@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+---
+name: "c-level-advisor"
+description: "10 C-level advisory agent skills and plugins for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, OpenClaw. CEO, CTO, COO, CPO, CMO, CFO, CRO, CISO, CHRO, Executive Mentor. Multi-role board meetings, strategy routing, structured recommendations. For founders needing executive-level decision support."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 2.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: executive-advisory
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  skills_count: 28
+  scripts_count: 25
+  references_count: 52
+---
+
+# C-Level Advisory Ecosystem
+
+A complete virtual board of directors for founders and executives.
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```
+1. Run /cs:setup → creates company-context.md (all agents read this)
+   ✓ Verify company-context.md was created and contains your company name,
+     stage, and core metrics before proceeding.
+2. Ask any strategic question → Chief of Staff routes to the right role
+3. For big decisions → /cs:board triggers a multi-role board meeting
+   ✓ Confirm at least 3 roles have weighed in before accepting a conclusion.
+```
+
+### Commands
+
+#### `/cs:setup` — Onboarding Questionnaire
+
+Walks through the following prompts and writes `company-context.md` to the project root. Run once per company or when context changes significantly.
+
+```
+Q1. What is your company name and one-line description?
+Q2. What stage are you at? (Idea / Pre-seed / Seed / Series A / Series B+)
+Q3. What is your current ARR (or MRR) and runway in months?
+Q4. What is your team size and structure?
+Q5. What industry and customer segment do you serve?
+Q6. What are your top 3 priorities for the next 90 days?
+Q7. What is your biggest current risk or blocker?
+```
+
+After collecting answers, the agent writes structured output:
+
+```markdown
+# Company Context
+- Name: <answer>
+- Stage: <answer>
+- Industry: <answer>
+- Team size: <answer>
+- Key metrics: <ARR/MRR, growth rate, runway>
+- Top priorities: <answer>
+- Key risks: <answer>
+```
+
+#### `/cs:board` — Full Board Meeting
+
+Convenes all relevant executive roles in three phases:
+
+```
+Phase 1 — Framing:   Chief of Staff states the decision and success criteria.
+Phase 2 — Isolation: Each role produces independent analysis (no cross-talk).
+Phase 3 — Debate:    Roles surface conflicts, stress-test assumptions, align on
+                     a recommendation. Dissenting views are preserved in the log.
+```
+
+Use for high-stakes or cross-functional decisions. Confirm at least 3 roles have weighed in before accepting a conclusion.
+
+### Chief of Staff Routing Matrix
+
+When a question arrives without a role prefix, the Chief of Staff maps it to the appropriate executive using these primary signals:
+
+| Topic Signal | Primary Role | Supporting Roles |
+|---|---|---|
+| Fundraising, valuation, burn | CFO | CEO, CRO |
+| Architecture, build vs. buy, tech debt | CTO | CPO, CISO |
+| Hiring, culture, performance | CHRO | CEO, Executive Mentor |
+| GTM, demand gen, positioning | CMO | CRO, CPO |
+| Revenue, pipeline, sales motion | CRO | CMO, CFO |
+| Security, compliance, risk | CISO | CTO, CFO |
+| Product roadmap, prioritisation | CPO | CTO, CMO |
+| Ops, process, scaling | COO | CFO, CHRO |
+| Vision, strategy, investor relations | CEO | Executive Mentor |
+| Career, founder psychology, leadership | Executive Mentor | CEO, CHRO |
+| Multi-domain / unclear | Chief of Staff convenes board | All relevant roles |
+
+### Invoking a Specific Role Directly
+
+To bypass Chief of Staff routing and address one executive directly, prefix your question with the role name:
+
+```
+CFO: What is our optimal burn rate heading into a Series A?
+CTO: Should we rebuild our auth layer in-house or buy a solution?
+CHRO: How do we design a performance review process for a 15-person team?
+```
+
+The Chief of Staff still logs the exchange; only routing is skipped.
+
+### Example: Strategic Question
+
+**Input:** "Should we raise a Series A now or extend runway and grow ARR first?"
+
+**Output format:**
+- **Bottom Line:** Extend runway 6 months; raise at $2M ARR for better terms.
+- **What:** Current $800K ARR is below the threshold most Series A investors benchmark.
+- **Why:** Raising now increases dilution risk; 6-month extension is achievable with current burn.
+- **How to Act:** Cut 2 low-ROI channels, hit $2M ARR, then run a 6-week fundraise sprint.
+- **Your Decision:** Proceed with extension / Raise now anyway (choose one).
+
+### Example: company-context.md (after /cs:setup)
+
+```markdown
+# Company Context
+- Name: Acme Inc.
+- Stage: Seed ($800K ARR)
+- Industry: B2B SaaS
+- Team size: 12
+- Key metrics: 15% MoM growth, 18-month runway
+- Top priorities: Series A readiness, enterprise GTM
+```
+
+## What's Included
+
+### 10 C-Suite Roles
+CEO, CTO, COO, CPO, CMO, CFO, CRO, CISO, CHRO, Executive Mentor
+
+### 6 Orchestration Skills
+Founder Onboard, Chief of Staff (router), Board Meeting, Decision Logger, Agent Protocol, Context Engine
+
+### 6 Cross-Cutting Capabilities
+Board Deck Builder, Scenario War Room, Competitive Intel, Org Health Diagnostic, M&A Playbook, International Expansion
+
+### 6 Culture & Collaboration
+Culture Architect, Company OS, Founder Coach, Strategic Alignment, Change Management, Internal Narrative
+
+## Key Features
+
+- **Internal Quality Loop:** Self-verify → peer-verify → critic pre-screen → present
+- **Two-Layer Memory:** Raw transcripts + approved decisions only (prevents hallucinated consensus)
+- **Board Meeting Isolation:** Phase 2 independent analysis before cross-examination
+- **Proactive Triggers:** Context-driven early warnings without being asked
+- **Structured Output:** Bottom Line → What → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
+- **25 Python Tools:** All stdlib-only, CLI-first, JSON output, zero dependencies
+
+## See Also
+
+- `CLAUDE.md` — full architecture diagram and integration guide
+- `agent-protocol/SKILL.md` — communication standard and quality loop details
+- `chief-of-staff/SKILL.md` — routing matrix for all 28 skills

package/c-level/caio-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+---
+name: "caio-review"
+description: "/cs:caio-review <plan> — Eval-demanding Chief AI Officer interrogation of any plan that involves AI: model selection, risk classification, cost economics, or AI hiring."
+---
+
+# /cs:caio-review — CAIO Forcing Questions
+
+**Command:** `/cs:caio-review <plan>`
+
+The eval-demanding CAIO pressure-tests any plan that involves AI. Six questions before any AI feature ships, any multi-year vendor commitment, or any AI team expansion.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Before shipping any new AI-powered feature
+- Before signing a multi-year AI vendor contract (API or self-hosted infra)
+- Before EU launch of any AI feature
+- Before a major AI team hire (especially ML engineer or research scientist)
+- Before a fine-tuning project commitment
+- Before adopting AI in a regulated domain (employment, credit, healthcare, education, etc.)
+- When the founder uses the word "AI" near "competitive advantage" or "moat"
+
+## The Six CAIO Questions
+
+### 1. What does this AI need to be good at, and how would you measure it?
+**No eval set = no ship.** Before any AI feature deploys, define the eval criteria.
+- 50-100 representative inputs minimum
+- Expected outputs OR rubric for grading
+- Edge cases: ambiguous, adversarial, format-edge
+- If you can't write down what "good" looks like, you don't have a feature; you have a vibe.
+
+### 2. What's the SLO on hallucination / error rate, and what's the fallback?
+**Every AI feature has a failure mode. Plan for it.**
+- Quantified SLO: "<5% hallucination on factual queries"
+- Detection mechanism: monitoring, sampling, customer feedback loop
+- Fallback: human-in-loop review, lower-risk default response, refuse-to-answer
+- Blast radius if SLO breached: how many users affected, what is the cost?
+
+### 3. What's the risk tier under EU AI Act, and is conformity assessment required?
+**Run `ai_risk_classifier.py` if any EU residents are affected OR domain is regulated.**
+- PROHIBITED → cannot launch in EU; re-scope
+- HIGH → conformity assessment + EU DB registration + 10 Articles of obligations (3-12 months, $50-200K)
+- LIMITED → transparency obligations (chatbot disclosure, AI-generated content marking)
+- MINIMAL → no specific obligations; NIST AI RMF voluntary
+
+### 4. API, fine-tune, or build?
+**Run `model_buildvsbuy_calculator.py` for the specific use case.**
+- 80% of B2B SaaS use cases: API
+- 15%: fine-tune (when domain-specific behavior + labeled data + ML team + high volume)
+- <1%: build from scratch
+- Decision must consider economic breakeven AND practical feasibility (data, team, compliance)
+
+### 5. What's the 12-month cost trajectory at expected scale?
+**Run `ai_cost_economics.py` for the workload.**
+- API: variable, scales linearly
+- Self-hosted: mostly fixed, breakeven typically 1-10B tokens/month for 70B-class
+- Hidden costs of self-hosted: ops, monitoring, model updates, capacity, failover, security
+- Hidden costs of API: vendor lock-in, capability drift, rate limits, data residency
+- Prompt caching is the most underrated lever; check provider support
+
+### 6. What role unblocks this — and have we hired prerequisites first?
+**Map AI capability to specific role. Founders confuse AI engineer / ML engineer / research scientist.**
+- AI engineer: applied + full-stack + prompts + evals + deployment (most startups need this)
+- ML engineer: fine-tuning + retraining infra (only after platform engineer + labeled data)
+- Research scientist: model invention (only if model IS the product)
+- Don't hire research scientist as first AI hire — they need infrastructure to be productive
+
+## Workflow
+
+```bash
+# 1. Model selection check
+python ../../../skills/chief-ai-officer-advisor/scripts/model_buildvsbuy_calculator.py use_case.json
+
+# 2. Regulatory classification
+python ../../../skills/chief-ai-officer-advisor/scripts/ai_risk_classifier.py use_case.json
+
+# 3. Cost projection
+python ../../../skills/chief-ai-officer-advisor/scripts/ai_cost_economics.py workload.json
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# CAIO Review: <plan>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+
+## The Decision Being Made
+[one sentence — which CAIO decision: model selection | risk classification | economics | next hire]
+
+## Eval Discipline
+- Eval set committed: yes/no
+- SLO defined: <metric> < <threshold>
+- Fallback behavior: <one line>
+
+## Model Selection (if applicable)
+- Recommended: API / FINE_TUNE / BUILD
+- 3-year TCO: $X (chosen path) vs $Y (alternatives)
+- Breakeven: <volume>
+
+## Risk Classification (if applicable)
+- EU AI Act tier: PROHIBITED / HIGH / LIMITED / MINIMAL
+- Conformity assessment required: yes/no
+- US state triggers: [list]
+- Required controls open: N
+
+## Cost Economics (if applicable)
+- Monthly cost at current volume: $X
+- Breakeven for self-hosted migration: <volume>
+- Migration cost if applicable: $X (3-6 months)
+
+## Org (if applicable)
+- Next hire: <role>
+- Why this, not the alternative: <one line>
+- Prerequisite hires in place: yes/no
+
+## Verdict
+🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 BLOCK
+
+## Next Steps
+[3 concrete actions]
+```
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:cdo-review` — for any training-data implications
+- `/cs:gc-review` — for AI vendor contracts, output liability, training-data licensing
+- `/cs:ciso-review` — for prompt injection / jailbreak / training-data poisoning threat model
+- `/cs:cfo-review` — for multi-year vendor or GPU commitment TCO
+- `/cs:chro-review` — for AI team hires (comp, ladder, leveling)
+- `/cs:decide` — log the verdict
+- `/cs:freeze 60` — on multi-year AI commitments
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-caio-advisor`](../../agents/cs-caio-advisor.md)
+- Skill: [`chief-ai-officer-advisor`](../../../skills/chief-ai-officer-advisor/SKILL.md)
+- Adjacent: `../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/` (training data rights, data strategy)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0

package/c-level/cco-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+---
+name: "cco-review"
+description: "/cs:cco-review <plan> — Retention-obsessed Chief Customer Officer interrogation of any plan that touches customer retention, segmentation, CS team sizing, or CS team hiring."
+---
+
+# /cs:cco-review — CCO Forcing Questions
+
+**Command:** `/cs:cco-review <plan>`
+
+The retention-obsessed CCO pressure-tests any plan that touches customer experience. Six questions before any retention claim, segmentation change, CS team expansion, or major CS hire.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Before any board narrative that includes a retention number
+- Before approving a CS team headcount expansion
+- Before re-segmenting the customer base or changing tier definitions
+- Before launching a customer marketing or advocacy program
+- Before a major CS hire (CSM, AM, Implementation, Customer Marketing)
+- When NRR is "great" but churn complaints from CSMs are increasing
+- Before deciding whether to add an AM role separate from CSM
+
+## The Six CCO Questions
+
+### 1. What's the GROSS retention rate?
+**Not NRR. Gross.** NRR can hide a leaky bucket behind expansion.
+- GRR healthy ≥ 90% at growth stage, ≥ 95% at scale
+- If GRR < 85% but NRR > 100%, the product is failing for 15%+ of customers; expansion is masking the failure
+- Run `retention_decomposition_analyzer.py`
+
+### 2. What's the #1 reason customers leave?
+**If you can't name it, you don't understand churn.**
+- 7-category taxonomy: product_fit / competitor_loss / no_value_realized / pricing / champion_left / company_event / tactical_failure
+- Preventable churn = product_fit + no_value_realized + tactical_failure
+- If preventable > 50%, CS has clear leverage; if < 30%, churn is structural (ICP, market, competition)
+
+### 3. What's the median time-to-value (TTV) by segment?
+**Long TTV signals different problems by segment.**
+- Long TTV in low tier = ICP misfit; downgrade or kill
+- Long TTV in high tier = onboarding broken; fix the Implementation Manager handoff
+- TTV is a leading indicator of GRR
+
+### 4. Which customer would you fire today?
+**If "none" — your segmentation is broken.**
+- Some accounts cost more than they earn (support cost > 50% of ARR + low ICP fit)
+- Run `customer_segmentation_designer.py` to surface kill list
+- The 3 paths for kill candidates: non-renewal / downgrade-to-tech-touch / raise-price-to-cost-recover
+
+### 5. What's the ARR-per-CSM ratio, and is the model pooled or named?
+**Wrong model wastes capacity.**
+- Strategic: named + exec sponsor, $300K-$1M ARR/CSM
+- Enterprise: named, $500K-$2M
+- Mid-market: pooled, $2M-$5M
+- SMB: tech-touch, $5M+
+- Run `cs_coverage_calculator.py` to size the team
+
+### 6. Is CS in your comp plan, and how is it different from Sales comp?
+**Misalignment is the leading indicator of CS failure.**
+- CS comp: 70/30 base/variable typical
+- Variable: 50% gross retention + 30% net retention + 20% activity
+- Anti-pattern: comp CSMs on NPS — they game it
+- Anti-pattern: comp CSMs same as Sales — they sell instead of serve
+
+## Workflow
+
+```bash
+# 1. Retention decomposition (always start here)
+python ../../../skills/chief-customer-officer-advisor/scripts/retention_decomposition_analyzer.py cohorts.json
+
+# 2. Segmentation audit
+python ../../../skills/chief-customer-officer-advisor/scripts/customer_segmentation_designer.py customers.json
+
+# 3. Coverage sizing (if making CS team changes)
+python ../../../skills/chief-customer-officer-advisor/scripts/cs_coverage_calculator.py book.json
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# CCO Review: <plan>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+
+## The Decision Being Made
+[one sentence — retention | segmentation | coverage | next hire]
+
+## Retention (if applicable)
+- GRR: X% (vs vanity NRR of Y%)
+- Top churn driver: <category> at X% of churn
+- Preventable churn: X% (CS-controllable)
+- Leaky-bucket pattern? yes/no
+
+## Segmentation (if applicable)
+- Tier distribution: Strategic X / Enterprise X / Mid-market X / SMB X
+- Kill list size: N customers (X% of customers, Y% of ARR)
+- Upgrade candidates: N
+
+## Coverage (if applicable)
+- Current CSMs: N | Required now: M | Required 12mo: P
+- Annual cost (12mo): $X
+- Manager trigger fired: yes/no
+
+## Org (if applicable)
+- Next hire: <CSM | Support | AM | IM | CS Ops | Customer Marketing>
+- Why this, not the alternative: <one line>
+- Customer outcome unblocked: <specific>
+
+## Verdict
+🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 BLOCK
+
+## Next Steps
+[3 concrete actions]
+```
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:cpo-review` — if churn root cause is product_fit or no_value_realized
+- `/cs:cro-review` — if expansion math or comp alignment is in question
+- `/cs:cfo-review` — for CS cost commitments and retention-impact-on-revenue
+- `/cs:chro-review` — for CS hires, comp, ladder
+- `/cs:decide` — log the verdict
+- `/cs:freeze 30` — on multi-year CS comp plan changes
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-cco-advisor`](../../agents/cs-cco-advisor.md)
+- Skill: [`chief-customer-officer-advisor`](../../../skills/chief-customer-officer-advisor/SKILL.md)
+- Adjacent: `../../../../business-growth/` (tactical CS execution)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0

package/c-level/cdo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+name: "cdo-review"
+description: "/cs:cdo-review <plan> — Decision-driven Chief Data Officer interrogation of any plan that touches training data, data architecture, data productization, or data team hiring."
+---
+
+# /cs:cdo-review — CDO Forcing Questions
+
+**Command:** `/cs:cdo-review <plan>`
+
+The decision-driven CDO pressure-tests any plan that touches data strategy. Six questions before any commitment to a data architecture, AI training run, data productization, or data team hire.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Before approving any new ML model training run that uses customer data
+- Before signing a multi-year data-infrastructure SaaS contract (Snowflake, Databricks, Fivetran)
+- Before productizing any customer data (benchmark report, embedding endpoint, license)
+- Before a major data team hire (head of data, CDO, data PM, ML engineer)
+- Before M&A diligence — yours or theirs
+- When the founder uses the word "monetize" near "data"
+
+## The Six CDO Questions
+
+### 1. What decision does this data drive?
+**If no decision is unblocked, why are we collecting / training on / productizing it?**
+- "We might need it later" is not a decision.
+- "It feels like a moat" is not a decision.
+- A real answer names a specific business call that requires this data.
+
+### 2. What's the consent provenance for every source?
+**For each data source: origin, consent flow, data class, intended use.**
+- 1st-party-TOS-only is weaker than 1st-party-explicit-opt-in.
+- Bundled TOS doesn't cover material new purposes (training on PII for foundation models).
+- Run `ai_training_data_audit.py` if there's any AI use case in scope.
+
+### 3. Who consumes this internally — and how many distinct functional domains?
+**Drives the centralize-vs-embed and warehouse-vs-mesh decisions.**
+- <5 consumers: warehouse-only.
+- 5-25 consumers: lakehouse.
+- 25+ consumers + federated culture: mesh.
+- Premature architecture choice is the #1 cause of data-team burnout.
+
+### 4. What's the M&A diligence impact?
+**If an acquirer asks about this data corpus tomorrow, are we ready?**
+- Is there a documented anonymization process?
+- What % of customers have MSA carve-outs?
+- Are training-data provenance logs current?
+- Run `data_asset_valuator.py` quarterly.
+
+### 5. Can the model / decision / report be retrained / re-run / re-published without this source?
+**Tests how much you depend on a specific data source.**
+- If yes → low blast radius; you can change consent posture later.
+- If no → high blast radius; you've structurally committed to the source. Vet harder.
+
+### 6. What role unblocks this — and is it the right next hire?
+**Wrong hire (data scientist) when right answer (analytics engineer) is a 12-month productivity loss.**
+- Map the decision being unblocked to the specific role.
+- Confirm prerequisite roles are in place (data engineer before ML engineer, analyst before data scientist).
+
+## Workflow
+
+```bash
+# 1. AI training audit (if any ML / AI use case)
+python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/ai_training_data_audit.py sources.json
+
+# 2. Architecture decision (if changing the stack)
+python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/data_product_strategy_picker.py profile.json
+
+# 3. Data asset valuation (if productizing or pre-M&A)
+python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/data_asset_valuator.py corpus.json
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# CDO Review: <plan>
+**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
+
+## The Decision Being Made
+[one sentence — which of the four CDO decisions: training | architecture | asset | hire]
+
+## Training Audit (if applicable)
+- NO-GO sources: N
+- MITIGATE sources: N
+- GO sources: N
+- Top remediation: <one line>
+
+## Architecture (if applicable)
+- Recommended: WAREHOUSE / LAKEHOUSE / MESH
+- Build-vs-buy summary: <one line>
+- Kill criteria: <when to revisit>
+
+## Asset Value (if applicable)
+- Strategic value: X/10 | Moat: STRONG / MEDIUM / WEAK
+- M&A multiplier: X.Xx – X.Xx ARR
+- Recommended productization path: <name>
+
+## Org (if applicable)
+- Next hire: <role>
+- Why this, not that: <one line>
+- Prerequisite hires in place: yes/no
+
+## Verdict
+🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 BLOCK
+
+## Next Steps
+[3 concrete actions]
+```
+
+## Routing
+
+- `/cs:gc-review` — for any productization or licensing path
+- `/cs:ciso-review` — for any architecture change touching customer data
+- `/cs:cfo-review` — for build-vs-buy TCO and M&A valuation math
+- `/cs:chro-review` — for data team hires (comp, ladder, leveling)
+- `/cs:decide` — log the verdict
+- `/cs:freeze 90` — on multi-year infrastructure contracts
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-cdo-advisor`](../../agents/cs-cdo-advisor.md)
+- Skill: [`chief-data-officer-advisor`](../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/SKILL.md)
+- Adjacent: `../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/` (contractual constraints), `../../../skills/cto-advisor/` (architecture capacity)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0