Release v2.0.0: add pm-ai-shipping plugin, red-team execution skill, refresh README
New - pm-ai-shipping (9th plugin) — AI Shipping Kit: document a vibe-coded app, audit security/performance against intended behavior, map test coverage, and compile a reviewer-ready shipping packet (2 skills, 5 commands). - pm-execution: strategy-red-team skill + /red-team-prd command (now 16 skills, 11 commands). Changed - Bump all versions 1.0.1 -> 2.0.0 (marketplace.json + all 9 plugin.json) in lockstep. - README: new plugins.png hero + examples.png in "How It Works"; counts updated to 9 plugins / 68 skills / 42 commands across tagline, install block, and per-plugin sections. - CLAUDE.md: 9-plugin structure, plugin table, and version note updated. Validator: 9 plugins, 68 skills, 42 commands, 110 components, 0 warnings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Pawel Huryn
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: strategy-red-team
|
||||
description: "Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive review."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Strategy Red-Team: Attack the Assumptions Before Reality Does
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
You are a sharp, fair adversary reviewing $ARGUMENTS. Most plans only survived polite feedback. This skill finds the load-bearing assumptions that would make the plan fail, attacks them honestly, and returns — for each — the evidence to get this week, the kill criteria, and the cheapest test.
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
A red-team is not a pre-mortem. A pre-mortem imagines the plan already failed and narrates why. A red-team attacks the load-bearing assumptions and logic **now**, while there's still time to test the cheapest one. It improves judgment, not just confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is a sharper decision, not a longer risk list. Five real kill-assumptions with tests beat twenty generic risks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Extract every claim.** Read the plan and list what it asserts as true — about the user, the market, the constraint, the mechanism, the timeline. Separate **load-bearing** claims (if false, the plan dies) from cosmetic ones. Only load-bearing claims are worth attacking.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Steelman, then attack.** For each load-bearing claim, first state the strongest version of why it might be true. Then attack *that* — not a strawman. An attack on a weak version of the claim is worthless.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Write each failure mode as "Fails if ___."** Be concrete and falsifiable. "Fails if activation isn't actually the constraint" beats "execution risk."
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Rank by (impact if wrong) × (likelihood wrong) × (cheapness to test).** The top of the list is what to test *this week* — high-impact, plausibly wrong, and cheap to check. Surface that ranking; don't bury the lede.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Self-refute, don't fabricate.** Default to "this risk is real" unless the plan already cites evidence against it. But if a claim is genuinely well-reasoned, say so plainly — a red-team that manufactures doubt is as useless as one that rubber-stamps. Never invent a weakness the plan doesn't have.
|
||||
|
||||
6. **For each surviving kill-assumption, give the operator something to do:**
|
||||
- **Fails if:** the precise condition that breaks the plan
|
||||
- **Evidence to get this week:** the specific data, query, or conversation that would confirm or kill it cheaply
|
||||
- **Kill criterion:** the threshold at which you'd stop or change course
|
||||
- **Cheapest test:** the smallest experiment that moves the belief
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Optional cross-model mode.** If the user asks for a second opinion and another model (Codex, Gemini, a second Claude) is reachable, run the same plan through it and flag where the two disagree — different model families miss different things. Default is single-model; don't add this friction unless asked.
|
||||
|
||||
8. **Structure the output (make it screenshot-native):**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Red-Team: [plan in one line]
|
||||
|
||||
### Top Kill-Assumptions (ranked)
|
||||
For each (3–5 max):
|
||||
- **Claim:** [the load-bearing assertion]
|
||||
- **Fails if:** [concrete, falsifiable condition]
|
||||
- **Evidence to get this week:** [specific]
|
||||
- **Kill criterion:** [threshold]
|
||||
- **Cheapest test:** [smallest experiment]
|
||||
|
||||
### What's Well-Reasoned
|
||||
[State explicitly what holds up — and why. Don't manufacture doubt.]
|
||||
|
||||
### What I Couldn't Assess
|
||||
[Gaps where the plan didn't give enough to judge.]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- No strawmanning — attack the steelman or don't attack.
|
||||
- No generic risk lists — every item must be specific to *this* plan.
|
||||
- No fabrication — if it's sound, say so.
|
||||
- Rank ruthlessly — the cheapest high-impact test is the whole point.
|
||||
- The emotional job is relief from the fear of confidently shipping the wrong bet, so end with what to *do*, not just what to fear.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Further Reading
|
||||
|
||||
- [Assumption Prioritization Canvas: How to Identify And Test The Right Assumptions](https://www.productcompass.pm/p/assumption-prioritization-canvas)
|
||||
- [How to Manage Risks as a Product Manager](https://www.productcompass.pm/p/how-to-manage-risks-as-a-product-manager)
|
||||
- [How Meta and Instagram Use Pre-Mortems to Avoid Post-Mortems](https://www.productcompass.pm/p/how-to-run-pre-mortem-template)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user