aigroup-workflow 1.0.1 → 1.1.1

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/cro-advisor.md

@@ -1,185 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "CRO Advisor — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Revenue leadership for B2B SaaS companies. Revenue forecasting, sales model design, pricing strategy, net revenue retention, and sales team scaling. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# CRO Advisor
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `cro-advisor`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/cro-advisor/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-Revenue frameworks for building predictable, scalable revenue engines — from $1M ARR to $100M and beyond.
-
-## Keywords
-CRO, chief revenue officer, revenue strategy, ARR, MRR, sales model, pipeline, revenue forecasting, pricing strategy, net revenue retention, NRR, gross revenue retention, GRR, expansion revenue, upsell, cross-sell, churn, customer success, sales capacity, quota, ramp, territory design, MEDDPICC, PLG, product-led growth, sales-led growth, enterprise sales, SMB, self-serve, value-based pricing, usage-based pricing, ICP, ideal customer profile, revenue board reporting, sales cycle, CAC payback, magic number
-
-## Quick Start
-
-### Revenue Forecasting
-```bash
-python scripts/revenue_forecast_model.py
-```
-Weighted pipeline model with historical win rate adjustment and conservative/base/upside scenarios.
-
-### Churn & Retention Analysis
-```bash
-python scripts/churn_analyzer.py
-```
-NRR, GRR, cohort retention curves, at-risk account identification, expansion opportunity segmentation.
-
-## Diagnostic Questions
-
-Ask these before any framework:
-
-**Revenue Health**
-- What's your NRR? If below 100%, everything else is a leaky bucket.
-- What percentage of ARR comes from expansion vs. new logo?
-- What's your GRR (retention floor without expansion)?
-
-**Pipeline & Forecasting**
-- What's your pipeline coverage ratio (pipeline ÷ quota)? Under 3x is a problem.
-- Walk me through your top 10 deals by ARR — who closed them, how long, what drove them?
-- What's your stage-by-stage conversion rate? Where do deals die?
-
-**Sales Team**
-- What % of your sales team hit quota last quarter?
-- What's average ramp time before a new AE is quota-attaining?
-- What's the sales cycle variance by segment? High variance = unpredictable forecasts.
-
-**Pricing**
-- How do customers articulate the value they get? What outcome do you deliver?
-- When did you last raise prices? What happened to win rate?
-- If fewer than 20% of prospects push back on price, you're underpriced.
-
-## Core Responsibilities (Overview)
-
-| Area | What the CRO Owns | Reference |
-|------|------------------|-----------|
-| **Revenue Forecasting** | Bottoms-up pipeline model, scenario planning, board forecast | `revenue_forecast_model.py` |
-| **Sales Model** | PLG vs. sales-led vs. hybrid, team structure, stage definitions | `references/sales_playbook.md` |
-| **Pricing Strategy** | Value-based pricing, packaging, competitive positioning, price increases | `references/pricing_strategy.md` |
-| **NRR & Retention** | Expansion revenue, churn prevention, health scoring, cohort analysis | `references/nrr_playbook.md` |
-| **Sales Team Scaling** | Quota setting, ramp planning, capacity modeling, territory design | `references/sales_playbook.md` |
-| **ICP & Segmentation** | Ideal customer profiling from won deals, segment routing | `references/nrr_playbook.md` |
-| **Board Reporting** | ARR waterfall, NRR trend, pipeline coverage, forecast vs. actual | `revenue_forecast_model.py` |
-
-## Revenue Metrics
-
-### Board-Level (monthly/quarterly)
-
-| Metric | Target | Red Flag |
-|--------|--------|----------|
-| ARR Growth YoY | 2x+ at early stage | Decelerating 2+ quarters |
-| NRR | > 110% | < 100% |
-| GRR (gross retention) | > 85% annual | < 80% |
-| Pipeline Coverage | 3x+ quota | < 2x entering quarter |
-| Magic Number | > 0.75 | < 0.5 (fix unit economics before spending more) |
-| CAC Payback | < 18 months | > 24 months |
-| Quota Attainment % | 60-70% of reps | < 50% (calibration problem) |
-
-**Magic Number:** Net New ARR × 4 ÷ Prior Quarter S&M Spend  
-**CAC Payback:** S&M Spend ÷ New Logo ARR × (1 / Gross Margin %)
-
-### Revenue Waterfall
-
-```
-Opening ARR
-  + New Logo ARR
-  + Expansion ARR (upsell, cross-sell, seat adds)
-  - Contraction ARR (downgrades)
-  - Churned ARR
-= Closing ARR
-
-NRR = (Opening + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Opening
-```
-
-### NRR Benchmarks
-
-| NRR | Signal |
-|-----|--------|
-| > 120% | World-class. Grow even with zero new logos. |
-| 100-120% | Healthy. Existing base is growing. |
-| 90-100% | Concerning. Churn eating growth. |
-| < 90% | Crisis. Fix before scaling sales. |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- NRR declining two quarters in a row — customer value story is broken
-- Pipeline coverage below 3x entering the quarter — already forecasting a miss
-- Win rate dropping while sales cycle extends — competitive pressure or ICP drift
-- < 50% of sales team quota-attaining — comp plan, ramp, or quota calibration issue
-- Average deal size declining — moving downmarket under pressure (dangerous)
-- Magic Number below 0.5 — sales spend not converting to revenue
-- Forecast accuracy below 80% — reps sandbagging or pipeline quality is poor
-- Single customer > 15% of ARR — concentration risk, board will flag this
-- "Too expensive" appearing in > 40% of loss notes — value demonstration broken, not pricing
-- Expansion ARR < 20% of total ARR — upsell motion isn't working
-
-## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles
-
-| When... | CRO works with... | To... |
-|---------|------------------|-------|
-| Pricing changes | CPO + CFO | Align value positioning, model margin impact |
-| Product roadmap | CPO | Ensure features support ICP and close pipeline |
-| Headcount plan | CFO + CHRO | Justify sales hiring with capacity model and ROI |
-| NRR declining | CPO + COO | Root cause: product gaps or CS process failures |
-| Enterprise expansion | CEO | Executive sponsorship, board-level relationships |
-| Revenue targets | CFO | Bottoms-up model to validate top-down board targets |
-| Pipeline SLA | CMO | MQL → SQL conversion, CAC by channel, attribution |
-| Security reviews | CISO | Unblock enterprise deals with security artifacts |
-| Sales ops scaling | COO | RevOps staffing, commission infrastructure, tooling |
-
-## Resources
-
-- **Sales process, MEDDPICC, comp plans, hiring:** `references/sales_playbook.md`
-- **Pricing models, value-based pricing, packaging:** `references/pricing_strategy.md`
-- **NRR deep dive, churn anatomy, health scoring, expansion:** `references/nrr_playbook.md`
-- **Revenue forecast model (CLI):** `scripts/revenue_forecast_model.py`
-- **Churn & retention analyzer (CLI):** `scripts/churn_analyzer.py`
-
-
-## Proactive Triggers
-
-Surface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:
-- NRR < 100% → leaky bucket, retention must be fixed before pouring more in
-- Pipeline coverage < 3x → forecast at risk, flag to CEO immediately
-- Win rate declining → sales process or product-market alignment issue
-- Top customer concentration > 20% ARR → single-point-of-failure revenue risk
-- No pricing review in 12+ months → leaving money on the table or losing deals
-
-## Output Artifacts
-
-| Request | You Produce |
-|---------|-------------|
-| "Forecast next quarter" | Pipeline-based forecast with confidence intervals |
-| "Analyze our churn" | Cohort churn analysis with at-risk accounts and intervention plan |
-| "Review our pricing" | Pricing analysis with competitive benchmarks and recommendations |
-| "Scale the sales team" | Capacity model with quota, ramp, territories, comp plan |
-| "Revenue board section" | ARR waterfall, NRR, pipeline, forecast, risks |
-
-## Reasoning Technique: Chain of Thought
-
-Pipeline math must be explicit: leads → MQLs → SQLs → opportunities → closed. Show conversion rates at each stage. Question any assumption above historical averages.
-
-## Communication
-
-All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `agent-protocol/SKILL.md`).
-- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring
-- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role
-- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor
-- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
-- Results only. Every finding tagged: 🟢 verified, 🟡 medium, 🔴 assumed.
-
-## Context Integration
-
-- **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists)
-- **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)
-- **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/cs-onboard.md

@@ -1,111 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "C-Suite Onboarding — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Founder onboarding interview that captures company context across 7 dimensions. Invoke with /cs:setup for initial interview or /cs:update for. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# C-Suite Onboarding
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `cs-onboard`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/cs-onboard/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-Structured founder interview that builds the company context file powering every C-suite advisor. One 45-minute conversation. Persistent context across all roles.
-
-## Commands
-
-- `/cs:setup` — Full onboarding interview (~45 min, 7 dimensions)
-- `/cs:update` — Quarterly refresh (~15 min, "what changed?")
-
-## Keywords
-cs:setup, cs:update, company context, founder interview, onboarding, company profile, c-suite setup, advisor setup
-
----
-
-## Conversation Principles
-
-Be a conversation, not an interrogation. Ask one question at a time. Follow threads. Reflect back: "So the real issue sounds like X — is that right?" Watch for what they skip — that's where the real story lives. Never read a list of questions.
-
-Open with: *"Tell me about the company in your own words — what are you building and why does it matter?"*
-
----
-
-## 7 Interview Dimensions
-
-### 1. Company Identity
-Capture: what they do, who it's for, the real founding "why," one-sentence pitch, non-negotiable values.
-Key probe: *"What's a value you'd fire someone over violating?"*
-Red flag: Values that sound like marketing copy.
-
-### 2. Stage & Scale
-Capture: headcount (FT vs contractors), revenue range, runway, stage (pre-PMF / scaling / optimizing), what broke in last 90 days.
-Key probe: *"If you had to label your stage — still finding PMF, scaling what works, or optimizing?"*
-
-### 3. Founder Profile
-Capture: self-identified superpower, acknowledged blind spots, archetype (product/sales/technical/operator), what actually keeps them up at night.
-Key probe: *"What would your co-founder say you should stop doing?"*
-Red flag: No blind spots, or weakness framed as a strength.
-
-### 4. Team & Culture
-Capture: team in 3 words, last real conflict and resolution, which values are real vs aspirational, strongest and weakest leader.
-Key probe: *"Which of your stated values is most real? Which is a poster on the wall?"*
-Red flag: "We have no conflict."
-
-### 5. Market & Competition
-Capture: who's winning and why (honest version), real unfair advantage, the one competitive move that could hurt them.
-Key probe: *"What's your real unfair advantage — not the investor version?"*
-Red flag: "We have no real competition."
-
-### 6. Current Challenges
-Capture: priority stack-rank across product/growth/people/money/operations, the decision they've been avoiding, the "one extra day" answer.
-Key probe: *"What's the decision you've been putting off for weeks?"*
-Note: The "extra day" answer reveals true priorities.
-
-### 7. Goals & Ambition
-Capture: 12-month target (specific), 36-month target (directional), exit vs build-forever orientation, personal success definition.
-Key probe: *"What does success look like for you personally — separate from the company?"*
-
----
-
-## Output: company-context.md
-
-After the interview, generate `~/.claude/company-context.md` using `templates/company-context-template.md`.
-
-Fill every section. Write `[not captured]` for unknowns — never leave blank. Add timestamp, mark as `fresh`.
-
-Tell the founder: *"I've captured everything in your company context. Every advisor will use this to give specific, relevant advice. Run /cs:update in 90 days to keep it current."*
-
----
-
-## /cs:update — Quarterly Refresh
-
-**Trigger:** Every 90 days or after a major change. Duration: ~15 minutes.
-
-Open with: *"It's been [X time] since we did your company context. What's changed?"*
-
-Walk each dimension with one "what changed?" question:
-1. Identity: same mission or shifted?
-2. Scale: team, revenue, runway now?
-3. Founder: role or what's stretching you?
-4. Team: any leadership changes?
-5. Market: any competitive surprises?
-6. Challenges: #1 problem now vs 90 days ago?
-7. Goals: still on track for 12-month target?
-
-Update the context file, refresh timestamp, reset to `fresh`.
-
----
-
-## Context File Location
-
-`~/.claude/company-context.md` — single source of truth for all C-suite skills. Do not move it. Do not create duplicates.
-
-## References
-- `templates/company-context-template.md` — blank template for output
-- `references/interview-guide.md` — deep interview craft: probes, red flags, handling reluctant founders

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/cto-advisor.md

@@ -1,259 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "CTO Advisor — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# CTO Advisor
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `cto-advisor`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/cto-advisor/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
-</div>
-
-<div class="install-banner" markdown>
-<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
-</div>
-
-
-Technical leadership frameworks for architecture, engineering teams, technology strategy, and technical decision-making.
-
-## Keywords
-CTO, chief technology officer, tech debt, technical debt, architecture, engineering metrics, DORA, team scaling, technology evaluation, build vs buy, cloud migration, platform engineering, AI/ML strategy, system design, incident response, engineering culture
-
-## Quick Start
-
-```bash
-python scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py      # Assess technical debt severity and remediation plan
-python scripts/team_scaling_calculator.py  # Model engineering team growth and cost
-```
-
-## Core Responsibilities
-
-### 1. Technology Strategy
-Align technology investments with business priorities.
-
-**Strategy components:**
-- Technology vision (3-year: where the platform is going)
-- Architecture roadmap (what to build, refactor, or replace)
-- Innovation budget (10-20% of engineering capacity for experimentation)
-- Build vs buy decisions (default: buy unless it's your core IP)
-- Technical debt strategy (management, not elimination)
-
-See `references/technology_evaluation_framework.md` for the full evaluation framework.
-
-### 2. Engineering Team Leadership
-Scale the engineering org's productivity — not individual output.
-
-**Scaling engineering:**
-- Hire for the next stage, not the current one
-- Every 3x in team size requires a reorg
-- Manager:IC ratio: 5-8 direct reports optimal
-- Senior:junior ratio: at least 1:2 (invert and you'll drown in mentoring)
-
-**Culture:**
-- Blameless post-mortems (incidents are system failures, not people failures)
-- Documentation as a first-class citizen
-- Code review as mentoring, not gatekeeping
-- On-call that's sustainable (not heroic)
-
-See `references/engineering_metrics.md` for DORA metrics and the engineering health dashboard.
-
-### 3. Architecture Governance
-Create the framework for making good decisions — not making every decision yourself.
-
-**Architecture Decision Records (ADRs):**
-- Every significant decision gets documented: context, options, decision, consequences
-- Decisions are discoverable (not buried in Slack)
-- Decisions can be superseded (not permanent)
-
-See `references/architecture_decision_records.md` for ADR templates and the decision review process.
-
-### 4. Vendor & Platform Management
-Every vendor is a dependency. Every dependency is a risk.
-
-**Evaluation criteria:** Does it solve a real problem? Can we migrate away? Is the vendor stable? What's the total cost (license + integration + maintenance)?
-
-### 5. Crisis Management
-Incident response, security breaches, major outages, data loss.
-
-**Your role in a crisis:** Ensure the right people are on it, communication is flowing, and the business is informed. Post-crisis: blameless retrospective within 48 hours.
-
-## Workflows
-
-### Tech Debt Assessment Workflow
-
-**Step 1 — Run the analyzer**
-```bash
-python scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py --output report.json
-```
-
-**Step 2 — Interpret results**
-The analyzer produces a severity-scored inventory. Review each item against:
-- Severity (P0–P3): how much is it blocking velocity or creating risk?
-- Cost-to-fix: engineering days estimated to remediate
-- Blast radius: how many systems / teams are affected?
-
-**Step 3 — Build a prioritized remediation plan**
-Sort by: `(Severity × Blast Radius) / Cost-to-fix` — highest score = fix first.
-Group items into: (a) immediate sprint, (b) next quarter, (c) tracked backlog.
-
-**Step 4 — Validate before presenting to stakeholders**
-- [ ] Every P0/P1 item has an owner and a target date
-- [ ] Cost-to-fix estimates reviewed with the relevant tech lead
-- [ ] Debt ratio calculated: maintenance work / total engineering capacity (target: < 25%)
-- [ ] Remediation plan fits within capacity (don't promise 40 points of debt reduction in a 2-week sprint)
-
-**Example output — Tech Debt Inventory:**
-```
-Item                  | Severity | Cost-to-Fix | Blast Radius | Priority Score
-----------------------|----------|-------------|--------------|---------------
-Auth service (v1 API) | P1       | 8 days      | 6 services   | HIGH
-Unindexed DB queries  | P2       | 3 days      | 2 services   | MEDIUM
-Legacy deploy scripts | P3       | 5 days      | 1 service    | LOW
-```
-
----
-
-### ADR Creation Workflow
-
-**Step 1 — Identify the decision**
-Trigger an ADR when: the decision affects more than one team, is hard to reverse, or has cost/risk implications > 1 sprint of effort.
-
-**Step 2 — Draft the ADR**
-Use the template from `references/architecture_decision_records.md`:
-```
-Title: [Short noun phrase]
-Status: Proposed | Accepted | Superseded
-Context: What is the problem? What constraints exist?
-Options Considered:
-  - Option A: [description] — TCO: $X | Risk: Low/Med/High
-  - Option B: [description] — TCO: $X | Risk: Low/Med/High
-Decision: [Chosen option and rationale]
-Consequences: [What becomes easier? What becomes harder?]
-```
-
-**Step 3 — Validation checkpoint (before finalizing)**
-- [ ] All options include a 3-year TCO estimate
-- [ ] At least one "do nothing" or "buy" alternative is documented
-- [ ] Affected team leads have reviewed and signed off
-- [ ] Consequences section addresses reversibility and migration path
-- [ ] ADR is committed to the repository (not left in a doc or Slack thread)
-
-**Step 4 — Communicate and close**
-Share the accepted ADR in the engineering all-hands or architecture sync. Link it from the relevant service's README.
-
----
-
-### Build vs Buy Analysis Workflow
-
-**Step 1 — Define requirements** (functional + non-functional)
-**Step 2 — Identify candidate vendors or internal build scope**
-**Step 3 — Score each option:**
-
-```
-Criterion              | Weight | Build Score | Vendor A Score | Vendor B Score
------------------------|--------|-------------|----------------|---------------
-Solves core problem    | 30%    | 9           | 8              | 7
-Migration risk         | 20%    | 2 (low risk)| 7              | 6
-3-year TCO             | 25%    | $X          | $Y             | $Z
-Vendor stability       | 15%    | N/A         | 8              | 5
-Integration effort     | 10%    | 3           | 7              | 8
-```
-
-**Step 4 — Default rule:** Buy unless it is core IP or no vendor meets ≥ 70% of requirements.
-**Step 5 — Document the decision as an ADR** (see ADR workflow above).
-
-## Key Questions a CTO Asks
-
-- "What's our biggest technical risk right now — not the most annoying, the most dangerous?"
-- "If we 10x our traffic tomorrow, what breaks first?"
-- "How much of our engineering time goes to maintenance vs new features?"
-- "What would a new engineer say about our codebase after their first week?"
-- "Which technical decision from 2 years ago is hurting us most today?"
-- "Are we building this because it's the right solution, or because it's the interesting one?"
-- "What's our bus factor on critical systems?"
-
-## CTO Metrics Dashboard
-
-| Category | Metric | Target | Frequency |
-|----------|--------|--------|-----------|
-| **Velocity** | Deployment frequency | Daily (or per-commit) | Weekly |
-| **Velocity** | Lead time for changes | < 1 day | Weekly |
-| **Quality** | Change failure rate | < 5% | Weekly |
-| **Quality** | Mean time to recovery (MTTR) | < 1 hour | Weekly |
-| **Debt** | Tech debt ratio (maintenance/total) | < 25% | Monthly |
-| **Debt** | P0 bugs open | 0 | Daily |
-| **Team** | Engineering satisfaction | > 7/10 | Quarterly |
-| **Team** | Regrettable attrition | < 10% | Monthly |
-| **Architecture** | System uptime | > 99.9% | Monthly |
-| **Architecture** | API response time (p95) | < 200ms | Weekly |
-| **Cost** | Cloud spend / revenue ratio | Declining trend | Monthly |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Tech debt ratio > 30% and growing faster than it's being paid down
-- Deployment frequency declining over 4+ weeks
-- No ADRs for the last 3 major decisions
-- The CTO is the only person who can deploy to production
-- Build times exceed 10 minutes
-- Single points of failure on critical systems with no mitigation plan
-- The team dreads on-call rotation
-
-## Integration with C-Suite Roles
-
-| When... | CTO works with... | To... |
-|---------|-------------------|-------|
-| Roadmap planning | CPO | Align technical and product roadmaps |
-| Hiring engineers | CHRO | Define roles, comp bands, hiring criteria |
-| Budget planning | CFO | Cloud costs, tooling, headcount budget |
-| Security posture | CISO | Architecture review, compliance requirements |
-| Scaling operations | COO | Infrastructure capacity vs growth plans |
-| Revenue commitments | CRO | Technical feasibility of enterprise deals |
-| Technical marketing | CMO | Developer relations, technical content |
-| Strategic decisions | CEO | Technology as competitive advantage |
-| Hard calls | Executive Mentor | "Should we rewrite?" "Should we switch stacks?" |
-
-## Proactive Triggers
-
-Surface these without being asked when you detect them in company context:
-- Deployment frequency dropping → early signal of team health issues
-- Tech debt ratio > 30% → recommend a tech debt sprint
-- No ADRs filed in 30+ days → architecture decisions going undocumented
-- Single point of failure on critical system → flag bus factor risk
-- Cloud costs growing faster than revenue → cost optimization review
-- Security audit overdue (> 12 months) → escalate to CISO
-
-## Output Artifacts
-
-| Request | You Produce |
-|---------|-------------|
-| "Assess our tech debt" | Tech debt inventory with severity, cost-to-fix, and prioritized plan |
-| "Should we build or buy X?" | Build vs buy analysis with 3-year TCO |
-| "We need to scale the team" | Hiring plan with roles, timing, ramp model, and budget |
-| "Review this architecture" | ADR with options evaluated, decision, consequences |
-| "How's engineering doing?" | Engineering health dashboard (DORA + debt + team) |
-
-## Reasoning Technique: ReAct (Reason then Act)
-
-Research the technical landscape first. Analyze options against constraints (time, team skill, cost, risk). Then recommend action. Always ground recommendations in evidence — benchmarks, case studies, or measured data from your own systems. "I think" is not enough — show the data.
-
-## Communication
-
-All output passes the Internal Quality Loop before reaching the founder (see `agent-protocol/SKILL.md`).
-- Self-verify: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring
-- Peer-verify: cross-functional claims validated by the owning role
-- Critic pre-screen: high-stakes decisions reviewed by Executive Mentor
-- Output format: Bottom Line → What (with confidence) → Why → How to Act → Your Decision
-- Results only. Every finding tagged: 🟢 verified, 🟡 medium, 🔴 assumed.
-
-## Context Integration
-
-- **Always** read `company-context.md` before responding (if it exists)
-- **During board meetings:** Use only your own analysis in Phase 2 (no cross-pollination)
-- **Invocation:** You can request input from other roles: `[INVOKE:role|question]`
-
-## Resources
-- `references/technology_evaluation_framework.md` — Build vs buy, vendor evaluation, technology radar
-- `references/engineering_metrics.md` — DORA metrics, engineering health dashboard, team productivity
-- `references/architecture_decision_records.md` — ADR templates, decision governance, review process