@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+---
+name: benchmark-methodology
+description: "Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set. Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1 to 5 rubrics and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure."
+tags: ["research","marketing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC
+source_path: "skills/benchmark-methodology"
+source_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735
+---
+# Benchmark Methodology
+
+Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
+scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
+explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
+the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
+number for any competitor.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
+- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
+- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
+- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
+
+## Client positioning brief (establish first)
+
+Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
+
+- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
+  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
+  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
+- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
+  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
+- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
+  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
+
+## Why these dimensions
+
+The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
+service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
+dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
+together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
+achieves both simultaneously.
+
+## The nine dimensions (with weights)
+
+Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
+composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
+
+1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
+   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
+2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
+   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
+3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
+   system; site as proof-of-craft.
+4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
+   sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
+5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
+   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
+6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
+   and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
+7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
+   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
+8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
+   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
+9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
+   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
+   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
+   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
+   there?
+
+## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
+
+Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
+specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
+
+- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
+  from a template. Active liability.
+- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
+  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
+- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
+  expectation, ownable by nobody.
+- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
+  would notice and cite.
+- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
+  bar others react to.
+
+### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
+
+Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
+brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
+
+- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
+  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
+- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
+  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
+
+Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
+the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
+important finding of the benchmark.
+
+## How to collect the data
+
+For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
+
+1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
+   posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
+   study.
+2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
+   Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
+   verifiable).
+3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
+   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
+4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
+   thought leadership, model.
+5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
+   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
+6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
+
+**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
+source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
+
+## Bias controls
+
+- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
+  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
+- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
+  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
+- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
+  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
+  credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
+- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
+  lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
+  credibility.
+- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
+  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
+- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
+  scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
+  Adjust outliers.
+
+## Competitor profile card (output format)
+
+Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
+from:
+
+```
+## <Competitor name>
+- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
+- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
+- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
+- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
+
+### Dimension scores
+| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
+| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
+| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
+| Service offer & packaging | | | |
+| Evidence & credibility | | | |
+| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
+| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
+| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
+
+### Tension plot
+- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
+- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
+- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
+
+### Read for [client]
+- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
+- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
+- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
+```
+
+Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
+- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
+- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
+- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
+- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
+- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.

package/{dist/src/orgrt/role-skills/benchmarker.md → org-skills/benchmarker/SKILL.md}

@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+---
+name: benchmarker
+description: "Benchmarker role best practices. Designs and runs load, stress, and regression benchmarks that produce statistically trustworthy, reproducible performance numbers — and turns them into clear pass/fail verdicts against defined targets."
+tags: ["engineering"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context","monograph_impact"]
+license: Apache-2.0
+source: https://github.com/monoes/monomind
+---
 # Benchmarker — Best Practices
 
 ## Focus

package/{dist/src/orgrt/role-skills/blockchain-auditor.md → org-skills/blockchain-auditor/SKILL.md}

@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+---
+name: blockchain-auditor
+description: "Blockchain Auditor role best practices. Audits smart contracts and DeFi protocols for exploitable vulnerabilities — combining automated analysis, manual review, and economic attack modeling — before attackers find the bugs first."
+tags: ["engineering","security"]
+tools: ["monograph_query","monograph_context","monograph_impact"]
+license: Apache-2.0
+source: https://github.com/monoes/monomind
+---
 # Blockchain Auditor — Best Practices
 
 ## Focus

package/org-skills/board-deck-builder/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/org-skills/board-deck-builder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+---
+name: board-deck-builder
+description: "Assembles comprehensive board and investor update decks by pulling perspectives from all C-suite roles. Use when preparing board meetings, investor updates, quarterly business reviews, or fundraising narratives. Covers structure, narrative framework, bad news delivery, and common mistakes."
+tags: ["leadership","finance","writing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills
+source_path: "c-level-advisor/skills/board-deck-builder"
+source_commit: 19392f7a08264ed00486a251f5b2098321771f94
+---
+# Board Deck Builder
+
+Build board decks that tell a story — not just show data. Every section has an owner, a narrative, and a "so what."
+
+## Keywords
+board deck, investor update, board meeting, board pack, investor relations, quarterly review, board presentation, fundraising deck, investor deck, board narrative, QBR, quarterly business review
+
+## Quick Start
+
+Ask for a board deck in natural language, naming cadence and stage:
+
+> "Build a quarterly board deck — we're Series A."
+> "Draft a fundraising board deck for a seed-stage company."
+
+Provide available metrics. The builder fills gaps with explicit placeholders — never invents numbers.
+
+## Deck Structure (Standard Order)
+
+Every section follows: **Headline → Data → Narrative → Ask/Next**
+
+### 1. Executive Summary (CEO)
+**3 sentences. No more.**
+- Sentence 1: State of the business (where we are)
+- Sentence 2: Biggest thing that happened this period
+- Sentence 3: Where we're going next quarter
+
+*Bad:* "We had a good quarter with lots of progress across all areas."
+*Good:* "We closed Q3 at $2.4M ARR (+22% QoQ), signed our largest enterprise contract, and enter Q4 with 14-month runway. The strategic shift to mid-market is working — ACV up 40% and sales cycle down 3 weeks. Q4 priority: close the $3M Series A and hit $2.8M ARR."
+
+### 2. Key Metrics Dashboard (COO)
+**6-8 metrics max. Use a table.**
+
+| Metric | This Period | Last Period | Target | Status |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|
+| ARR | $2.4M | $1.97M | $2.3M | ✅ |
+| MoM growth | 8.1% | 7.2% | 7.5% | ✅ |
+| Burn multiple | 1.8x | 2.1x | <2x | ✅ |
+| NRR | 112% | 108% | >110% | ✅ |
+| CAC payback | 11 months | 14 months | <12 months | ✅ |
+| Headcount | 24 | 21 | 25 | 🟡 |
+
+Pick metrics the board actually tracks. Swap out anything they've said they don't care about.
+
+### 3. Financial Update (CFO)
+- P&L summary: Revenue, COGS, Gross margin, OpEx, Net burn
+- Cash position and runway (months)
+- Burn multiple trend (3-quarter view)
+- Variance to plan (what was different and why)
+- Forecast update for next quarter
+
+**One sentence on each variance.** Boards hate "revenue was below target" with no explanation. Say why.
+
+### 4. Revenue & Pipeline (CRO)
+- ARR waterfall: starting → new → expansion → churn → ending
+- NRR and logo churn rates
+- Pipeline by stage (in $, not just count)
+- Forecast: next quarter with confidence level
+- Top 3 deals: name/amount/close date/risk
+
+**The forecast must have a confidence level.** "We expect $2.8M" is weak. "High confidence $2.6M, upside to $2.9M if two late-stage deals close" is useful.
+
+### 5. Product Update (CPO)
+- Shipped this quarter: 3-5 bullets, user impact for each
+- Shipping next quarter: 3-5 bullets with target dates
+- PMF signal: NPS trend, DAU/MAU ratio, feature adoption
+- One key learning from customer research
+
+**No feature lists.** Only features with evidence of user impact.
+
+### 6. Growth & Marketing (CMO)
+- CAC by channel (table)
+- Pipeline contribution by channel ($)
+- Brand/awareness metrics relevant to stage (traffic, share of voice)
+- What's working, what's being cut, what's being tested
+
+### 7. Engineering & Technical (CTO)
+- Delivery velocity trend (last 4 quarters)
+- Tech debt ratio and plan
+- Infrastructure: uptime, incidents, cost trend
+- Security posture (one line, flag anything pending)
+
+**Keep this short unless there's a material issue.** Boards don't need sprint details.
+
+### 8. Team & People (CHRO)
+- Headcount: actual vs plan
+- Hiring: offers out, pipeline, time-to-fill trend
+- Attrition: regrettable vs non-regrettable
+- Engagement: last survey score, trend
+- Key hires this quarter, key open roles
+
+### 9. Risk & Security (CISO)
+- Security posture: status of critical controls
+- Compliance: certifications in progress, deadlines
+- Incidents this quarter (if any): impact, resolution, prevention
+- Top 3 risks and mitigation status
+
+### 10. Strategic Outlook (CEO)
+- Next quarter priorities: 3-5 items, ranked
+- Key decisions needed from the board
+- Asks: budget, introductions, advice, votes
+
+**The "asks" slide is the most important.** Be specific. "We'd like 3 warm introductions to CFOs at Series B companies" beats "any help would be appreciated."
+
+### 11. Appendix
+- Detailed financial model
+- Full pipeline data
+- Cohort retention charts
+- Customer case studies
+- Detailed headcount breakdown
+
+---
+
+## Narrative Framework
+
+Boards see 10+ decks per quarter. Yours needs a through-line.
+
+**The 4-Act Structure:**
+1. **Where we said we'd be** (last quarter's targets)
+2. **Where we actually are** (honest assessment)
+3. **Why the gap exists** (one cause per variance, not excuses)
+4. **What we're doing about it** (specific, dated actions)
+
+This works for good news AND bad news. It's credible because it acknowledges reality.
+
+**Opening frame:** Start with the one thing that matters most — the board should know the key message by slide 3, not slide 30.
+
+---
+
+## Delivering Bad News
+
+Never bury it. Boards find out eventually. Finding out late makes it worse.
+
+**Framework:**
+1. **State it plainly** — "We missed Q3 ARR target by $300K (12% gap)"
+2. **Own the cause** — "Primary driver was longer-than-expected sales cycle in enterprise segment"
+3. **Show you understand it** — "We analyzed 8 lost/stalled deals; the pattern is X"
+4. **Present the fix** — "We've made 3 changes: [specific, dated changes]"
+5. **Update the forecast** — "Revised Q4 target is $2.6M; here's the bottom-up build"
+
+**What NOT to do:**
+- Don't lead with good news to soften bad news — boards notice and distrust the framing
+- Don't explain without owning — "market conditions" is not a cause, it's a context
+- Don't present a fix without data behind it
+- Don't show a revised forecast without showing your assumptions
+
+---
+
+## Common Board Deck Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Too many slides (>25) | Cut ruthlessly — if you can't explain it in the room, the slide is wrong |
+| Metrics without targets | Every metric needs a target and a status |
+| No narrative | Data without story forces boards to draw their own conclusions |
+| Burying bad news | Lead with it, own it, fix it |
+| Vague asks | Specific, actionable, person-assigned asks only |
+| No variance explanation | Every gap from target needs one-sentence cause |
+| Stale appendix | Appendix is only useful if it's current |
+| Designing for the reader, not the room | Decks are presented — they must work spoken aloud |
+
+---
+
+## Cadence Notes
+
+**Quarterly (standard):** Full deck, all sections, 20-30 slides. Sent 48 hours in advance.
+**Monthly (for early-stage):** Condensed — metrics dashboard, financials, pipeline, top risks. 8-12 slides.
+**Fundraising:** Opens with market/vision, closes with ask. See `references/deck-frameworks.md` for Sequoia format.
+
+## References
+- `references/deck-frameworks.md` — SaaS board pack format, Sequoia structure, investor tailoring
+- `templates/board-deck-template.md` — fill-in template for complete board decks

package/org-skills/board-deck-builder/references/deck-frameworks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+# Board Deck Frameworks
+
+## The SaaS Board Pack (Christoph Janz / Point Nine Style)
+
+Point Nine's board pack format became the de facto standard for early-stage SaaS. Core principle: **the numbers tell the story; the narrative explains the numbers.**
+
+### Required Metrics (non-negotiable for SaaS boards)
+- **ARR** (not MRR — boards think annually)
+- **MoM / QoQ growth rate**
+- **NRR (Net Revenue Retention)** — the single most important SaaS metric
+- **Gross margin** — typically 60-80% SaaS; <60% is a flag
+- **CAC payback period** — months to recover customer acquisition cost
+- **Burn multiple** = net burn / net new ARR; <2x is good, >3x is a problem
+- **Runway** — months at current burn
+
+### Point Nine Benchmark Targets (Series A SaaS)
+| Metric | Good | Great | Warning |
+|--------|------|-------|---------|
+| MoM growth | 10-15% | >20% | <7% |
+| NRR | >110% | >130% | <100% |
+| Gross margin | >65% | >75% | <60% |
+| CAC payback | <18 months | <12 months | >24 months |
+| Burn multiple | <2x | <1.5x | >3x |
+| Logo churn | <10%/yr | <5%/yr | >15%/yr |
+
+### SaaS ARR Waterfall (Christoph Janz Format)
+Show this every quarter:
+```
+Starting ARR:        $1,970,000
++ New ARR:           +$480,000   (new logos)
++ Expansion ARR:     +$120,000   (upsells/cross-sells)
+- Churned ARR:       -$90,000    (cancellations)
+- Contraction ARR:   -$35,000    (downgrades)
+= Ending ARR:        $2,445,000
+```
+NRR = (Ending - New) / Starting = ($1,965K) / ($1,970K) = 99.7% ← flag this
+
+---
+
+## Sequoia Board Deck Structure
+
+Sequoia's canonical deck (used for both fundraising and board updates):
+
+1. **Company Purpose** — one sentence, the existential "why"
+2. **The Problem** — pain, size, who has it
+3. **The Solution** — what you do, how it's different
+4. **Why Now** — market timing, tailwinds, enabling factors
+5. **Market Size** — TAM/SAM/SOM with methodology
+6. **Business Model** — how you make money
+7. **Traction** — proof it's working (growth, retention, logos)
+8. **Team** — why you're the ones to win this
+9. **Financials** — 3-year model, current metrics
+10. **The Ask** — amount, use of funds, milestones to next round
+
+**For ongoing board updates:** Swap 1-5 (context) for "State of the Business" and "Last Quarter vs Plan." Boards know the company — skip the pitch.
+
+---
+
+## Investor-Specific Tailoring
+
+### What Different Investor Types Care About
+
+**Early-stage VCs (Seed, A):**
+- Growth rate above all else
+- NRR — "does the product retain?"
+- Founder-market fit narrative
+- Milestone achievement vs last board meeting
+
+**Growth-stage VCs (B, C):**
+- Capital efficiency (burn multiple, CAC payback)
+- GTM repeatability — can you hire 10 AEs and have it work?
+- Market leadership signals
+- Path to profitability (even if years away)
+
+**Strategic investors:**
+- Synergies with their portfolio/business
+- Technology differentiation
+- Partnership potential
+
+**Angels:**
+- Team above all
+- Personal conviction in the thesis
+- Exit scenarios
+
+### Tailoring the Narrative
+- If you're ahead of plan: "Here's why, and here's how we'll sustain it"
+- If you're behind plan: "Here's why, here's what we've learned, here's the new plan"
+- If the plan was wrong: "The assumption that was wrong, what we know now, updated thesis"
+
+Never pretend the plan was right when it wasn't. Board members have memories and models.
+
+---
+
+## How to Present Bad News
+
+Boards have seen everything. What loses credibility isn't bad results — it's bad framing.
+
+### The Credibility Formula
+1. **Lead with the headline** — "We missed ARR target by 18%"
+2. **Quantify the gap** — absolute and percentage
+3. **Diagnose the cause** (one primary, max two secondary)
+4. **Show your work** — "We analyzed 12 churned/stalled deals and found..."
+5. **Present the fix** — specific, dated, owned by a name
+6. **Update the forecast** — bottom-up rebuild, not wishful thinking
+7. **Flag the risk** — "If X doesn't close, here's the contingency"
+
+### What "Showing Your Work" Looks Like
+Bad: "Sales cycle was longer than expected."
+Good: "Sales cycle stretched from 45 to 72 days. Root cause: new legal review requirement at enterprise accounts, triggered by our SOC 2 Type II gap. Fix: SOC 2 audit underway (target: Dec 15), and we've pre-built contract language to accelerate review. Impact: estimated 3 stalled deals ($420K ARR) unblock in Q4."
+
+### Scenarios and How to Handle Each
+| Scenario | Frame |
+|----------|-------|
+| Missed revenue target | Lead with it; diagnose cause; bottom-up revised forecast |
+| Key customer churned | Announce it; explain why; show retention analysis of remaining accounts |
+| Key exec left | Announce it; show succession/coverage plan; don't overpromise the replacement timeline |
+| Burn accelerated | Show P&L detail; explain what drove it; adjust runway projection; plan to fix |
+| Market headwinds | Acknowledge; show relative performance vs peers; pivot if needed |
+| Fundraise delayed | Runway impact; bridge options; revised timeline |
+
+---
+
+## Appendix Data That Boards Actually Use
+
+Boards use the appendix for due diligence, not during the meeting. Include:
+
+**Financial:**
+- Full P&L (monthly for last 4 quarters)
+- Cash flow statement
+- 3-year model with assumptions
+- Unit economics by cohort
+
+**Revenue:**
+- Customer list by ARR (anonymized or full, per board agreement)
+- Pipeline detail by deal
+- Cohort analysis (NRR by cohort vintage)
+- Churn analysis: when, why, segment
+
+**Product:**
+- Feature adoption rates
+- NPS score distribution and trend
+- DAU/MAU by segment
+
+**Team:**
+- Org chart
+- Full headcount list with fully loaded costs
+- Open reqs with priority ranking
+
+**One rule:** If the appendix is more than 20 slides, you have too much. Boards won't read it.
+
+---
+
+## Quarterly vs Monthly Board Meetings
+
+### Quarterly (Series A+)
+- Full board pack, all sections
+- 2 hours: 30 min pre-read, 90 min discussion
+- Voting items at end
+- Sent 48 hours before (72 hours preferred)
+- Add 1-2 "deep dive" topics beyond standard update
+
+### Monthly (Seed / High-Growth A)
+- Metrics dashboard + financials + top risks only
+- 45-60 minutes
+- Informal tone, more conversational
+- Sent 24 hours before
+- Skip slides for items where nothing changed
+
+### When to Increase Frequency
+- Approaching 6-month runway
+- Major strategic pivot
+- Fundraise in progress
+- Significant underperformance vs plan
+- M&A discussions
+
+---
+
+## Meeting Logistics (Often Overlooked)
+
+- **Pre-read requirement:** Board packs should be read before the meeting. If you're presenting slides, you're wasting time.
+- **Discussion format:** "I'll be brief on X since you've read it. Want to spend time on Y?" — respect board members' time
+- **One note-taker:** CEO's EA or COO; not the CEO (they need to be present)
+- **Follow-up within 24 hours:** Action items, voting outcomes, next meeting date
+- **Board portal vs email:** Use a board portal (Carta, Boardable, Notion) for version control and D&O protection