add marketplace plugin structure
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 |
|
||||
|----------|--------------|------------------|
|
||||
| [activity] | [time] | [insight] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Proposed check-in:** After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed
|
||||
or pivot.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 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."
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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?]
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenClaw Configuration
|
||||
Add to YAML frontmatter for scheduled runs:
|
||||
`schedule: weekly-monday-0800`
|
||||
Persistent memory stores last run summary for diff comparison.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: competitor-signal-tracker
|
||||
description: Analyse competitor moves and surface strategic implications for your product
|
||||
tool_integration: Notion
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Competitor Signal Tracker Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Turn scattered competitor information into structured strategic intelligence — not just "what they did" but "what it means for us."
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 week/month]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: executive-update
|
||||
description: Transform detailed product updates into concise executive briefings
|
||||
tool_integration: Slack, Microsoft Teams
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Executive Update Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Produce a stakeholder update that busy executives will actually read — structured around what they care about: decisions, risks, and numbers.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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]
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
- Prioritised initiative list (with rough timelines)
|
||||
- Current OKRs or strategic priorities (1-3)
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 Rules
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user