@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/c-level/company-os/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+---
+name: "company-os"
+description: "The meta-framework for how a company runs — the connective tissue between all C-suite roles. Covers operating system selection (EOS, Scaling Up, OKR-native, hybrid), accountability charts, scorecards, meeting pulse, issue resolution, and 90-day rocks. Use when setting up company operations, selecting a management framework, designing meeting rhythms, building accountability systems, implementing OKRs, or when user mentions EOS, Scaling Up, operating system, L10 meetings, rocks, scorecard, accountability chart, or quarterly planning."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: company-operations
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: os-comparison, implementation-guide
+---
+
+# Company Operating System
+
+The operating system is the collection of tools, rhythms, and agreements that determine how the company functions. Every company has one — most just don't know what it is. Making it explicit makes it improvable.
+
+## Keywords
+operating system, EOS, Entrepreneurial Operating System, Scaling Up, Rockefeller Habits, OKR, Holacracy, L10 meeting, rocks, scorecard, accountability chart, issues list, IDS, meeting pulse, quarterly planning, weekly scorecard, management framework, company rhythm, traction, Gino Wickman, Verne Harnish
+
+## Why This Matters
+
+Most operational dysfunction isn't a people problem — it's a system problem. When:
+- The same issues recur every week: no issue resolution system
+- Meetings feel pointless: no structured meeting pulse
+- Nobody knows who owns what: no accountability chart
+- Quarterly goals slip: rocks aren't real commitments
+
+Fix the system. The people will operate better inside it.
+
+## The Six Core Components
+
+Every effective operating system has these six, regardless of which framework you choose:
+
+### 1. Accountability Chart
+
+Not an org chart. An accountability chart answers: "Who owns this outcome?"
+
+**Key distinction:** One person owns each function. Multiple people may work in it. Ownership means the buck stops with one person.
+
+**Structure:**
+```
+CEO
+├── Sales (CRO/VP Sales)
+│   ├── Inbound pipeline
+│   └── Outbound pipeline
+├── Product & Engineering (CTO/CPO)
+│   ├── Product roadmap
+│   └── Engineering delivery
+├── Operations (COO)
+│   ├── Customer success
+│   └── Finance & Legal
+└── People (CHRO/VP People)
+    ├── Recruiting
+    └── People operations
+```
+
+**Rules:**
+- No shared ownership. "Alice and Bob both own it" means nobody owns it.
+- One person can own multiple seats at early stages. That's fine. Just be explicit.
+- Revisit quarterly as you scale. Ownership shifts as the company grows.
+
+**Build it in a workshop:**
+1. List all functions the company performs
+2. Assign one owner per function — no exceptions
+3. Identify gaps (functions nobody owns) and overlaps (functions two people think they own)
+4. Publish it. Update it when something changes.
+
+### 2. Scorecard
+
+Weekly metrics that tell you if the company is on track. Not monthly. Not quarterly. Weekly.
+
+**Rules:**
+- 5–15 metrics maximum. More than 15 and nothing gets attention.
+- Each metric has an owner and a weekly target (not a range — a number).
+- Red/yellow/green status. Not paragraphs.
+- The scorecard is discussed at the leadership team weekly meeting. Only red metrics get discussion time.
+
+**Example scorecard structure:**
+
+| Metric | Owner | Target | This Week | Status |
+|--------|-------|--------|-----------|--------|
+| New MRR | CRO | €50K | €43K | 🔴 |
+| Churn | CS Lead | < 1% | 0.8% | 🟢 |
+| Active users | CPO | 2,000 | 2,150 | 🟢 |
+| Deployments | CTO | 3/week | 3 | 🟢 |
+| Open critical bugs | CTO | 0 | 2 | 🔴 |
+| Runway | CFO | > 18mo | 16mo | 🟡 |
+
+**Anti-pattern:** Measuring everything. If you track 40 KPIs, you're watching, not managing.
+
+### 3. Meeting Pulse
+
+The meeting rhythm that drives the company. Not optional — the pulse is what keeps the company alive.
+
+**The full rhythm:**
+
+| Meeting | Frequency | Duration | Who | Purpose |
+|---------|-----------|----------|-----|---------|
+| Daily standup | Daily | 15 min | Each team | Blockers only |
+| L10 / Leadership sync | Weekly | 90 min | Leadership team | Scorecard + issues |
+| Department review | Monthly | 60 min | Dept + leadership | OKR progress |
+| Quarterly planning | Quarterly | 1–2 days | Leadership | Set rocks, review strategy |
+| Annual planning | Annual | 2–3 days | Leadership | 1-year + 3-year vision |
+
+**The L10 meeting (Weekly Leadership Sync):**
+Named for the goal of each meeting being a 10/10. Fixed agenda:
+1. Good news (5 min) — personal + business
+2. Scorecard review (5 min) — flag red items only
+3. Rock review (5 min) — on/off track for each rock
+4. Customer/employee headlines (5 min)
+5. Issues list (60 min) — IDS (see below)
+6. To-dos review (5 min) — last week's commitments
+7. Conclude (5 min) — rate the meeting 1–10, what would make it a 10 next time
+
+### 4. Issue Resolution (IDS)
+
+The core problem-solving loop. Maximum 15 minutes per issue.
+
+**IDS: Identify, Discuss, Solve**
+
+- **Identify:** What is the actual issue? (Not the symptom — the root cause) State it in one sentence.
+- **Discuss:** Relevant facts + perspectives. Time-boxed. When discussion starts repeating, stop.
+- **Solve:** One owner. One action. One due date. Written on the to-do list.
+
+**Anti-patterns:**
+- "Let's take this offline" — most things taken offline never get resolved
+- Discussing without deciding — a great discussion with no action item is wasted time
+- Revisiting decided issues — once solved, it leaves the list. Reopen only with new information.
+
+**The Issues List:** A running, prioritized list of all unresolved issues. Owned by the leadership team. Reviewed and pruned weekly. If an issue has been on the list for 3+ meetings and hasn't been discussed, it's either not a real issue or it's too scary to address — both deserve attention.
+
+### 5. Rocks (90-Day Priorities)
+
+Rocks are the 3–7 most important things each person must accomplish in the next 90 days. They're not the job description — they're the things that move the company forward.
+
+**Why 90 days?** Long enough for meaningful progress. Short enough to stay real.
+
+**Rock rules:**
+- Each person: 3–7 rocks maximum. More than 7 and none get done.
+- Company-level rocks (shared priorities): 3–7 for the leadership team
+- Each rock is binary: done or not done. No "60% complete."
+- Set at the quarterly planning session. Reviewed weekly (on/off track).
+
+**Bad rock:** "Improve our sales process"
+**Good rock:** "Implement Salesforce CRM with full pipeline stages and weekly reporting by March 31"
+
+**Rock vs. to-do:** A to-do takes one action. A rock takes 90 days of consistent work.
+
+### 6. Communication Cadence
+
+Who gets what information, when, and how.
+
+| Audience | What | When | Format |
+|----------|------|------|--------|
+| All employees | Company update | Monthly | Written + Q&A |
+| All employees | Quarterly results + next priorities | Quarterly | All-hands |
+| Leadership team | Scorecard | Weekly | Dashboard |
+| Board | Company performance | Monthly | Board memo |
+| Investors | Key metrics + narrative | Monthly or quarterly | Investor update |
+| Customers | Product updates | Per release | Release notes |
+
+**Default rule:** If you're deciding whether to share something internally, share it. The cost of under-communication always exceeds the cost of over-communication inside a company.
+
+---
+
+## Operating System Selection
+
+See `references/os-comparison.md` for full comparison. Quick guide:
+
+| If you are... | Consider... |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| 10–250 person company, founder-led, operational chaos | EOS / Traction |
+| Ambitious growth company, need rigorous strategy cascade | Scaling Up |
+| Tech company, engineering culture, hypothesis-driven | OKR-native |
+| Decentralized, flat, high autonomy | Holacracy (only if you're patient) |
+| None of the above quite fit | Custom hybrid |
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Roadmap
+
+Don't implement everything at once. See `references/implementation-guide.md` for the full 90-day plan.
+
+**Quick start (first 30 days):**
+1. Build the accountability chart (1 workshop, 2 hours)
+2. Define 5–10 weekly scorecard metrics (leadership team alignment, 1 hour)
+3. Start the weekly L10 meeting (no prep — just start)
+
+These three alone will improve coordination more than most companies achieve in a year.
+
+---
+
+## Common Failure Modes
+
+**Partial implementation:** "We do OKRs but skip the weekly check-in." Half an operating system is worse than none — it creates theater without accountability.
+
+**Meeting fatigue:** Adding the full rhythm on top of existing meetings. Start by replacing meetings, not adding them.
+
+**Metric overload:** Starting with 30 KPIs because "they all matter." Start with 5. Add when the cadence is established.
+
+**Rock inflation:** Setting 12 rocks per person because "everything is a priority." When everything is a priority, nothing is. Hard limit: 7.
+
+**Leader non-compliance:** Leadership team skips the L10 or doesn't follow IDS. The operating system mirrors the respect leadership gives it. If leaders don't take it seriously, nobody will.
+
+**Annual planning without quarterly review:** Setting annual goals and checking in at year-end. Quarterly is the minimum review cycle for any meaningful goal.
+
+---
+
+## Integration with C-Suite
+
+The company OS is the connective tissue. Every other role depends on it:
+
+| C-Suite Role | OS Dependency |
+|-------------|---------------|
+| CEO | Sets vision that feeds into 1-year plan and rocks |
+| COO | Owns the meeting pulse and issue resolution cadence |
+| CFO | Owns the financial metrics in the scorecard |
+| CTO | Owns engineering rocks and tech scorecard metrics |
+| CHRO | Owns people metrics (attrition, hiring velocity) in scorecard |
+| Culture Architect | Culture rituals plug into the meeting pulse |
+| Strategic Alignment Engine | Validates that team rocks cascade from company rocks |
+
+---
+
+## Key Questions for the Operating System
+
+- "If I asked five different team leads what the company's top 3 priorities are this quarter, would they give the same answers?"
+- "What was the most important issue raised in last week's leadership meeting? Was it resolved or is it still open?"
+- "Name a metric that would tell us by Friday whether this week was a good week. Do we track it?"
+- "Who owns customer churn? Can you name that person without hesitation?"
+- "When was the last time we updated the accountability chart?"
+
+## Detailed References
+- `references/os-comparison.md` — EOS vs Scaling Up vs OKRs vs Holacracy vs hybrid
+- `references/implementation-guide.md` — 90-day implementation plan

package/c-level/competitive-intel/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+---
+name: "competitive-intel"
+description: "Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: competitive-strategy
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: ci-playbook, battlecard-template
+---
+
+# Competitive Intelligence
+
+Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession — intelligence that drives real decisions.
+
+## Keywords
+competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```
+/ci:landscape         — Map your competitive space (direct, indirect, future)
+/ci:battlecard [name] — Build a sales battlecard for a specific competitor
+/ci:winloss           — Analyze recent wins and losses by reason
+/ci:update [name]     — Track what a competitor did recently
+/ci:map               — Build competitive positioning map
+```
+
+## Framework: 5-Layer Intelligence System
+
+### Layer 1: Competitor Identification
+
+**Direct competitors:** Same ICP, same problem, comparable solution, similar price point.
+**Indirect competitors:** Same budget, different solution (including "do nothing" and "build in-house").
+**Future competitors:** Well-funded startups in adjacent space; large incumbents with stated roadmap overlap.
+
+**The 2x2 Threat Matrix:**
+
+| | Same ICP | Different ICP |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Same problem** | Direct threat | Adjacent (watch) |
+| **Different problem** | Displacement risk | Ignore for now |
+
+Update this quarterly. Who's moved quadrants?
+
+### Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions
+
+Track these 8 dimensions per competitor:
+
+| Dimension | Sources | Cadence |
+|-----------|---------|---------|
+| **Product moves** | Changelog, G2/Capterra reviews, Twitter/LinkedIn | Monthly |
+| **Pricing changes** | Pricing page, sales call intel, customer feedback | Triggered |
+| **Funding** | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered |
+| **Hiring signals** | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed | Monthly |
+| **Partnerships** | Press releases, co-marketing | Triggered |
+| **Customer wins** | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly |
+| **Customer losses** | Win/loss interviews, churned accounts | Ongoing |
+| **Messaging shifts** | Homepage, ads (Facebook/Google Ad Library) | Quarterly |
+
+### Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks
+
+**SWOT per Competitor:**
+- Strengths: What do they do well? Where do they win?
+- Weaknesses: Where do they lose? What do customers complain about?
+- Opportunities: What could they do that would threaten you?
+- Threats: What's their existential risk?
+
+**Competitive Positioning Map (2 axis):**
+Choose axes that matter for your buyers:
+- Common: Price vs Feature Depth; Enterprise-ready vs SMB-ready; Easy to implement vs Configurable
+- Pick axes that show YOUR differentiation clearly
+
+**Feature Gap Analysis:**
+| Feature | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap status |
+|---------|-----|-------------|-------------|------------|
+| [Feature] | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Your advantage |
+| [Feature] | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Gap — roadmap? |
+| [Feature] | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | Moat |
+| [Feature] | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Competitor B only |
+
+### Layer 4: Output Formats
+
+**For Sales (CRO):** Battlecards — one page per competitor, designed for pre-call prep.
+See `templates/battlecard-template.md`
+
+**For Marketing (CMO):** Positioning update — message shifts, new differentiators, claims to stop or start making.
+
+**For Product (CPO):** Feature gap summary — what customers ask for that we don't have, what competitors ship, what to reprioritize.
+
+**For CEO/Board:** Monthly competitive summary — 1-page: who moved, what it means, recommended responses.
+
+### Layer 5: Intelligence Cadence
+
+**Monthly (scheduled):**
+- Review all tier-1 competitors (direct threats, top 3)
+- Update battlecards with new intel
+- Publish 1-page summary to leadership
+
+**Triggered (event-based):**
+- Competitor raises funding → assess implications within 48 hours
+- Competitor launches major feature → product + sales response within 1 week
+- Competitor poaches key customer → win/loss interview within 2 weeks
+- Competitor changes pricing → analyze and respond within 1 week
+
+**Quarterly:**
+- Full competitive landscape review
+- Update positioning map
+- Refresh ICP competitive threat assessment
+- Add/remove companies from tracking list
+
+---
+
+## Win/Loss Analysis
+
+This is the highest-signal competitive data you have. Most companies do it too rarely.
+
+**When to interview:**
+- Every lost deal >$50K ACV
+- Every churn >6 months tenure
+- Every competitive win (learn why — it may not be what you think)
+
+**Who conducts it:**
+- NOT the AE who worked the deal (too close, prospect won't be candid)
+- Customer success, product team, or external researcher
+
+**Question structure:**
+1. "Walk me through your evaluation process"
+2. "Who else were you considering?"
+3. "What were the top 3 criteria in your decision?"
+4. "Where did [our product] fall short?"
+5. "What was the deciding factor?"
+6. "What would have changed your decision?"
+
+**Aggregate findings monthly:**
+- Win reasons (rank by frequency)
+- Loss reasons (rank by frequency)
+- Competitor win rates (by competitor, by segment)
+- Patterns over time
+
+---
+
+## The Balance: Intelligence Without Obsession
+
+**Signs you're over-tracking competitors:**
+- Roadmap decisions are primarily driven by "they just shipped X"
+- Team morale drops when competitors fundraise
+- You're shipping features you don't believe in to match their checklist
+- Pricing discussions always start with "well, they charge X"
+
+**Signs you're under-tracking:**
+- Your AEs get blindsided on calls
+- Prospects know more about competitors than your team does
+- You missed a major product launch until customers told you
+- Your positioning hasn't changed in 12+ months despite market moves
+
+**The right posture:**
+- Know competitors well enough to win against them
+- Don't let them set your agenda
+- Your roadmap is led by customer problems, informed by competitive gaps
+
+---
+
+## Distributing Intelligence
+
+| Audience | Format | Cadence | Owner |
+|----------|--------|---------|-------|
+| AEs + SDRs | Updated battlecards in CRM | Monthly + triggered | CRO |
+| Product | Feature gap analysis | Quarterly | CPO |
+| Marketing | Positioning brief | Quarterly | CMO |
+| Leadership | 1-page competitive summary | Monthly | CEO/COO |
+| Board | Competitive landscape slide | Quarterly | CEO |
+
+**One source of truth:** All competitive intel lives in one place (Notion, Confluence, Salesforce). Avoid Slack-only distribution — it disappears.
+
+---
+
+## Red Flags in Competitive Intelligence
+
+| Signal | What it means |
+|--------|---------------|
+| Competitor's win rate >50% in your core segment | Fundamental positioning problem, not sales problem |
+| Same objection from 5+ deals: "competitor has X" | Feature gap that's real, not just optics |
+| Competitor hired 10 engineers in your domain | Major product investment incoming |
+| Competitor raised >$20M and targets your ICP | 12-month runway for them to compete hard |
+| Prospects evaluate you to justify competitor decision | You're the "check box" — fix perception or segment |
+
+## Integration with C-Suite Roles
+
+| Intelligence Type | Feeds To | Output Format |
+|------------------|----------|---------------|
+| Product moves | CPO | Roadmap input, feature gap analysis |
+| Pricing changes | CRO, CFO | Pricing response recommendations |
+| Funding rounds | CEO, CFO | Strategic positioning update |
+| Hiring signals | CHRO, CTO | Talent market intelligence |
+| Customer wins/losses | CRO, CMO | Battlecard updates, positioning shifts |
+| Marketing campaigns | CMO | Counter-positioning, channel intelligence |
+
+## References
+- `references/ci-playbook.md` — OSINT sources, win/loss framework, positioning map construction
+- `templates/battlecard-template.md` — sales battlecard template

package/c-level/context-engine/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+---
+name: "context-engine"
+description: "Loads and manages company context for all C-suite advisor skills. Reads ~/.claude/company-context.md, detects stale context (>90 days), enriches context during conversations, and enforces privacy/anonymization rules before external API calls."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: orchestration
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: context-loading, anonymization, context-enrichment
+---
+
+# Company Context Engine
+
+The memory layer for C-suite advisors. Every advisor skill loads this first. Context is what turns generic advice into specific insight.
+
+## Keywords
+company context, context loading, context engine, company profile, advisor context, stale context, context refresh, privacy, anonymization
+
+---
+
+## Load Protocol (Run at Start of Every C-Suite Session)
+
+**Step 1 — Check for context file:** `~/.claude/company-context.md`
+- Exists → proceed to Step 2
+- Missing → prompt: *"Run /cs:setup to build your company context — it makes every advisor conversation significantly more useful."*
+
+**Step 2 — Check staleness:** Read `Last updated` field.
+- **< 90 days:** Load and proceed.
+- **≥ 90 days:** Prompt: *"Your context is [N] days old. Quick 15-min refresh (/cs:update), or continue with what I have?"*
+  - If continue: load with `[STALE — last updated DATE]` noted internally.
+
+**Step 3 — Parse into working memory.** Always active:
+- Company stage (pre-PMF / scaling / optimizing)
+- Founder archetype (product / sales / technical / operator)
+- Current #1 challenge
+- Runway (as risk signal — never share externally)
+- Team size
+- Unfair advantage
+- 12-month target
+
+---
+
+## Context Quality Signals
+
+| Condition | Confidence | Action |
+|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| < 30 days, full interview | High | Use directly |
+| 30–90 days, update done | Medium | Use, flag what may have changed |
+| > 90 days | Low | Flag stale, prompt refresh |
+| Key fields missing | Low | Ask in-session |
+| No file | None | Prompt /cs:setup |
+
+If Low: *"My context is [stale/incomplete] — I'm assuming [X]. Correct me if I'm wrong."*
+
+---
+
+## Context Enrichment
+
+During conversations, you'll learn things not in the file. Capture them.
+
+**Triggers:** New number or timeline revealed, key person mentioned, priority shift, constraint surfaces.
+
+**Protocol:**
+1. Note internally: `[CONTEXT UPDATE: {what was learned}]`
+2. At session end: *"I picked up a few things to add to your context. Want me to update the file?"*
+3. If yes: append to the relevant dimension, update timestamp.
+
+**Never silently overwrite.** Always confirm before modifying the context file.
+
+---
+
+## Privacy Rules
+
+### Never send externally
+- Specific revenue or burn figures
+- Customer names
+- Employee names (unless publicly known)
+- Investor names (unless public)
+- Specific runway months
+- Watch List contents
+
+### Safe to use externally (with anonymization)
+- Stage label
+- Team size ranges (1–10, 10–50, 50–200+)
+- Industry vertical
+- Challenge category
+- Market position descriptor
+
+### Before any external API call or web search
+Apply `references/anonymization-protocol.md`:
+- Numbers → ranges or stage-relative descriptors
+- Names → roles
+- Revenue → percentages or stage labels
+- Customers → "Customer A, B, C"
+
+---
+
+## Missing or Partial Context
+
+Handle gracefully — never block the conversation.
+
+- **Missing stage:** "Just to calibrate — are you still finding PMF or scaling what works?"
+- **Missing financials:** Use stage + team size to infer. Note the gap.
+- **Missing founder profile:** Infer from conversation style. Mark as inferred.
+- **Multiple founders:** Context reflects the interviewee. Note co-founder perspective may differ.
+
+---
+
+## Required Context Fields
+
+```
+Required:
+  - Last updated (date)
+  - Company Identity → What we do
+  - Stage & Scale → Stage
+  - Founder Profile → Founder archetype
+  - Current Challenges → Priority #1
+  - Goals & Ambition → 12-month target
+
+High-value optional:
+  - Unfair advantage
+  - Kill-shot risk
+  - Avoided decision
+  - Watch list
+```
+
+Missing required fields: note gaps, work around in session, ask in-session only when critical.
+
+---
+
+## References
+- `references/anonymization-protocol.md` — detailed rules for stripping sensitive data before external calls