@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/c-level/board-meeting/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+---
+name: "board-meeting"
+description: "Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:board, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: board-protocol
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: 6-phase-board, two-layer-memory, independent-contributions
+---
+
+# Board Meeting Protocol
+
+Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions.
+
+## Keywords
+board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, /cs:board, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives
+
+## Invoke
+`/cs:board [topic]` — e.g. `/cs:board Should we expand to Spain in Q3?`
+
+---
+
+## The 6-Phase Protocol
+
+### PHASE 1: Context Gathering
+1. Load `memory/company-context.md`
+2. Load `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md` **(Layer 2 ONLY — never raw transcripts)**
+3. Reset session state — no bleed from previous conversations
+4. Present agenda + activated roles → wait for founder confirmation
+
+**Chief of Staff selects relevant roles** based on topic (not all 9 every time):
+| Topic | Activate |
+|-------|----------|
+| Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO |
+| Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO |
+| Hiring/org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO |
+| Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO |
+| Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO |
+
+---
+
+### PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
+
+**No cross-pollination. Each agent runs before seeing others' outputs.**
+
+Order: Research (if needed) → CMO → CFO → CEO → CTO → COO → CHRO → CRO → CISO → CPO
+
+**Reasoning techniques:** CEO: Tree of Thought (3 futures) | CFO: Chain of Thought (show the math) | CMO: Recursion of Thought (draft→critique→refine) | CPO: First Principles | CRO: Chain of Thought (pipeline math) | COO: Step by Step (process map) | CTO: ReAct (research→analyze→act) | CISO: Risk-Based (P×I) | CHRO: Empathy + Data
+
+**Contribution format (max 5 key points, self-verified):**
+```
+## [ROLE] — [DATE]
+
+Key points (max 5):
+• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴
+• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴
+
+Recommendation: [clear position]
+Confidence: High / Medium / Low
+Source: [where the data came from]
+What would change my mind: [specific condition]
+```
+
+Each agent self-verifies before contributing: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring. No untagged claims.
+
+---
+
+### PHASE 3: Critic Analysis
+Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously. Role: adversarial reviewer, not synthesizer.
+
+Checklist:
+- Where did agents agree too easily? (suspicious consensus = red flag)
+- What assumptions are shared but unvalidated?
+- Who is missing from the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?)
+- What risk has nobody mentioned?
+- Which agent operated outside their domain?
+
+---
+
+### PHASE 4: Synthesis
+Chief of Staff delivers using the **Board Meeting Output** format (defined in `agent-protocol/SKILL.md`):
+- Decision Required (one sentence)
+- Perspectives (one line per contributing role)
+- Where They Agree / Where They Disagree
+- Critic's View (the uncomfortable truth)
+- Recommended Decision + Action Items (owners, deadlines)
+- Your Call (options if founder disagrees)
+
+---
+
+### PHASE 5: Human in the Loop ⏸️
+
+**Full stop. Wait for the founder.**
+
+```
+⏸️ FOUNDER REVIEW — [Paste synthesis]
+
+Options: ✅ Approve | ✏️ Modify | ❌ Reject | ❓ Ask follow-up
+```
+
+**Rules:**
+- User corrections OVERRIDE agent proposals. No pushback. No "but the CFO said..."
+- 30-min inactivity → auto-close as "pending review"
+- Reopen any time with `/cs:board resume`
+
+---
+
+### PHASE 6: Decision Extraction
+After founder approval:
+- **Layer 1:** Write full transcript → `memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md`
+- **Layer 2:** Append approved decisions → `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md`
+- Mark rejected proposals `[DO_NOT_RESURFACE]`
+- Confirm to founder with count of decisions logged, actions tracked, flags added
+
+---
+
+## Memory Structure
+```
+memory/board-meetings/
+├── decisions.md          # Layer 2 — founder-approved only (Phase 1 loads this)
+├── YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md     # Layer 1 — full transcripts (never auto-loaded)
+└── archive/YYYY/         # Raw transcripts after 90 days
+```
+
+**Future meetings load Layer 2 only.** Never Layer 1. This prevents hallucinated consensus.
+
+---
+
+## Failure Mode Quick Reference
+| Failure | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Groupthink (all agree) | Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against" |
+| Analysis paralysis | Cap at 5 points; force recommendation even with Low confidence |
+| Bikeshedding | Log as async action item; return to main agenda |
+| Role bleed (CFO making product calls) | Critic flags; exclude from synthesis |
+| Layer contamination | Phase 1 loads decisions.md only — hard rule |
+
+---
+
+## References
+- `templates/meeting-agenda.md` — agenda format
+- `templates/meeting-minutes.md` — final output format
+- `references/meeting-facilitation.md` — conflict handling, timing, failure modes

package/c-level/board-prep/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+---
+name: "board-prep"
+description: "Board meeting preparation for the adversarial scenario, not the friendly one. Forces numbers-cold mastery, anticipates hard questions, builds a narrative that acknowledges weakness without losing the room. Use when preparing for a board meeting, an investor update, fundraising presentation, or any high-stakes adversarial review where every number must live in your head not just on a slide."
+---
+
+# /em:board-prep — Board Meeting Preparation
+
+**Command:** `/em:board-prep <agenda>`
+
+Prepare for the adversarial version of your board, not the friendly one. Every hard question they'll ask. Every number you need cold. The narrative that acknowledges weakness without losing the room.
+
+---
+
+## The Reality of Board Meetings
+
+Your board members have seen 50+ companies. They've watched founders flinch at their own numbers, spin bad news as "learning opportunities," and present sanitized decks that hide what's actually happening.
+
+They know when you're not being straight with them. The question isn't whether they'll ask the hard questions — it's whether you're ready for them.
+
+The best board meetings aren't the ones where everything looks good. They're the ones where the CEO demonstrates they see reality clearly, have a plan, and can execute under pressure.
+
+---
+
+## The Preparation Framework
+
+### Phase 1: Numbers Cold
+
+Before the meeting, every number in your deck should live in your head, not just the slide.
+
+**The numbers you must know without looking:**
+- Current MRR / ARR and month-over-month growth rate
+- Burn rate (monthly) and runway (months at current burn)
+- Headcount by department
+- CAC and LTV by channel / segment
+- Net Revenue Retention
+- Pipeline: value, conversion rate, average sales cycle
+- Churn: rate, top reasons, top churned accounts
+- Gross margin (product), net margin (company)
+- Key hiring positions open and time-to-fill
+
+**Stress test yourself:** Can you answer "what's your burn?" without hesitation? "What's your churn rate by segment?" If you pause, you don't know it.
+
+### Phase 2: Anticipate the Hard Questions
+
+For every item on the agenda, generate the adversarial version of the question.
+
+**Standard adversarial questions by topic:**
+
+*Revenue performance:*
+- "You missed revenue by 20% this quarter. What specifically failed?"
+- "Is this a pipeline problem, a conversion problem, or a capacity problem?"
+- "If you missed because of one big deal, how dependent is your model on individual deals?"
+- "When do you project recovery and what are the leading indicators you're right?"
+
+*Runway / burn:*
+- "At current burn you have N months. What's your plan if the next round takes 9 months?"
+- "What would you cut first if you had to extend runway by 6 months today?"
+- "Is there a scenario where you don't raise another round?"
+
+*Product / roadmap:*
+- "You shipped X. What did customers actually do with it?"
+- "What did you kill this quarter and why?"
+- "Where are you behind on roadmap? What's slipping?"
+
+*Team:*
+- "Who's at risk of leaving? How would that affect execution?"
+- "You've had 3 VP-level hires not work out. What pattern do you see?"
+- "Is the team the right team for this stage?"
+
+*Competition:*
+- "Competitor Y just raised $50M. How does that change your position?"
+- "If they copy your best feature in 90 days, what's your moat?"
+
+### Phase 3: Build the Narrative
+
+The board meeting isn't a status update. It's a leadership demonstration.
+
+**The structure that works:**
+
+1. **Where we are (honest)** — Current state of business, the real number, not the smoothed one
+2. **What we learned** — What the data is telling us that we didn't know 90 days ago
+3. **What we got wrong** — Name it directly. Don't make them ask.
+4. **What we're doing about it** — Specific, dated, owned actions
+5. **What we need from this room** — Concrete ask. Not "support" — specific introductions, decisions, resources.
+
+**The rule on bad news:** Never let the board be surprised. If a quarter went badly, they should know before the deck. A 5-sentence email 3 days before: "Revenue came in at $X vs $Y target. Here's what happened, here's what I'm doing, here's what I need from you."
+
+### Phase 4: Adversarial Preparation
+
+Do a mock board meeting. Have someone play the hardest director you have.
+
+**The simulation:**
+- Present your deck as you would
+- The mock director asks every uncomfortable question
+- You answer without referring to the deck
+- After: note every question that made you pause or feel defensive
+
+**The questions that made you defensive = the questions you need to prepare for.**
+
+### Phase 5: Director-by-Director Prep
+
+Not all board members want the same thing from a meeting.
+
+**For each director, know:**
+- Their primary concern right now (usually tied to their investment thesis)
+- The metric they watch most closely
+- What would make them lose confidence in you
+- What they've said in the last meeting that you should address
+
+**Common director types:**
+- **The operator** — wants to know what's breaking and who owns fixing it
+- **The financial investor** — focused on path to profitability or next raise
+- **The strategic investor** — worried about competitive position and moat
+- **The independent** — watching governance, team dynamics, and your judgment
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Meeting Checklist
+
+**48 hours before:**
+- [ ] All numbers verified against source systems (not last week's export)
+- [ ] Deck reviewed for internal consistency
+- [ ] Pre-read sent to board (deck + 1-page brief on key topics)
+- [ ] One-on-ones done with any director likely to have concerns
+- [ ] 3 hardest questions you expect — rehearsed out loud
+
+**Day of meeting:**
+- [ ] Agenda with time allocations distributed
+- [ ] Know the ask for each agenda item (decision needed, input wanted, FYI)
+- [ ] Materials to leave behind prepared
+- [ ] Follow-up action template ready
+
+---
+
+## During the Meeting
+
+**What the board is watching:**
+- Do you own the bad news or deflect it?
+- Are you defending a narrative or sharing reality?
+- Do you know your numbers or do you look things up?
+- When challenged, do you get defensive or engage?
+- Do you know what you don't know?
+
+**The single best thing you can do:** Name the hard thing before they do. "I want to address the revenue miss directly. Here's what happened, here's what I should have caught earlier, here's what changes."
+
+---
+
+## After the Meeting
+
+Within 24 hours:
+- Send action items with owners and dates
+- Send any data you promised but didn't have
+- Note the questions that came up you weren't ready for
+- Schedule follow-up with any director who seemed unsatisfied
+
+The next board prep starts now.

package/c-level/boardroom/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+---
+name: "boardroom"
+description: "/cs:boardroom <brief> — 6-phase multi-role deliberation across the C-suite with Phase 2 isolation, critic pre-screen, and synthesis. Outputs a board memo."
+---
+
+# /cs:boardroom — Multi-Role Boardroom Deliberation
+
+**Command:** `/cs:boardroom <brief-path>`
+
+Runs the `board-meeting` skill protocol across the C-suite for a single strategy brief. This is the **heart of the plugin** — the multi-role deliberation that gstack's review chain only approximates.
+
+## Pipeline Position
+
+```
+/cs:office-hours  →  /cs:brief  →  /cs:boardroom  →  /cs:decide  →  /cs:execute  →  /cs:post-mortem
+                                     ↑ you are here
+```
+
+## The 6 Phases (from board-meeting skill)
+
+### Phase 1 — Briefing
+- Chief of Staff distributes the brief to all advisors marked in **Affected Roles**.
+- Each advisor reads company-context.md + the brief.
+- No discussion yet.
+
+### Phase 2 — Independent Thinking (ISOLATION)
+- **Critical:** each advisor produces their position **independently**, without seeing others' positions.
+- This prevents groupthink and surfaces dissent.
+- Each writes: their voice's opening, recommendation, top 3 concerns, top 3 supports.
+
+### Phase 3 — Cross-Examination
+- Positions revealed simultaneously.
+- Each advisor critiques the others' positions on the dimensions they own:
+  - cs-cfo-advisor critiques the math
+  - cs-ciso-advisor critiques the risk
+  - cs-cpo-advisor critiques the JTBD
+  - cs-cmo-advisor critiques the positioning
+  - cs-cro-advisor critiques the revenue math
+  - etc.
+
+### Phase 4 — Devil's Advocate Pass
+- `executive-mentor/devils-advocate` agent runs `/em:challenge` on the leading option.
+- Surfaces three concerns with severity ratings.
+
+### Phase 5 — Synthesis
+- Chief of Staff synthesizes: which option commands majority, what are unresolved dissents.
+- Produces the **board memo** with recommendation + dissent.
+
+### Phase 6 — Decision Hand-off
+- Memo is presented to the founder.
+- Founder accepts, modifies, or rejects.
+- Approved memo routes to `/cs:decide` for logging.
+
+## Output: Board Memo
+
+Saved to `~/.claude/boardroom/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Board Memo: <topic>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+**Brief:** <link to /cs:brief file>
+**Status:** AWAITING FOUNDER DECISION | APPROVED | REJECTED
+
+## Question
+[One sentence from the brief]
+
+## Recommended Option
+**<Option name>** — chosen because <synthesis reasoning>
+
+## Vote Tally
+| Advisor | Vote | One-Sentence Reason |
+|---|---|---|
+| cs-ceo-advisor | A | <reason> |
+| cs-cfo-advisor | A | <reason> |
+| cs-cto-advisor | B | <reason> |
+| ... | | |
+
+## Dissent
+- **<dissenter>:** <unresolved concern>
+
+## Devil's Advocate Concerns
+1. **CRITICAL** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
+2. **HIGH** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
+3. **MEDIUM** — <concern> — Mitigation: <plan>
+
+## Success & Kill Criteria
+[Copied from brief, refined by the panel]
+
+## Recommended Decision Path
+- `/cs:decide` → log the decision
+- `/cs:execute` → 90-day plan
+- `/cs:cross-eval` → multi-model sanity check (optional, high-stakes)
+- `/cs:freeze N` → cooldown lock (optional, irreversible)
+```
+
+## Why Phase 2 Isolation Matters
+
+If advisors see each other's positions before forming their own, they anchor. Phase 2 isolation is the single highest-leverage practice in the board-meeting protocol — it surfaces the dissents that sycophancy would have suppressed.
+
+## Why This Beats gstack's Review Chain
+
+| | gstack `/autoplan` | `/cs:boardroom` |
+|---|---|---|
+| Roles | CEO → design → eng (3) | Up to 10 C-roles |
+| Order | Sequential | Phase 2 isolation, then simultaneous |
+| Dissent capture | Implicit | Explicit dissent column |
+| Adversarial pass | No | Phase 4 devil's advocate |
+| Output | Reviewed plan | Voted memo with dissent + kill criteria |
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Read brief from `~/.claude/briefs/<file>`
+2. Identify affected roles
+3. Invoke each cs-* advisor independently (Phase 2)
+4. Collect positions
+5. Run cross-examination round (Phase 3)
+6. Run `/em:challenge` on leading option (Phase 4)
+7. Synthesize memo (Phase 5)
+8. Hand off to founder (Phase 6)
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:decide` — log approved memo
+- `/cs:cross-eval` — high-stakes second opinion
+- `/cs:freeze` — cooldown lock
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-chief-of-staff`](../../agents/cs-chief-of-staff.md)
+- Skills: [`board-meeting`](../../../skills/board-meeting/SKILL.md), [`executive-mentor`](../../../executive-mentor/)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0

package/c-level/brief/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+---
+name: "brief"
+description: "/cs:brief <topic> — Generate a one-page strategy brief from an office-hours intake. First step in the strategic sprint pipeline."
+---
+
+# /cs:brief — One-Page Strategy Brief
+
+**Command:** `/cs:brief <topic>` or `/cs:brief <office-hours-output>`
+
+Turns intake (raw question or office-hours output) into a one-page strategy brief that the boardroom can deliberate on. This is **Step 1** of the strategic sprint pipeline.
+
+## Pipeline Position
+
+```
+/cs:office-hours  →  /cs:brief  →  /cs:boardroom  →  /cs:decide  →  /cs:execute  →  /cs:post-mortem
+                       ↑ you are here
+```
+
+## Inputs
+
+- A topic string, **or**
+- An office-hours brief (preferred — more rigor)
+- `~/.claude/company-context.md` (loaded automatically)
+
+## Output
+
+A single Markdown file under `~/.claude/briefs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md` with this structure:
+
+```markdown
+# Strategy Brief: <topic>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+**Author:** cs-chief-of-staff
+**Status:** DRAFT | UNDER REVIEW | APPROVED | RETIRED
+
+## Context
+[1-2 paragraphs: where the company sits today on this topic — pulled from company-context.md]
+
+## Question
+[The one sentence question the boardroom must answer]
+
+## Options
+1. **Option A:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
+2. **Option B:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
+3. **Option C:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
+
+(Minimum 2 options. "Do nothing" is always an option.)
+
+## Assumptions
+- <assumption 1 — explicit>
+- <assumption 2>
+- <assumption 3>
+
+## Constraints
+- Time: <by when must this decide>
+- Money: <budget envelope>
+- People: <who can / can't be reallocated>
+- Reversibility: <one-way door | two-way door>
+
+## Affected Roles
+[Which cs-* advisors should weigh in. Used to route to /cs:boardroom panel composition.]
+
+- [ ] cs-ceo-advisor
+- [ ] cs-cfo-advisor
+- [ ] cs-cto-advisor
+- [ ] cs-cmo-advisor
+- [ ] cs-cro-advisor
+- [ ] cs-cpo-advisor
+- [ ] cs-coo-advisor
+- [ ] cs-chro-advisor
+- [ ] cs-ciso-advisor
+- [ ] cs-chief-of-staff
+
+## Success Criteria
+[Measurable outcomes that define success — set BEFORE the decision]
+- <metric 1, threshold, timeframe>
+- <metric 2, threshold, timeframe>
+
+## Kill Criteria
+[What signal would tell you in 90 days that this was the wrong call]
+- <metric, threshold, action if missed>
+```
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Load company-context.md via context-engine
+2. If input is office-hours output, parse the 6 answers
+3. If input is a raw topic, prompt the founder for the missing pieces
+4. Draft 2-3 options (never just one — every brief needs a counterfactual)
+5. Make assumptions and constraints explicit
+6. Identify affected roles → drives panel composition for `/cs:boardroom`
+7. Write success + kill criteria BEFORE the decision (this is the rigor moment)
+8. Save to `~/.claude/briefs/`
+
+## Why This Step Exists
+
+The biggest decision-making failure is debating implementation before agreeing on the question. The brief locks the question, options, and success criteria so the boardroom can deliberate without scope creep.
+
+This is also the **artifact handoff** — the next command consumes this file, not your memory.
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:boardroom <brief>` — multi-role deliberation
+- `/cs:cross-eval <brief>` — multi-model sanity check before boardroom (for high-stakes)
+- `/cs:freeze <brief>` — cooldown lock for irreversible decisions
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-chief-of-staff`](../../agents/cs-chief-of-staff.md)
+- Skills: [`context-engine`](../../../skills/context-engine/SKILL.md), [`board-meeting`](../../../skills/board-meeting/SKILL.md)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0

package/c-level/c-level-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+---
+name: "c-level-agents"
+description: "Founder-mode executive team. 8 cs-* C-suite agents (CFO, CMO, CRO, CPO, COO, CHRO, CISO, Chief of Staff) and 17 /cs:* slash commands for forcing-question office hours, multi-role boardroom deliberation, strategic sprint pipeline, and meta routing. Use when the founder needs a virtual executive team, when invoking /cs:* commands, or when orchestrating multi-role decisions."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: executive-orchestration
+  updated: 2026-05-12
+  agents: cs-cfo-advisor, cs-cmo-advisor, cs-cro-advisor, cs-cpo-advisor, cs-coo-advisor, cs-chro-advisor, cs-ciso-advisor, cs-chief-of-staff
+  commands: cs-office-hours, cs-cfo-review, cs-cmo-review, cs-cpo-review, cs-cro-review, cs-cto-review, cs-ciso-review, cs-gc-review, cs-brief, cs-boardroom, cs-decide, cs-execute, cs-post-mortem, cs-founder-mode, cs-onboard, cs-cross-eval, cs-freeze
+---
+
+# c-level-agents — Founder-Mode Executive Team
+
+A virtual C-suite delivered through slash commands and persona agents.
+
+## Keywords
+
+founder mode, virtual c-suite, executive team, boardroom, office hours, cfo review, cmo review, strategic sprint, decision logging, cross-model consensus, persona agents, chief of staff, forcing questions
+
+## What This Plugin Provides
+
+### 8 cs-* Agents (in `agents/`)
+
+Each agent wraps an existing c-level skill and adds:
+- A distinct cognitive voice (numerate skeptic, narrative-first, etc.)
+- Forcing questions specific to the role
+- Workflow orchestration tied to skill Python tools
+- Output template: Bottom Line → What → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
+
+See `../references/persona-voices.md` for voice specs.
+
+### 17 /cs:* Slash Commands (in `skills/`)
+
+**Forcing-question office hours (8):**
+- `/cs:office-hours` — YC-style 6-question intake
+- `/cs:cfo-review` — unit economics, runway, dilution
+- `/cs:cmo-review` — ICP, CAC payback, positioning
+- `/cs:cpo-review` — RICE, JTBD, North Star, PMF
+- `/cs:cro-review` — pipeline coverage, win rate, NRR
+- `/cs:cto-review` — architecture risk, scaling cliff
+- `/cs:ciso-review` — threat model, blast radius, compliance
+- `/cs:gc-review` — contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets
+
+**Strategic sprint pipeline (5):**
+- `/cs:brief` → `/cs:boardroom` → `/cs:decide` → `/cs:execute` → `/cs:post-mortem`
+
+**Meta + safety (4):**
+- `/cs:founder-mode` — auto-routes to the right C-role
+- `/cs:onboard` — founder interview → `company-context.md`
+- `/cs:cross-eval` — multi-model consensus
+- `/cs:freeze` — cooldown lock on a decision
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```
+/cs:onboard                          # populate company context first
+/cs:office-hours "should we hire a VP Sales?"
+/cs:founder-mode "runway pressure"   # auto-routes to CFO
+/cs:boardroom briefs/pricing-v3.md   # full panel
+```
+
+## Architecture
+
+```
+User question
+   │
+   ├─ Single-role? → cs-{role}-advisor agent
+   │                     ↓
+   │                  /cs:{role}-review command (forcing Qs)
+   │                     ↓
+   │                  Skill tools + references
+   │                     ↓
+   │                  Bottom Line + Memo
+   │
+   └─ Multi-role?  → /cs:boardroom
+                        ↓
+                     6-phase deliberation (Phase 2 isolation)
+                        ↓
+                     /cs:decide → decision-logger (two-layer memory)
+                        ↓
+                     /cs:execute → 90-day plan
+```
+
+## Integration Points
+
+- **Existing 28 c-level skills** — wrapped, not replaced
+- **decision-logger** — every `/cs:decide` writes here
+- **chief-of-staff** — routing layer the agent orchestrates
+- **board-meeting** — protocol the `/cs:boardroom` command runs
+- **llm-wiki** — optional persistent memory bridge (see `../references/llm-wiki-bridge.md`)
+- **executive-mentor** — adversarial `/em:*` commands stack cleanly on top
+
+## Design Principles
+
+1. **Voice is bookended, analysis is neutral.**
+2. **Artifacts over chat.** Every command produces a Markdown artifact the next command consumes.
+3. **Phase 2 isolation in boardroom.** Independent thinking before cross-examination.
+4. **Graceful degradation.** `/cs:cross-eval` falls back to Claude-only.
+5. **No paid dependencies.** All Python tools are stdlib-only.
+
+## References
+
+- [persona-voices.md](../../references/persona-voices.md)
+- [llm-wiki-bridge.md](../../references/llm-wiki-bridge.md)
+- [Parent c-level CLAUDE.md](../../../CLAUDE.md)
+- [Existing executive-mentor sibling](../../../executive-mentor/)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Last Updated:** 2026-05-12
+**Status:** Production Ready