{"count":5,"samples":[{"skill":"competitor-teardown","title":"Competitor Teardown","input":"We're a lightweight team wiki for small startups. Compare us against Notion and Coda. We're cheaper and faster to set up but have fewer integrations.","source":"representative example (hand-written)","output":"# Competitor Teardown — Lightweight Team Wiki\n\n## Positioning map (setup speed × depth)\n\n```\n depth/power\n   high │  Coda ●            Notion ●\n        │\n        │              ● (us)\n   low  │___________________________\n        slow ───── setup speed ───── fast\n```\nWe own the **fast-setup, low-overhead** corner. Notion and Coda compete on depth and power, at the cost of setup time and learning curve.\n\n## Feature comparison\n| Dimension | Us | Notion | Coda |\n|-----------|:--:|:------:|:----:|\n| Time to first useful page | 🟢 < 2 min | 🟡 ~15 min | 🔴 ~30 min |\n| Price (5-person team) | 🟢 $$ | 🟡 $$$ | 🟡 $$$ |\n| Integrations | 🔴 few | 🟢 many | 🟢 many |\n| Databases / automation | 🔴 basic | 🟢 strong | 🟢 strongest |\n| Learning curve | 🟢 minimal | 🟡 moderate | 🔴 steep |\n\n## Where we win / lose\n- **Win:** teams that want a wiki *today* without a setup project — early startups, non-technical founders.\n- **Lose:** teams that have outgrown simple docs and want one tool to run ops (they'll pick Notion/Coda).\n\n## Messaging gap to exploit\nNotion's own positioning (\"one tool for your whole team\") is also its weakness — it's *a lot*. Lean into **\"a team wiki you'll actually finish setting up.\"** Speed and simplicity, not feature parity.\n\n## Strategic recommendations\n1. **Don't chase integration parity** — it's their moat, not your battlefield. Add only the 3–4 integrations startups ask for most (Slack, GitHub, Google Drive).\n2. **Make migration off us painless** — removing lock-in fear lowers the bar to try.\n3. **Target the \"Notion is too much\" segment** directly in messaging and SEO."},{"skill":"executive-update","title":"Executive Update","input":"Audience: CEO. Period: Q2. Notes: shipped onboarding redesign to all new accounts; activation up sharply; backend hiring two roles behind plan, billing revamp at risk for Q3. Metrics: weekly active accounts, activation rate, NRR.","source":"representative example (hand-written)","output":"# Executive Update — Q2, for the CEO\n\n**Headline:** Activation is up 14 points after the onboarding redesign; we're on track for the Q2 target with one staffing risk to flag for Q3.\n\n## Key metrics\n- **Weekly active accounts:** 12,400 (+18% QoQ)\n- **Activation rate:** 61% (+14 pts) — best quarter on record\n- **Net revenue retention:** 112% (flat)\n\n## Progress\nThe redesigned onboarding flow is live for 100% of new accounts. Early cohorts reach value faster — median time-to-value is 2.1 days, down from 4.6.\n\n## Risk & decision needed\n- **Risk:** Backend hiring is two roles behind plan, putting the Q3 billing revamp at risk.\n- **Decision:** Approve contractor budget (~$40k) to hold the Q3 date, or accept a 4-week slip.\n\n## Next steps\n- Roll the activation experiment into the core product (next sprint).\n- Bring a Q3 staffing plan to the next leadership review."},{"skill":"meeting-notes","title":"Meeting Notes","input":"Transcript of a 30-min product/eng sync: debated whether to delay the checkout launch over a payments edge case; agreed to ship behind a flag to 10% on Thursday; Priya to write the rollback runbook; Sam worried about PCI scope; decided to ask Legal by Tuesday.","source":"representative example (hand-written)","output":"# Product / Eng Sync — Checkout Launch\n\n**Date:** (meeting date) · **Attendees:** Product, Eng, (Priya, Sam) · **Purpose:** Decide checkout launch timing\n\n## Decisions\n- ✅ **Ship checkout behind a feature flag to 10% of traffic on Thursday** — not a full launch, to contain the payments edge case.\n- ✅ **Confirm PCI scope with Legal before expanding past 10%.**\n\n## Action items\n| Owner | Action | Due |\n|-------|--------|-----|\n| Priya | Write the rollback runbook for the checkout flag | Before Thursday |\n| Sam | Document the payments edge case + PCI scope question for Legal | Mon |\n| (Lead) | Get Legal's read on PCI scope | Tue |\n\n## Open questions / risks\n- **PCI scope (Sam):** does the new checkout path widen our PCI compliance surface? Blocks expansion beyond 10%.\n- **Edge case:** the payments failure path isn't fully characterised — the 10% rollout is partly to observe it in production.\n\n## Not decided\n- Full-launch date — gated on the 10% results and Legal's answer."},{"skill":"prd-template","title":"PRD Template","input":"Feature: in-app referral program so existing users invite colleagues and both get a credit. Target: activated B2B users. Goal: grow signups 15% in Q3.","source":"representative example (hand-written)","output":"# PRD — In-App Referral Program\n\n**Status:** Draft · **Owner:** PM · **Target release:** Q3\n\n## Problem\nActivated B2B users are our happiest segment, but we have no built-in way for them to bring colleagues in. Word-of-mouth happens off-platform and we capture none of it. Signup growth is flat at ~5%/qtr through paid channels alone.\n\n## Goals\n- Grow new signups **+15% in Q3** via referrals.\n- Referral signups activate at **≥ the current baseline** (don't trade quality for volume).\n\n## Non-goals\n- Public/affiliate program for non-customers (separate effort).\n- Cash payouts — credits only, this release.\n\n## User stories\n- *As an activated user,* I can invite a colleague by email or shareable link and see the reward I'll get.\n- *As an invited colleague,* I land on a page that explains the credit and makes signup one click.\n- *As a referrer,* I can see the status of my invites (sent / joined / credited).\n\n## Functional requirements\n1. Generate a unique referral link per user.\n2. Both referrer and referee receive a **$X account credit** when the referee activates (not just signs up).\n3. Referral dashboard: invites sent, joined, credit earned.\n4. Fraud guardrail: credit only on activation + payment-method-on-file.\n\n## Success metrics\n| Metric | Baseline | Target |\n|--------|:--------:|:------:|\n| New signups from referrals | 0 | 15% of total Q3 signups |\n| Referral → activation rate | — | ≥ overall baseline |\n| Referrals sent per active user | — | ≥ 0.3 |\n\n## Open questions\n- Credit amount — what's the payback period at our LTV? (needs Finance)\n- Does \"activation\" or \"first payment\" trigger the credit? (affects fraud + cost)\n- Self-serve only, or also sales-assisted accounts?"},{"skill":"rice-prioritisation","title":"RICE Prioritisation","input":"Rank for next quarter: 1) Onboarding redesign — ~5000 users/qtr, big activation impact, ~3 person-months. 2) Dark mode — ~8000 users want it, low impact, ~1 person-month. 3) SSO for enterprise — ~400 accounts, high deal impact, ~4 person-months, low confidence.","source":"representative example (hand-written)","output":"# RICE Prioritisation — Next Quarter\n\nRICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort. Impact scale: 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low.\n\n| # | Initiative | Reach (/qtr) | Impact | Confidence | Effort (PM) | **RICE** | Rank |\n|---|------------|:-----------:|:------:|:----------:|:-----------:|:--------:|:----:|\n| 1 | Onboarding redesign | 5,000 | 3 | 90% | 3 | **4,500** | 🥇 1 |\n| 3 | SSO for enterprise | 400 | 3 | 50% | 4 | **150** | 🥈 2 |\n| 2 | Dark mode | 8,000 | 0.5 | 100% | 1 | **4,000**? | — |\n\n> ⚠️ Dark mode's raw score (4,000) looks high purely from reach. The low impact (0.5) is doing the real work — it's a satisfaction nicety, not a needle-mover. Flag for a \"quick win\" lane, not the strategic backlog.\n\n## Recommendation\n1. **Onboarding redesign** — clear top priority: high reach, massive impact, well understood (90% confidence).\n2. **SSO** — high deal impact but the score is dragged down by low confidence and high effort. **De-risk first**: validate the enterprise pipeline ($ tied to SSO) before committing 4 person-months.\n3. **Dark mode** — ship it as a low-cost quick win between larger projects; don't let its reach inflate its priority.\n\n**Watch-out:** the SSO confidence is the swing factor. A week of sales discovery could move it from 50% → 80% and change the ranking."}]}