aigroup-workflow 1.0.1 → 1.1.1

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

@@ -1,170 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "Culture Architect — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Build, measure, and evolve company culture as operational behavior — not wall posters. Covers mission/vision/values workshops, values-to-behaviors. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# Culture Architect
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `culture-architect`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/culture-architect/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>
-
-
-Culture is what you DO, not what you SAY. This skill builds culture as an operational system — observable behaviors, measurable health, and rituals that scale.
-
-## Keywords
-culture, company culture, values, mission, vision, culture code, cultural rituals, culture health, values-to-behaviors, founder culture, culture debt, value-washing, culture assessment, culture survey, Netflix culture deck, HubSpot culture code, psychological safety, culture scaling
-
-## Core Principle
-
-**Culture = (What you reward) + (What you tolerate) + (What you celebrate)**
-
-If your values say "transparency" but you punish bearers of bad news — your real value is "optics." Culture is not aspirational. It's descriptive. The work is closing the gap between stated and actual.
-
-## Frameworks
-
-### 1. Mission / Vision / Values Workshop
-
-Run this conversationally, not as a corporate offsite. Three questions:
-
-**Mission** — Why do we exist (beyond making money)?
-- "What would be lost if we disappeared tomorrow?"
-- Mission is present-tense. "We reduce preventable falls in elderly care." Not "to be the leading..."
-
-**Vision** — What does winning look like in 5–10 years?
-- Specific enough to be wrong. "Every care home in Europe uses our system" beats "be the market leader."
-
-**Values** — What behaviors do we actually model?
-- Start with what you observe, not what sounds good. "What did our last great hire do that nobody asked them to?"
-- Keep to 3–5. More than 5 and none of them mean anything.
-
-### 2. Values → Behaviors Translation
-
-This is the work. Every value needs behavioral anchors or it's decoration.
-
-| Value | Bad version | Behavioral anchor |
-|-------|------------|-------------------|
-| Transparency | "We're open and honest" | "We share bad news within 24 hours, including to our manager" |
-| Ownership | "We take responsibility" | "We don't hand off problems — we own them until resolved, even across team boundaries" |
-| Speed | "We move fast" | "Decisions under €5K happen at team level, same day, no approval needed" |
-| Quality | "We don't cut corners" | "We stop the line before shipping something we're not proud of" |
-| Customer-first | "Customers are our priority" | "Any team member can escalate a customer issue to leadership, bypassing normal channels" |
-
-**Workshop exercise:** Write your value. Then ask "How would a new hire know we actually live this on day 30?" If you can't answer concretely, it's not a value — it's an aspiration.
-
-### 3. Culture Code Creation
-
-A culture code is a public document that describes how you operate. It should scare off the wrong people and attract the right ones.
-
-**Structure:**
-1. Who we are (mission + context)
-2. Who thrives here (specific behaviors, not adjectives)
-3. Who doesn't thrive here (honest — this is the useful part)
-4. How we make decisions
-5. How we communicate
-6. How we grow people
-7. What we expect of leaders
-
-See `templates/culture-code-template.md` for a complete template.
-
-**Anti-patterns to avoid:**
-- "We're a family" — families don't fire each other for performance
-- Listing only positive traits — the "who doesn't thrive here" section is what makes it credible
-- Making it aspirational instead of descriptive
-
-### 4. Culture Health Assessment
-
-Run quarterly. 8–12 questions. Anonymous. See `references/culture-playbook.md` for survey design.
-
-**Core areas to measure:**
-1. Psychological safety — "Can I raise a concern without fear?"
-2. Clarity — "Do I know how my work connects to company goals?"
-3. Fairness — "Are decisions made consistently and transparently?"
-4. Growth — "Am I learning and being challenged here?"
-5. Trust in leadership — "Do I believe what leadership tells me?"
-
-**Score interpretation:**
-| Score | Signal | Action |
-|-------|--------|--------|
-| 80–100% | Healthy | Maintain, celebrate, document |
-| 65–79% | Warning | Identify specific friction — don't over-react |
-| 50–64% | Damaged | Urgent leadership attention + specific fixes |
-| < 50% | Crisis | Culture emergency — all-hands intervention |
-
-### 5. Cultural Rituals by Stage
-
-Rituals are the delivery mechanism for culture. What works at 10 people breaks at 100.
-
-**Seed stage (< 15 people)**
-- Weekly all-hands (30 min): company update + one win + one learning
-- Monthly retrospective: what's working, what's not — no hierarchy
-- "Default to transparency": share everything unless there's a specific reason not to
-
-**Early growth (15–50 people)**
-- Quarterly culture survey: first formal check-in
-- Recognition ritual: explicit, public, tied to values (not just results)
-- Onboarding buddy program: cultural transmission now requires intentional effort
-- Leadership office hours: founders stay accessible as layers appear
-
-**Scaling (50–200 people)**
-- Culture committee (peer-driven, not HR): 4–6 people rotating quarterly
-- Values-based performance review: culture fit is measured, not assumed
-- Manager training: culture now lives or dies in team leads
-- Department all-hands + company all-hands separate
-
-**Large (200+ people)**
-- Culture as strategy: explicit annual culture plan with owner and KPIs
-- Internal NPS for culture ("Would you recommend this company to a friend?")
-- Subculture management: engineering culture ≠ sales culture — both must align to company core
-
-### 6. Culture Anti-Patterns
-
-**Value-washing:** Listing values you don't practice. Symptom: employees roll their eyes during values discussions.
-- Fix: Run a values audit. Ask "What did the last person who got promoted demonstrate?" If it doesn't match your values, your real values are different.
-
-**Culture debt:** Accumulating cultural compromises over time. "We'll address the toxic star performer later." Later compounds.
-- Fix: Act on culture violations faster than you think necessary. One tolerated bad behavior destroys what ten good behaviors build.
-
-**Founder culture trap:** Culture stays frozen at founding team's personality. New hires assimilate or leave.
-- Fix: Explicitly evolve values as you scale. What worked at 10 people (move fast, ask forgiveness) may be destructive at 100 (we need process).
-
-**Culture by osmosis:** Assuming culture transmits naturally. It did at 10 people. It doesn't at 50.
-- Fix: Make culture intentional. Document it. Teach it. Measure it. Reward it explicitly.
-
-## Culture Integration with C-Suite
-
-| When... | Culture Architect works with... | To... |
-|---------|---------------------------------|-------|
-| Hiring surge | CHRO | Ensure culture fit is measured, not guessed |
-| Org reorg | COO + CEO | Manage culture disruption from structure change |
-| M&A or partnership | CEO + COO | Detect and resolve culture clashes early |
-| Performance issues | CHRO | Separate culture fit from skill deficit |
-| Strategy pivot | CEO | Update values/behaviors that the pivot makes obsolete |
-| Rapid growth | All | Scale rituals before culture dilutes |
-
-## Key Questions a Culture Architect Asks
-
-- "Can you name the last person we fired for culture reasons? What did they do?"
-- "What behavior got your last promoted employee promoted? Is that in your values?"
-- "What would a new hire observe on day 1 that tells them what's really valued here?"
-- "What do we tolerate that we shouldn't? Who knows and does nothing?"
-- "How does a team lead in Berlin know what the culture is in Madrid?"
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Values posted on the wall, never referenced in reviews or decisions
-- Star performers protected from cultural standards
-- Leaders who "don't have time" for culture rituals
-- New hires feeling the culture is "different than advertised"
-- No mechanism to raise cultural concerns safely
-- Culture survey results never shared with the team
-
-## Detailed References
-- `references/culture-playbook.md` — Netflix analysis, survey design, ritual examples, M&A playbook
-- `templates/culture-code-template.md` — Culture code document template

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

@@ -1,152 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "Decision Logger — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "Two-layer memory architecture for board meeting decisions. Manages raw transcripts (Layer 1) and approved decisions (Layer 2). Use when logging. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# Decision Logger
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `decision-logger`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/decision-logger/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>
-
-
-Two-layer memory system. Layer 1 stores everything. Layer 2 stores only what the founder approved. Future meetings read Layer 2 only — this prevents hallucinated consensus from past debates bleeding into new deliberations.
-
-## Keywords
-decision log, memory, approved decisions, action items, board minutes, /cs:decisions, /cs:review, conflict detection, DO_NOT_RESURFACE
-
-## Quick Start
-
-```bash
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --demo             # See sample output
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --summary          # Overview + overdue
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --overdue          # Past-deadline actions
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --conflicts        # Contradiction detection
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --owner "CTO"      # Filter by owner
-python scripts/decision_tracker.py --search "pricing" # Search decisions
-```
-
----
-
-## Commands
-
-| Command | Effect |
-|---------|--------|
-| `/cs:decisions` | Last 10 approved decisions |
-| `/cs:decisions --all` | Full history |
-| `/cs:decisions --owner CMO` | Filter by owner |
-| `/cs:decisions --topic pricing` | Search by keyword |
-| `/cs:review` | Action items due within 7 days |
-| `/cs:review --overdue` | Items past deadline |
-
----
-
-## Two-Layer Architecture
-
-### Layer 1 — Raw Transcripts
-**Location:** `memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md`
-- Full Phase 2 agent contributions, Phase 3 critique, Phase 4 synthesis
-- All debates, including rejected arguments
-- **NEVER auto-loaded.** Only on explicit founder request.
-- Archive after 90 days → `memory/board-meetings/archive/YYYY/`
-
-### Layer 2 — Approved Decisions
-**Location:** `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md`
-- ONLY founder-approved decisions, action items, user corrections
-- **Loaded automatically in Phase 1 of every board meeting**
-- Append-only. Decisions are never deleted — only superseded.
-- Managed by Chief of Staff after Phase 5. Never written by agents directly.
-
----
-
-## Decision Entry Format
-
-```markdown
-## [YYYY-MM-DD] — [AGENDA ITEM TITLE]
-
-**Decision:** [One clear statement of what was decided.]
-**Owner:** [One person or role — accountable for execution.]
-**Deadline:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
-**Review:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
-**Rationale:** [Why this over alternatives. 1-2 sentences.]
-
-**User Override:** [If founder changed agent recommendation — what and why. Blank if not applicable.]
-
-**Rejected:**
-- [Proposal] — [reason] [DO_NOT_RESURFACE]
-
-**Action Items:**
-- [ ] [Action] — Owner: [name] — Due: [YYYY-MM-DD] — Review: [YYYY-MM-DD]
-
-**Supersedes:** [DATE of previous decision on same topic, if any]
-**Superseded by:** [Filled in retroactively if overridden later]
-**Raw transcript:** memory/board-meetings/[DATE]-raw.md
-```
-
----
-
-## Conflict Detection
-
-Before logging, Chief of Staff checks for:
-1. **DO_NOT_RESURFACE violations** — new decision matches a rejected proposal
-2. **Topic contradictions** — two active decisions on same topic with different conclusions
-3. **Owner conflicts** — same action assigned to different people in different decisions
-
-When a conflict is found:
-```
-⚠️ DECISION CONFLICT
-New: [text]
-Conflicts with: [DATE] — [existing text]
-
-Options: (1) Supersede old  (2) Merge  (3) Defer to founder
-```
-
-**DO_NOT_RESURFACE enforcement:**
-```
-🚫 BLOCKED: "[Proposal]" was rejected on [DATE]. Reason: [reason].
-To reopen: founder must explicitly say "reopen [topic] from [DATE]".
-```
-
----
-
-## Logging Workflow (Post Phase 5)
-
-1. Founder approves synthesis
-2. Write Layer 1 raw transcript → `YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md`
-3. Check conflicts against `decisions.md`
-4. Surface conflicts → wait for founder resolution
-5. Append approved entries to `decisions.md`
-6. Confirm: decisions logged, actions tracked, DO_NOT_RESURFACE flags added
-
----
-
-## Marking Actions Complete
-
-```markdown
-- [x] [Action] — Owner: [name] — Completed: [DATE] — Result: [one sentence]
-```
-
-Never delete completed items. The history is the record.
-
----
-
-## File Structure
-
-```
-memory/board-meetings/
-├── decisions.md       # Layer 2: append-only, founder-approved
-├── YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md  # Layer 1: full transcript per meeting
-└── archive/YYYY/      # Raw files after 90 days
-```
-
----
-
-## References
-- `templates/decision-entry.md` — single entry template with field rules
-- `scripts/decision_tracker.py` — CLI parser, overdue tracker, conflict detector

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/executive-mentor-board-prep.md

@@ -1,167 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "/em:board-prep — Board Meeting Preparation — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "/em -board-prep — Board Meeting Preparation. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# /em:board-prep — Board Meeting Preparation
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `board-prep`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/executive-mentor/skills/board-prep/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>
-
-
-**Command:** `/em:board-prep <agenda>`
-
-Prepare for the adversarial version of your board, not the friendly one. Every hard question they'll ask. Every number you need cold. The narrative that acknowledges weakness without losing the room.
-
----
-
-## The Reality of Board Meetings
-
-Your board members have seen 50+ companies. They've watched founders flinch at their own numbers, spin bad news as "learning opportunities," and present sanitized decks that hide what's actually happening.
-
-They know when you're not being straight with them. The question isn't whether they'll ask the hard questions — it's whether you're ready for them.
-
-The best board meetings aren't the ones where everything looks good. They're the ones where the CEO demonstrates they see reality clearly, have a plan, and can execute under pressure.
-
----
-
-## The Preparation Framework
-
-### Phase 1: Numbers Cold
-
-Before the meeting, every number in your deck should live in your head, not just the slide.
-
-**The numbers you must know without looking:**
-- Current MRR / ARR and month-over-month growth rate
-- Burn rate (monthly) and runway (months at current burn)
-- Headcount by department
-- CAC and LTV by channel / segment
-- Net Revenue Retention
-- Pipeline: value, conversion rate, average sales cycle
-- Churn: rate, top reasons, top churned accounts
-- Gross margin (product), net margin (company)
-- Key hiring positions open and time-to-fill
-
-**Stress test yourself:** Can you answer "what's your burn?" without hesitation? "What's your churn rate by segment?" If you pause, you don't know it.
-
-### Phase 2: Anticipate the Hard Questions
-
-For every item on the agenda, generate the adversarial version of the question.
-
-**Standard adversarial questions by topic:**
-
-*Revenue performance:*
-- "You missed revenue by 20% this quarter. What specifically failed?"
-- "Is this a pipeline problem, a conversion problem, or a capacity problem?"
-- "If you missed because of one big deal, how dependent is your model on individual deals?"
-- "When do you project recovery and what are the leading indicators you're right?"
-
-*Runway / burn:*
-- "At current burn you have N months. What's your plan if the next round takes 9 months?"
-- "What would you cut first if you had to extend runway by 6 months today?"
-- "Is there a scenario where you don't raise another round?"
-
-*Product / roadmap:*
-- "You shipped X. What did customers actually do with it?"
-- "What did you kill this quarter and why?"
-- "Where are you behind on roadmap? What's slipping?"
-
-*Team:*
-- "Who's at risk of leaving? How would that affect execution?"
-- "You've had 3 VP-level hires not work out. What pattern do you see?"
-- "Is the team the right team for this stage?"
-
-*Competition:*
-- "Competitor Y just raised $50M. How does that change your position?"
-- "If they copy your best feature in 90 days, what's your moat?"
-
-### Phase 3: Build the Narrative
-
-The board meeting isn't a status update. It's a leadership demonstration.
-
-**The structure that works:**
-
-1. **Where we are (honest)** — Current state of business, the real number, not the smoothed one
-2. **What we learned** — What the data is telling us that we didn't know 90 days ago
-3. **What we got wrong** — Name it directly. Don't make them ask.
-4. **What we're doing about it** — Specific, dated, owned actions
-5. **What we need from this room** — Concrete ask. Not "support" — specific introductions, decisions, resources.
-
-**The rule on bad news:** Never let the board be surprised. If a quarter went badly, they should know before the deck. A 5-sentence email 3 days before: "Revenue came in at $X vs $Y target. Here's what happened, here's what I'm doing, here's what I need from you."
-
-### Phase 4: Adversarial Preparation
-
-Do a mock board meeting. Have someone play the hardest director you have.
-
-**The simulation:**
-- Present your deck as you would
-- The mock director asks every uncomfortable question
-- You answer without referring to the deck
-- After: note every question that made you pause or feel defensive
-
-**The questions that made you defensive = the questions you need to prepare for.**
-
-### Phase 5: Director-by-Director Prep
-
-Not all board members want the same thing from a meeting.
-
-**For each director, know:**
-- Their primary concern right now (usually tied to their investment thesis)
-- The metric they watch most closely
-- What would make them lose confidence in you
-- What they've said in the last meeting that you should address
-
-**Common director types:**
-- **The operator** — wants to know what's breaking and who owns fixing it
-- **The financial investor** — focused on path to profitability or next raise
-- **The strategic investor** — worried about competitive position and moat
-- **The independent** — watching governance, team dynamics, and your judgment
-
----
-
-## Pre-Meeting Checklist
-
-**48 hours before:**
-- [ ] All numbers verified against source systems (not last week's export)
-- [ ] Deck reviewed for internal consistency
-- [ ] Pre-read sent to board (deck + 1-page brief on key topics)
-- [ ] One-on-ones done with any director likely to have concerns
-- [ ] 3 hardest questions you expect — rehearsed out loud
-
-**Day of meeting:**
-- [ ] Agenda with time allocations distributed
-- [ ] Know the ask for each agenda item (decision needed, input wanted, FYI)
-- [ ] Materials to leave behind prepared
-- [ ] Follow-up action template ready
-
----
-
-## During the Meeting
-
-**What the board is watching:**
-- Do you own the bad news or deflect it?
-- Are you defending a narrative or sharing reality?
-- Do you know your numbers or do you look things up?
-- When challenged, do you get defensive or engage?
-- Do you know what you don't know?
-
-**The single best thing you can do:** Name the hard thing before they do. "I want to address the revenue miss directly. Here's what happened, here's what I should have caught earlier, here's what changes."
-
----
-
-## After the Meeting
-
-Within 24 hours:
-- Send action items with owners and dates
-- Send any data you promised but didn't have
-- Note the questions that came up you weren't ready for
-- Schedule follow-up with any director who seemed unsatisfied
-
-The next board prep starts now.

package/skills/jarvis/engineering-team/docs/skills/c-level-advisor/executive-mentor-challenge.md

@@ -1,192 +0,0 @@
----
-title: "/em:challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis — Agent Skill for Executives"
-description: "/em -challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
----
-
-# /em:challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis
-
-<div class="page-meta" markdown>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `challenge`</span>
-<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/executive-mentor/skills/challenge/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>
-
-
-**Command:** `/em:challenge <plan>`
-
-Systematically finds weaknesses in any plan before reality does. Not to kill the plan — to make it survive contact with reality.
-
----
-
-## The Core Idea
-
-Most plans fail for predictable reasons. Not bad luck — bad assumptions. Overestimated demand. Underestimated complexity. Dependencies nobody questioned. Timing that made sense in a spreadsheet but not in the real world.
-
-The pre-mortem technique: **imagine it's 12 months from now and this plan failed spectacularly. Now work backwards. Why?**
-
-That's not pessimism. It's how you build something that doesn't collapse.
-
----
-
-## When to Run a Challenge
-
-- Before committing significant resources to a plan
-- Before presenting to the board or investors
-- When you notice you're only hearing positive feedback about the plan
-- When the plan requires multiple external dependencies to align
-- When there's pressure to move fast and "figure it out later"
-- When you feel excited about the plan (excitement is a signal to scrutinize harder)
-
----
-
-## The Challenge Framework
-
-### Step 1: Extract Core Assumptions
-Before you can test a plan, you need to surface everything it assumes to be true.
-
-For each section of the plan, ask:
-- What has to be true for this to work?
-- What are we assuming about customer behavior?
-- What are we assuming about competitor response?
-- What are we assuming about our own execution capability?
-- What external factors does this depend on?
-
-**Common assumption categories:**
-- **Market assumptions** — size, growth rate, customer willingness to pay, buying cycle
-- **Execution assumptions** — team capacity, velocity, no major hires needed
-- **Customer assumptions** — they have the problem, they know they have it, they'll pay to solve it
-- **Competitive assumptions** — incumbents won't respond, no new entrant, moat holds
-- **Financial assumptions** — burn rate, revenue timing, CAC, LTV ratios
-- **Dependency assumptions** — partner will deliver, API won't change, regulations won't shift
-
-### Step 2: Rate Each Assumption
-
-For every assumption extracted, rate it on two dimensions:
-
-**Confidence level (how sure are you this is true):**
-- **High** — verified with data, customer conversations, market research
-- **Medium** — directionally right but not validated
-- **Low** — plausible but untested
-- **Unknown** — we simply don't know
-
-**Impact if wrong (what happens if this assumption fails):**
-- **Critical** — plan fails entirely
-- **High** — major delay or cost overrun
-- **Medium** — significant rework required
-- **Low** — manageable adjustment
-
-### Step 3: Map Vulnerabilities
-
-The matrix of Low/Unknown confidence × Critical/High impact = your highest-risk assumptions.
-
-**Vulnerability = Low confidence + High impact**
-
-These are not problems to ignore. They're the bets you're making. The question is: are you making them consciously?
-
-### Step 4: Find the Dependency Chain
-
-Many plans fail not because any single assumption is wrong, but because multiple assumptions have to be right simultaneously.
-
-Map the chain:
-- Does assumption B depend on assumption A being true first?
-- If the first thing goes wrong, how many downstream things break?
-- What's the critical path? What has zero slack?
-
-### Step 5: Test the Reversibility
-
-For each critical vulnerability: if this assumption turns out to be wrong at month 3, what do you do?
-
-- Can you pivot?
-- Can you cut scope?
-- Is money already spent?
-- Are commitments already made?
-
-The less reversible, the more rigorously you need to validate before committing.
-
----
-
-## Output Format
-
-**Challenge Report: [Plan Name]**
-
-```
-CORE ASSUMPTIONS (extracted)
-1. [Assumption] — Confidence: [H/M/L/?] — Impact if wrong: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
-2. ...
-
-VULNERABILITY MAP
-Critical risks (act before proceeding):
-• [#N] [Assumption] — WHY it might be wrong — WHAT breaks if it is
-
-High risks (validate before scaling):
-• ...
-
-DEPENDENCY CHAIN
-[Assumption A] → depends on → [Assumption B] → which enables → [Assumption C]
-Weakest link: [X] — if this breaks, [Y] and [Z] also fail
-
-REVERSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
-• Reversible bets: [list]
-• Irreversible commitments: [list — treat with extreme care]
-
-KILL SWITCHES
-What would have to be true at [30/60/90 days] to continue vs. kill/pivot?
-• Continue if: ...
-• Kill/pivot if: ...
-
-HARDENING ACTIONS
-1. [Specific validation to do before proceeding]
-2. [Alternative approach to consider]
-3. [Contingency to build into the plan]
-```
-
----
-
-## Challenge Patterns by Plan Type
-
-### Product Roadmap
-- Are we building what customers will pay for, or what they said they wanted?
-- Does the velocity estimate account for real team capacity (not theoretical)?
-- What happens if the anchor feature takes 3× longer than estimated?
-- Who owns decisions when requirements conflict?
-
-### Go-to-Market Plan
-- What's the actual ICP conversion rate, not the hoped-for one?
-- How many touches to close, and do you have the sales capacity for that?
-- What happens if the first 10 deals take 3 months instead of 1?
-- Is "land and expand" a real motion or a hope?
-
-### Hiring Plan
-- What happens if the key hire takes 4 months to find, not 6 weeks?
-- Is the plan dependent on retaining specific people who might leave?
-- Does the plan account for ramp time (usually 3–6 months before full productivity)?
-- What's the burn impact if headcount leads revenue by 6 months?
-
-### Fundraising Plan
-- What's your fallback if the lead investor passes?
-- Have you modeled the timeline if it takes 6 months, not 3?
-- What's your runway at current burn if the round closes at the low end?
-- What assumptions break if you raise 50% of the target amount?
-
----
-
-## The Hardest Questions
-
-These are the ones people skip:
-- "What's the bear case, not the base case?"
-- "If this exact plan was run by a team we don't trust, would it work?"
-- "What are we not saying out loud because it's uncomfortable?"
-- "Who has incentives to make this plan sound better than it is?"
-- "What would an enemy of this plan attack first?"
-
----
-
-## Deliverable
-
-The output of `/em:challenge` is not permission to stop. It's a vulnerability map. Now you can make conscious decisions: validate the risky assumptions, hedge the critical ones, or accept the bets you're making knowingly.
-
-Unknown risks are dangerous. Known risks are manageable.