ ] "Drop" recommendations are specific — not just "low priority, deprioritise"
|
||||
- [ ] Confidence levels on estimates are noted where weak (drives the 50% confidence flag)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: rice-prioritisation
|
||||
description: Score and rank product initiatives using the RICE framework
|
||||
tool_integration: Jira
|
||||
description: "Score and rank product initiatives using the RICE framework. Use when asked to prioritise features, rank a backlog using RICE, score initiatives for quarterly planning, or apply an objective framework to a list of competing ideas. Produces a ranked RICE table with scores, quick wins and moonshot flags, dependency notes, and a recommended sequencing order."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# RICE Prioritisation Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Apply consistent, criteria-based RICE scoring to a list of features or initiatives to produce an objective prioritisation ranking.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **List of initiatives or features to score** (names and brief descriptions)
|
||||
- **Reach estimates** (users affected per quarter — from analytics if available)
|
||||
- **Impact estimates** (use the standard scale below)
|
||||
- **Effort estimates** (person-months — from engineering if available)
|
||||
- **Quarter or planning period**
|
||||
|
||||
## RICE Definitions (adapt to your context)
|
||||
- **Reach:** Number of users affected per quarter (use actual DAU/MAU data where available)
|
||||
- **Impact:** Effect on your primary metric — use scale: 3=massive, 2=high, 1=medium, 0.5=low, 0.25=minimal
|
||||
@@ -24,8 +32,9 @@ RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
|
||||
4. Rank highest to lowest
|
||||
5. Flag any "quick wins" (high RICE score, low effort) and "moonshots" (high impact, high effort)
|
||||
6. Note dependencies between items that affect sequencing
|
||||
7. **Validate** — Cross-check: if the top-ranked item surprises the team, investigate whether an estimate is inflated. RICE is a tool, not a verdict.
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### RICE Prioritisation: [Backlog/Quarter]
|
||||
| Initiative | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score | Notes |
|
||||
@@ -35,5 +44,16 @@ RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
|
||||
#### Recommended Sequence
|
||||
[Top 5 initiatives with rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quick Wins (high score, low effort)
|
||||
[Items to pick up alongside bigger bets]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Data Gaps to Address
|
||||
[What information would most improve scoring accuracy]
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every initiative has all four RICE components estimated (even roughly)
|
||||
- [ ] Confidence is 50% for anything without data backing (not 100% as a default)
|
||||
- [ ] Quick wins and moonshots are explicitly called out
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies that affect sequencing are noted
|
||||
- [ ] Any surprising ranking is investigated before accepting it
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: roadmap-narrative
|
||||
description: Transform a prioritised initiative list into a compelling strategic roadmap narrative
|
||||
tool_integration: Notion, Miro
|
||||
description: "Transform a prioritised initiative list into a compelling strategic roadmap narrative. Use when asked to write a roadmap narrative, explain the product roadmap to non-technical stakeholders, connect roadmap items to company goals, or produce an exec-shareable roadmap story. Produces a themed narrative with strategic context, quarter progression arc, an executive summary, and a 'what's not on the roadmap' section."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Roadmap Narrative Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Convert a ranked list of product initiatives into a clear, strategic narrative that connects individual items to company goals and communicates a coherent product direction.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Prioritised initiative list** (with rough timelines or quarters)
|
||||
- **Company OKRs or strategic priorities** (to connect roadmap to company goals)
|
||||
- **Audience** (all-hands, board, investors, sales team — changes tone and depth)
|
||||
- **Items explicitly NOT on the roadmap** (optional but strengthens credibility)
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
1. Review the prioritised initiative list and company OKRs provided
|
||||
2. Identify 2-3 strategic themes that group the initiatives naturally
|
||||
3. For each theme, articulate: the problem it addresses, the customer it serves, the metric it moves
|
||||
4. Write a quarter-level narrative that shows progression — how does H1 set up H2?
|
||||
5. Draft an executive summary (3-4 sentences max) that non-technical stakeholders can repeat
|
||||
6. **Validate** — Confirm every initiative maps to a theme. If an initiative is orphaned, either create a theme or flag it as a narrative gap to address
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Product Roadmap: [Quarter/Half/Year]
|
||||
**Strategic Context:** [1 paragraph: market moment, key challenge, our response]
|
||||
@@ -28,10 +36,21 @@ Convert a ranked list of product initiatives into a clear, strategic narrative t
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for each theme]
|
||||
|
||||
**What's Not on the Roadmap (and Why):**
|
||||
[2-3 items with rationale — shows strategic discipline, not just prioritisation]
|
||||
|
||||
**Executive Summary (shareable):**
|
||||
[3-4 sentences that could be shared in an all-hands or board update]
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone Guidelines
|
||||
- Avoid jargon — write for a CFO, not an engineer
|
||||
- Write for a CFO, not an engineer
|
||||
- Lead with customer outcomes, not features
|
||||
- Be honest about what's NOT on the roadmap and why
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every initiative in the input maps to a strategic theme
|
||||
- [ ] The executive summary can stand alone and be repeated correctly after one reading
|
||||
- [ ] Progression narrative shows causal links between quarters (not just chronological listing)
|
||||
- [ ] "What's not on the roadmap" section includes at least 2 items with clear rationale
|
||||
- [ ] Language throughout is free of engineering jargon — tested by asking: "could a CFO repeat this?"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,12 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: roadmap-presentation
|
||||
description: Creates structured roadmap presentations and narratives for executive, stakeholder, and team audiences. Use when asked to build a product roadmap, present roadmap to leadership, create a roadmap slide, or communicate quarterly plans. Triggers on "roadmap presentation", "product roadmap", "quarterly roadmap", "roadmap slide", "roadmap for leadership".
|
||||
description: "Create structured roadmap presentations calibrated to any audience. Use when asked to build a product roadmap, present roadmap to leadership, create a roadmap slide, or communicate quarterly plans to execs, teams, or customers. Produces an audience-calibrated Now/Next/Later roadmap with strategic context, initiative tables, success metrics, and explicit deprioritisation rationale."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Roadmap Presentation Skill
|
||||
|
||||
Build roadmaps that tell a strategy story — not just a list of features with dates. Every roadmap output is audience-calibrated: executives get outcomes, teams get specificity, customers get value.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Audience** (executive/board, cross-functional, engineering, customers — changes format significantly)
|
||||
- **Prioritised initiative list** with rough timelines or quarters
|
||||
- **Company OKRs or strategic goals** (to anchor the narrative)
|
||||
- **Period covered** (Q1, H1, full year, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
## Audience Calibration
|
||||
|
||||
Always ask who the audience is before building:
|
||||
@@ -112,3 +120,11 @@ Every roadmap needs a narrative, not just a timeline. Structure it as:
|
||||
- For executive audiences: lead with the outcome the roadmap delivers to the business, not the features
|
||||
- Recommend a roadmap review cadence: monthly for Now items, quarterly for Next/Later
|
||||
- If dates are demanded for Later items: use quarters (Q3 2026), not specific dates
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Format matches the audience (executives don't get sprint-level detail)
|
||||
- [ ] NOW items are committed with owners; NEXT items are directional; LATER items are aspirational
|
||||
- [ ] "What We're NOT Building" section has at least 2 items with rationale
|
||||
- [ ] Success metrics are specified per theme (not just a list of features)
|
||||
- [ ] Language is free of internal jargon — tested by asking: "could an external stakeholder understand this?"
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user