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
@@ -1,46 +1,41 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ambiguity-resolver
|
||||
description: Structures vague opportunities and unclear briefs into actionable
|
||||
one-page problem statements. Use when user has a vague brief, undefined problem,
|
||||
unclear opportunity, or says "we need to figure out what to do about X", "can
|
||||
you help me make sense of this", or "I've been asked to look into Y".
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: Mohit Aggarwal
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
category: discovery
|
||||
tags: [discovery, strategy, problem-framing, ambiguity]
|
||||
documentation: https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
|
||||
description: "Structure vague opportunities and unclear briefs into actionable one-page problem statements. Use when asked to clarify a vague brief, frame an undefined problem, make sense of an unclear opportunity, or when the user says 'we need to figure out what to do about X' or 'I've been asked to look into Y'. Produces a structured problem brief with reframed questions, scoped boundaries, and a minimum viable research plan."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Ambiguity Resolver Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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?)
|
||||
- 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?
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
**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]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -59,9 +54,27 @@ more meetings.
|
||||
**Timeline:** [Real deadline if known, or "unclear — recommend setting one"]
|
||||
|
||||
**Minimum viable research:**
|
||||
| Activity | Time required | What it tells us |
|
||||
|----------|--------------|------------------|
|
||||
| [activity] | [time] | [insight] |
|
||||
| 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.
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
## 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)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: competitive-intelligence-monitor
|
||||
description: Continuously monitors competitor signals and surfaces strategic
|
||||
implications for your roadmap. Use when user asks to "monitor competitors",
|
||||
"track competitive landscape", "what are competitors doing this week",
|
||||
"competitive briefing", or "what has changed in the market".
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: Mohit Aggarwal
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
category: strategy
|
||||
tags: [strategy, competitive-intel, roadmapping]
|
||||
documentation: https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
|
||||
description: "Monitor competitor signals and surface strategic implications for your roadmap. Use when asked to monitor competitors, track the competitive landscape, produce a competitive briefing, or understand what has changed in the market this week or month. Produces a structured intelligence brief with high/medium/low priority signals, roadmap implications, and a strategic landscape summary."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Competitive Intelligence Monitor Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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."
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -33,6 +31,7 @@ Turn scattered competitor updates into structured weekly intelligence — not ju
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -40,7 +39,7 @@ Turn scattered competitor updates into structured weekly intelligence — not ju
|
||||
3. Flag if a previously Low signal has escalated to High
|
||||
4. Keep output under 300 words — brevity is the point
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Competitive Intelligence Brief — [Date]
|
||||
**New Since Last Run:** [n signals]
|
||||
@@ -57,7 +56,10 @@ Turn scattered competitor updates into structured weekly intelligence — not ju
|
||||
**This Week's Strategic Summary:**
|
||||
[2 sentences max — what is the overall competitive landscape doing?]
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenClaw Configuration
|
||||
Add to YAML frontmatter for scheduled runs:
|
||||
`schedule: weekly-monday-0800`
|
||||
Persistent memory stores last run summary for diff comparison.
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: competitor-signal-tracker
|
||||
description: Analyse competitor moves and surface strategic implications for your product
|
||||
tool_integration: Notion
|
||||
description: "Analyse competitor moves and surface strategic implications for your product. Use when asked to track competitor signals, analyse a competitor announcement, understand what a competitor is doing strategically, or produce a competitive intelligence report. Produces a categorised signal analysis with threat ratings, roadmap implications, and recommended responses."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Competitor Signal Tracker Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -21,8 +27,9 @@ Turn scattered competitor information into structured strategic intelligence —
|
||||
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 Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Competitive Intelligence Report — [Date]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -35,4 +42,12 @@ Turn scattered competitor information into structured strategic intelligence —
|
||||
**Recommended Response:** [Action + owner + timeline]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Strategic Summary
|
||||
[2-3 sentences on the overall competitive landscape shift this week/month]
|
||||
[2-3 sentences on the overall competitive landscape shift this period]
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: executive-update
|
||||
description: Transform detailed product updates into concise executive briefings
|
||||
tool_integration: Slack, Microsoft Teams
|
||||
description: "Transform detailed product updates into concise executive briefings. Use when asked to write an executive update, leadership update, product update for the exec team, or a C-suite product briefing. Produces a structured 250-word briefing with headline, key metrics, progress, risks, decisions needed, and next steps."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Executive Update Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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?"
|
||||
@@ -20,8 +27,9 @@ Produce a stakeholder update that busy executives will actually read — structu
|
||||
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 Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Product Update — [Date / Sprint / Month]
|
||||
**Headline:** [One sentence on the most important thing]
|
||||
@@ -42,3 +50,11 @@ Produce a stakeholder update that busy executives will actually read — structu
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,38 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: stakeholder-influence-mapper
|
||||
description: Maps stakeholders for a product decision and produces a tailored
|
||||
influence strategy with draft talking points. Use when user needs to "get
|
||||
alignment", "build consensus", "get buy-in from engineering or finance or legal",
|
||||
"present to stakeholders", or "navigate organisational resistance".
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: Mohit Aggarwal
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
category: stakeholder-communication
|
||||
tags: [stakeholders, influence, communication, alignment]
|
||||
documentation: https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
|
||||
description: "Map stakeholders for a product decision and produce a tailored influence strategy with talking points. Use when asked to get alignment, build consensus, get buy-in from engineering or finance or legal, navigate organisational resistance, or plan stakeholder conversations for a major initiative. Produces a stakeholder map, recommended conversation sequence, and tailored talking points per stakeholder."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Stakeholder Influence Mapper Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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
|
||||
- Initiative description (what you want to do and why)
|
||||
- List of key stakeholders involved (name, role, relationship to initiative)
|
||||
- Timeline pressure (when do you need a decision?)
|
||||
- Any known objections or political context
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
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 Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Stakeholder Map: [Initiative Name]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -59,3 +50,11 @@ aligned, in what order, and exactly what to say to each person in their language
|
||||
- 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")
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,40 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: strategic-narrative-generator
|
||||
description: Generates the strategic story connecting your roadmap to company
|
||||
goals in a form non-technical stakeholders can repeat. Use when user needs to
|
||||
"explain the roadmap", "present strategy to leadership or the board", "write the
|
||||
why behind the roadmap", "create a narrative for all-hands", or "make the
|
||||
roadmap tell a story".
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: Mohit Aggarwal
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
category: roadmapping
|
||||
tags: [strategy, roadmap, executive-communication, narrative]
|
||||
documentation: https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
|
||||
description: "Generate the strategic story connecting a product roadmap to company goals in a form non-technical stakeholders can repeat. Use when asked to explain the roadmap, present strategy to leadership or the board, write the why behind the roadmap, create a narrative for all-hands, or make the roadmap tell a story. Produces a themed narrative with executive summary, progression arc, hard-question preparation, and what's-not-on-the-roadmap section."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Strategic Narrative Generator Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
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.
|
||||
The kind of narrative a board member can repeat back correctly after one hearing.
|
||||
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
|
||||
- Prioritised initiative list (with rough timelines)
|
||||
- Current OKRs or strategic priorities (1-3)
|
||||
- Competitive or market context (optional but improves output significantly)
|
||||
|
||||
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. Read the initiative list and identify 2-3 natural strategic themes
|
||||
2. For each theme: articulate the problem it addresses, the customer it serves,
|
||||
and the metric it moves
|
||||
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 —
|
||||
and draft answers
|
||||
6. Identify what's NOT on the roadmap and why (this builds credibility)
|
||||
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 Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Product Strategy Narrative: [Period]
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -64,8 +54,16 @@ The kind of narrative a board member can repeat back correctly after one hearing
|
||||
**What's Not on the Roadmap (and Why):**
|
||||
[2-3 items — shows strategic discipline, not just prioritisation]
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone Rules
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user