agentic-team-templates 0.8.2 → 0.9.0

package/templates/product-manager/.cursorrules/metrics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
+# Product Metrics
+
+Guidelines for defining, tracking, and acting on product metrics.
+
+## Metrics Hierarchy
+
+### North Star Metric
+
+The single metric that best captures the core value your product delivers to customers.
+
+```text
+North Star Metric
+├── Input Metrics (leading indicators you can influence)
+│   ├── Activation rate
+│   ├── Feature adoption
+│   └── Engagement frequency
+└── Output Metrics (lagging indicators that result)
+    ├── Retention
+    ├── Revenue
+    └── Customer satisfaction
+```
+
+### Examples by Business Model
+
+| Model | North Star | Input Metrics |
+|-------|------------|---------------|
+| SaaS | Weekly Active Users | Activation, Feature Adoption |
+| Marketplace | Transactions | Listings, Buyer Visits |
+| E-commerce | Revenue | Traffic, Conversion, AOV |
+| Consumer App | Daily Active Users | Session Length, Features Used |
+| B2B Platform | Active Accounts | Users per Account, API Calls |
+
+## OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)
+
+### Structure
+
+```text
+Objective: [Qualitative, inspiring, time-bound]
+├── KR1: [Metric] - Baseline: X → Target: Y
+├── KR2: [Metric] - Baseline: X → Target: Y
+└── KR3: [Metric] - Baseline: X → Target: Y
+```
+
+### OKR Best Practices
+
+| Practice | Rationale |
+|----------|-----------|
+| 3-5 Objectives per quarter | Focus enables execution |
+| 2-4 Key Results per Objective | Measurable, not task lists |
+| 70% achievement = success | Stretch goals drive innovation |
+| Outcomes, not outputs | "Reduce churn to 5%" not "Launch retention feature" |
+| Weekly check-ins | Track progress, identify blockers early |
+
+### OKR Examples
+
+**Good:**
+```text
+Objective: Become the preferred tool for enterprise teams
+
+KR1: Increase enterprise NPS from 32 to 50
+KR2: Reduce time-to-first-value from 14 days to 3 days
+KR3: Grow enterprise accounts from 50 to 150
+```
+
+**Bad:**
+```text
+Objective: Build enterprise features
+
+KR1: Launch SSO
+KR2: Build admin dashboard
+KR3: Create 10 case studies
+```
+(These are outputs/tasks, not measurable outcomes)
+
+### OKR Scoring
+
+| Score | Interpretation |
+|-------|----------------|
+| 0.0-0.3 | Failed to make progress |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Made progress but fell short |
+| 0.7-0.9 | Hit our stretch goal |
+| 1.0 | Achieved everything (goal may have been too easy) |
+
+## Pirate Metrics (AARRR)
+
+### Framework
+
+| Stage | Question | Example Metrics |
+|-------|----------|-----------------|
+| **A**cquisition | How do users find us? | Traffic, CAC, Channel Performance |
+| **A**ctivation | Do users have a great first experience? | Signup Rate, Onboarding Completion |
+| **R**etention | Do users come back? | D1/D7/D30 Retention, Churn Rate |
+| **R**evenue | How do we make money? | ARPU, LTV, Conversion to Paid |
+| **R**eferral | Do users tell others? | NPS, Viral Coefficient, Referrals |
+
+### Funnel Analysis
+
+```text
+Visitors    →  Signups    →  Activated  →  Retained   →  Paid
+100,000        10,000         6,000         4,000         1,000
+         10%          60%          67%           25%
+```
+
+### Identifying Funnel Problems
+
+| Pattern | Diagnosis | Focus Area |
+|---------|-----------|------------|
+| Low visitor-to-signup | Messaging/positioning issue | Acquisition |
+| Low signup-to-activated | Onboarding friction | Activation |
+| Low activated-to-retained | Core value not delivered | Product/Value |
+| Low retained-to-paid | Pricing or value perception | Monetization |
+
+## Metric Definitions
+
+### Retention Metrics
+
+| Metric | Formula | Use Case |
+|--------|---------|----------|
+| D1 Retention | Users active on Day 1 / New users | Early activation signal |
+| D7 Retention | Users active on Day 7 / New users | Short-term retention |
+| D30 Retention | Users active on Day 30 / New users | Medium-term retention |
+| Weekly Retention | Users active this week / Users active last week | Cohort health |
+| Logo Churn | Accounts lost / Total accounts | B2B health |
+| Revenue Churn | MRR lost / Total MRR | Revenue health |
+| Net Revenue Retention | (Start MRR + Expansion - Churn) / Start MRR | Growth efficiency |
+
+### Engagement Metrics
+
+| Metric | Formula | Use Case |
+|--------|---------|----------|
+| DAU/MAU | Daily Active / Monthly Active | Stickiness |
+| Session Length | Time in app per session | Depth of engagement |
+| Sessions per Day | Sessions / DAU | Frequency |
+| Feature Adoption | Users using feature / Total users | Feature success |
+| Time to Value | Time from signup to "aha moment" | Onboarding efficiency |
+
+### Revenue Metrics
+
+| Metric | Formula | Use Case |
+|--------|---------|----------|
+| MRR | Monthly recurring revenue | Revenue health |
+| ARR | MRR × 12 | Annual planning |
+| ARPU | Revenue / Users | Revenue efficiency |
+| LTV | ARPU × Average lifetime | Customer value |
+| CAC | Acquisition cost / New customers | Acquisition efficiency |
+| LTV:CAC | LTV / CAC | Unit economics (target: 3:1+) |
+
+## Instrumentation Standards
+
+### Event Naming Convention
+
+```text
+object_action
+
+Examples:
+- user_signed_up
+- feature_used
+- subscription_upgraded
+- report_exported
+```
+
+### Event Properties
+
+```javascript
+analytics.track('feature_used', {
+  // Required
+  feature_name: 'search',
+  timestamp: '2025-01-28T12:00:00Z',
+  
+  // User context
+  user_id: '123',
+  account_id: 'abc',
+  user_role: 'admin',
+  
+  // Session context
+  session_id: 'xyz',
+  platform: 'web',
+  
+  // Feature-specific
+  query: 'product roadmap',
+  results_count: 15,
+  time_to_results_ms: 234
+});
+```
+
+### Standard Events to Track
+
+| Event | When to Fire | Key Properties |
+|-------|--------------|----------------|
+| `user_signed_up` | Registration complete | signup_method, referrer |
+| `user_activated` | Completed activation criteria | time_to_activate |
+| `feature_used` | Core feature interaction | feature_name, context |
+| `upgrade_started` | Began upgrade flow | plan_from, plan_to |
+| `upgrade_completed` | Payment successful | plan, revenue |
+| `support_contacted` | Reached out for help | channel, topic |
+
+## Dashboards
+
+### Executive Dashboard
+
+```text
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ NORTH STAR: Weekly Active Users                         │
+│ ████████████████████████░░░░░░  45,000 / 50,000 (90%)  │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+┌─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┐
+│ Revenue                 │ Retention               │
+│ MRR: $125K (+8%)        │ D30: 42% (+3pp)        │
+│ ARR: $1.5M              │ Churn: 4.2% (-0.5pp)   │
+└─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┘
+
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ OKR Progress                                            │
+│ Q1 Obj 1: ████████░░ 80%                               │
+│ Q1 Obj 2: █████░░░░░ 50%                               │
+│ Q1 Obj 3: ███████░░░ 70%                               │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Product Dashboard
+
+```text
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ Funnel (Last 7 Days)                                    │
+│ Visitors → Signups → Activated → Retained → Paid       │
+│ 100K    →  10K    →   6K      →   4K     → 1K         │
+│          10%       60%         67%        25%          │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+┌─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┐
+│ Feature Adoption        │ Recent Experiments      │
+│ Search: 78%             │ New onboarding: +12%    │
+│ Export: 45%             │ Pricing test: -3%       │
+│ Integrations: 23%       │ Dark mode: neutral      │
+└─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+## Experimentation
+
+### A/B Test Framework
+
+```markdown
+## Experiment: [Name]
+
+### Hypothesis
+If we [change], then [metric] will [improve/decrease] because [reason].
+
+### Metrics
+- Primary: [Metric to optimize]
+- Secondary: [Metrics to monitor]
+- Guardrails: [Metrics that shouldn't regress]
+
+### Variants
+- Control: [Current experience]
+- Treatment: [New experience]
+
+### Sample Size & Duration
+- Minimum detectable effect: [X%]
+- Required sample: [N users per variant]
+- Estimated duration: [X weeks]
+
+### Results
+| Metric | Control | Treatment | Lift | Significance |
+|--------|---------|-----------|------|--------------|
+| Primary | X | Y | +Z% | p < 0.05 |
+
+### Decision
+[Ship / Iterate / Kill] - [Reasoning]
+```
+
+### Statistical Significance
+
+| Confidence Level | When to Use |
+|------------------|-------------|
+| 90% | Exploratory tests, low-risk changes |
+| 95% | Standard product decisions |
+| 99% | High-stakes changes, revenue impact |
+
+### Experiment Anti-Patterns
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Solution |
+|--------------|---------|----------|
+| Peeking | Stopping early inflates false positives | Set duration upfront, stick to it |
+| Multiple testing | Increases false positive rate | Adjust for multiple comparisons |
+| Underpowered | Can't detect real effects | Calculate sample size before starting |
+| Metric gaming | Optimizing wrong behavior | Include guardrail metrics |
+
+## Metric Reviews
+
+### Weekly Metrics Review
+
+```markdown
+## Weekly Metrics Review: [Date]
+
+### North Star
+- Current: [Value]
+- WoW Change: [+/-X%]
+- Status: [On Track / At Risk / Off Track]
+
+### Key Changes
+1. [Metric 1] [increased/decreased] by [X%] because [reason]
+2. [Metric 2] [increased/decreased] by [X%] because [reason]
+
+### Experiments Update
+- [Experiment 1]: [Status] - [Key finding]
+- [Experiment 2]: [Status] - [Key finding]
+
+### Actions
+- [ ] [Action item 1] - Owner: [Name]
+- [ ] [Action item 2] - Owner: [Name]
+```
+
+### Monthly Metrics Deep Dive
+
+- Cohort analysis: How are different user groups performing?
+- Segment analysis: Which segments are growing/shrinking?
+- Feature impact: How did recent launches affect metrics?
+- Competitive benchmarking: How do we compare to industry?

package/templates/product-manager/.cursorrules/overview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# Product Management
+
+Principal-level guidelines for outcome-driven product management.
+
+## Scope
+
+This ruleset applies to:
+
+- Product strategy and vision
+- Customer discovery and research
+- Feature prioritization and roadmapping
+- Requirements documentation (PRDs, user stories)
+- OKRs and product metrics
+- Stakeholder alignment and communication
+- Go-to-market coordination
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+**Products exist to solve customer problems in ways that drive business outcomes.** Every decision should trace back to validated customer needs and measurable business impact.
+
+## Fundamental Principles
+
+### 1. Outcomes Over Outputs
+
+Measure success by customer and business impact, not features shipped.
+
+```markdown
+❌ Wrong: "We shipped 15 features this quarter"
+✅ Right: "We reduced time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days"
+```
+
+### 2. Continuous Discovery
+
+Never stop learning from customers. Minimum one customer conversation per week.
+
+### 3. Evidence-Based Decisions
+
+Use data and research to inform priorities, not HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).
+
+### 4. Cross-Functional Collaboration
+
+Great products emerge from empowered teams of product, engineering, and design working together—not handoffs.
+
+### 5. Strategic Clarity
+
+Every feature connects to a user need, which connects to a product goal, which connects to a company objective.
+
+## Project Structure
+
+```text
+product/
+├── strategy/
+│   ├── vision.md              # Product vision and mission
+│   ├── strategy.md            # 1-2 year strategic plan
+│   └── competitive-analysis.md
+├── discovery/
+│   ├── opportunity-tree.md    # Opportunity solution tree
+│   ├── interviews/            # Customer interview notes
+│   ├── personas/              # User personas
+│   └── research/              # Research findings
+├── roadmap/
+│   ├── roadmap.md             # Current roadmap
+│   ├── okrs.md                # Quarterly OKRs
+│   └── archive/               # Historical roadmaps
+├── requirements/
+│   ├── prds/                  # Product requirements documents
+│   ├── user-stories/          # User story backlog
+│   └── specs/                 # Detailed specifications
+├── analytics/
+│   ├── metrics.md             # Key metrics definitions
+│   ├── dashboards/            # Dashboard configs
+│   └── experiments/           # A/B test documentation
+└── communication/
+    ├── stakeholder-updates/   # Status updates
+    ├── release-notes/         # Customer-facing notes
+    └── presentations/         # Roadmap presentations
+```
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+When evaluating any product decision:
+
+1. **Customer Impact**: Does this solve a validated customer problem?
+2. **Business Alignment**: Does this support company objectives?
+3. **Feasibility**: Can we build this with available resources?
+4. **Evidence**: What data supports this decision?
+5. **Opportunity Cost**: What are we NOT doing if we choose this?
+
+## Communication Standards
+
+- Use data to support assertions
+- Lead with the "why" before the "what"
+- Tailor detail level to audience
+- Document decisions and rationale
+- Share context, not just conclusions

package/templates/product-manager/.cursorrules/prioritization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+# Prioritization
+
+Frameworks and best practices for evidence-based prioritization.
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Prioritization is about making trade-offs explicit.** Every "yes" is an implicit "no" to something else. Use frameworks to make these trade-offs visible and defensible.
+
+## RICE Framework
+
+### Formula
+
+```text
+RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
+```
+
+### Components
+
+| Factor | Description | Measurement |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|
+| **Reach** | Users affected in time period | Number (per quarter) |
+| **Impact** | Effect on each user | Scale: 0.25 - 3 |
+| **Confidence** | Certainty in estimates | Percentage: 50% - 100% |
+| **Effort** | Resources required | Person-months |
+
+### Impact Scale
+
+| Score | Label | Criteria |
+|-------|-------|----------|
+| 3 | Massive | Core workflow, high frequency, users would churn without it |
+| 2 | High | Important workflow, meaningful improvement |
+| 1 | Medium | Nice improvement, noticeable but not critical |
+| 0.5 | Low | Minor improvement, some users benefit |
+| 0.25 | Minimal | Edge case, rarely noticed |
+
+### Confidence Scoring
+
+| Score | Label | Criteria |
+|-------|-------|----------|
+| 100% | High | Validated with data, multiple sources confirm |
+| 80% | Good | Strong signals from research, some data |
+| 60% | Medium | Reasonable assumptions, limited validation |
+| 50% | Low | Gut feel, minimal evidence |
+
+### RICE Scoring Template
+
+```markdown
+## Feature: [Name]
+
+### Reach
+- Time period: [Quarter]
+- Users affected: [Number]
+- Source: [Analytics/Research/Estimate]
+
+### Impact
+- Score: [0.25/0.5/1/2/3]
+- Rationale: [Why this score]
+
+### Confidence
+- Score: [50%/60%/80%/100%]
+- Evidence: [What supports our estimates]
+- Gaps: [What we don't know]
+
+### Effort
+- Estimate: [Person-months]
+- Breakdown: [Engineering X, Design Y, QA Z]
+
+### RICE Score
+[Reach] × [Impact] × [Confidence] / [Effort] = [Score]
+```
+
+### Example RICE Comparison
+
+| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE |
+|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------|
+| Search improvements | 50,000 | 2 | 80% | 3 | 26,667 |
+| New dashboard | 10,000 | 2 | 60% | 4 | 3,000 |
+| Export to CSV | 5,000 | 1 | 100% | 0.5 | 10,000 |
+| Dark mode | 30,000 | 0.5 | 80% | 2 | 6,000 |
+
+**Priority order: Search → Export → Dark Mode → Dashboard**
+
+## Alternative Frameworks
+
+### Value vs. Effort Matrix
+
+```text
+High Value │ Quick Wins    │  Big Bets
+           │ (Do First)    │  (Plan Carefully)
+           │───────────────┼──────────────────
+           │ Fill-Ins      │  Time Sinks
+Low Value  │ (Maybe Later) │  (Avoid)
+           └───────────────┴──────────────────
+              Low Effort      High Effort
+```
+
+### Kano Model
+
+| Category | Definition | Priority |
+|----------|------------|----------|
+| Must-Have | Expected, causes dissatisfaction if missing | High |
+| Performance | More is better, linear satisfaction | Medium-High |
+| Delighters | Unexpected, creates positive surprise | Strategic |
+| Indifferent | Users don't care either way | Low |
+| Reverse | Causes dissatisfaction if present | Remove |
+
+### MoSCoW Method
+
+| Priority | Description | Commitment |
+|----------|-------------|------------|
+| **Must** | Non-negotiable for release | 100% |
+| **Should** | Important but not critical | High effort |
+| **Could** | Nice to have | If time permits |
+| **Won't** | Not this time | Explicitly excluded |
+
+### ICE Scoring
+
+```text
+ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
+```
+
+Simpler than RICE, good for quick prioritization:
+- **Impact**: 1-10 scale
+- **Confidence**: 1-10 scale
+- **Ease**: 1-10 scale (inverse of effort)
+
+## Stakeholder Management
+
+### Handling Prioritization Requests
+
+```markdown
+## Request Triage Framework
+
+1. **Acknowledge**: "I understand this is important. Let me make sure I understand the problem."
+
+2. **Understand**: 
+   - What problem does this solve?
+   - Who is affected?
+   - What's the impact of not doing this?
+   - What's the urgency?
+
+3. **Evaluate**:
+   - Score against current prioritization framework
+   - Compare to existing roadmap items
+   - Identify trade-offs
+
+4. **Respond**:
+   - If high priority: "This scores well. Here's how it compares to current work..."
+   - If low priority: "I understand the need. Here's why other items currently rank higher..."
+   - If unclear: "I need more information to evaluate this properly..."
+
+5. **Document**: Record request, evaluation, and decision
+```
+
+### Saying No Constructively
+
+```markdown
+## Framework for Declining Requests
+
+"I appreciate you bringing this to me. Here's my perspective:
+
+**Acknowledge the need**: I understand that [stakeholder's concern] is important because [reason].
+
+**Explain current priorities**: Right now, we're focused on [current priorities] because [business rationale]. These are expected to deliver [expected outcomes].
+
+**Show the trade-off**: If we were to prioritize [their request], we would need to delay [current work], which would impact [consequences].
+
+**Offer alternatives**:
+- Option A: We could address a smaller version of this in [timeframe]
+- Option B: Here's a workaround that might help in the meantime
+- Option C: Let's revisit this in [timeframe] when [conditions]
+
+**Stay open**: I'm happy to discuss further or reconsider if new information emerges."
+```
+
+### Prioritization Governance
+
+| Decision Type | Who Decides | Input From |
+|---------------|-------------|------------|
+| Quarterly themes | Product Leadership + Executives | All stakeholders |
+| Monthly priorities | Product Manager | Engineering, Design, Stakeholders |
+| Sprint items | Product Trio | Engineering Team |
+| Day-to-day tasks | Engineering Team | Product Manager |
+
+## Special Cases
+
+### When to Override Scores
+
+| Scenario | Action |
+|----------|--------|
+| Security vulnerability | Immediate priority regardless of score |
+| Regulatory compliance | Non-negotiable timeline |
+| Technical debt blocking features | Elevate priority |
+| Strategic partnership requirement | Weigh relationship value |
+| Quick win during downtime | Opportunistic execution |
+
+### Technical Debt Prioritization
+
+Allocate 15-20% of capacity to technical debt. Prioritize by:
+
+1. **Blocking**: Prevents new features
+2. **Slowing**: Significantly increases development time
+3. **Risk**: Security or stability concerns
+4. **Maintainability**: Code that's hard to understand/modify
+
+### Bug Prioritization
+
+| Severity | Criteria | Response |
+|----------|----------|----------|
+| P0 | System down, data loss, security breach | Drop everything |
+| P1 | Major feature broken, many users affected | Fix this sprint |
+| P2 | Feature impaired, workaround exists | Plan for near term |
+| P3 | Minor issue, few users affected | Backlog |
+| P4 | Cosmetic, edge case | If time permits |
+
+## Maintaining Prioritization Health
+
+### Weekly Review
+
+- [ ] Review new requests against backlog
+- [ ] Re-score items with new information
+- [ ] Archive completed/obsolete items
+- [ ] Communicate any changes to stakeholders
+
+### Quarterly Review
+
+- [ ] Reassess all backlog items
+- [ ] Update confidence scores with new data
+- [ ] Align with new company/product OKRs
+- [ ] Archive items that no longer fit strategy
+
+### Common Pitfalls
+
+| Pitfall | Symptom | Solution |
+|---------|---------|----------|
+| Recency bias | Latest request always wins | Use consistent scoring |
+| HiPPO | Exec requests skip the queue | Score all requests equally |
+| Analysis paralysis | Nothing gets prioritized | Set decision deadlines |
+| Stale backlog | Old items never reviewed | Regular backlog grooming |
+| Inconsistent scoring | Different people score differently | Calibration sessions |