autodoc-agent-kit 1.0.0

package/src/modules/product/skills/ai-shaped-readiness-advisor/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,923 @@
+---
+name: ai-shaped-readiness-advisor
+description: Assess whether your product work is AI-first or AI-shaped. Use when evaluating AI maturity and choosing the next team capability to build.
+intent: >-
+  Assess whether your product work is **"AI-first"** (using AI to automate existing tasks faster) or **"AI-shaped"** (fundamentally redesigning how product teams operate around AI capabilities). Use this to evaluate your readiness across **5 essential PM competencies for 2026**, identify gaps, and get concrete recommendations on which capability to build first.
+type: interactive
+theme: ai-agents
+best_for:
+  - "Assessing whether your team is AI-first or genuinely AI-shaped"
+  - "Identifying which of the 5 AI competencies to build next"
+  - "Understanding your product org's AI maturity honestly"
+scenarios:
+  - "My team uses AI tools but I'm not sure if we're working differently or just automating the same tasks"
+  - "I want to assess my product org's AI maturity and prioritize where to invest next quarter"
+estimated_time: "15-20 min"
+---
+
+## Purpose
+
+Assess whether your product work is **"AI-first"** (using AI to automate existing tasks faster) or **"AI-shaped"** (fundamentally redesigning how product teams operate around AI capabilities). Use this to evaluate your readiness across **5 essential PM competencies for 2026**, identify gaps, and get concrete recommendations on which capability to build first.
+
+**Key Distinction:** AI-first is cute (using Copilot to write PRDs faster). AI-shaped is survival (building a durable "reality layer" that both humans and AI trust, orchestrating AI workflows, compressing learning cycles).
+
+This is not about AI tools—it's about **organizational redesign around AI as co-intelligence**. The interactive skill guides you through a maturity assessment, then recommends your next move.
+
+## Key Concepts
+
+### AI-First vs. AI-Shaped
+
+| Dimension | AI-First (Cute) | AI-Shaped (Survival) |
+|-----------|-----------------|----------------------|
+| **Mindset** | Automate existing tasks | Redesign how work gets done |
+| **Goal** | Speed up artifact creation | Compress learning cycles |
+| **AI Role** | Task assistant | Strategic co-intelligence |
+| **Advantage** | Temporary efficiency gains | Defensible competitive moat |
+| **Example** | "Copilot writes PRDs 2x faster" | "AI agent validates hypotheses in 48 hours instead of 3 weeks" |
+
+**Critical Insight:** If a competitor can replicate your AI usage by throwing bodies at it, it's not differentiation—it's just efficiency (which becomes table stakes within months).
+
+---
+
+### The 5 Essential PM Competencies (2026)
+
+These competencies define AI-shaped product work. You'll assess your maturity on each.
+
+#### 1. **Context Design**
+Building a durable **"reality layer"** that both humans and AI can trust—treating AI attention as a scarce resource and allocating it deliberately.
+
+**What it includes:**
+- Documenting what's true vs. assumed
+- Immutable constraints (technical, regulatory, strategic)
+- Operational glossary (shared definitions)
+- Evidence standards (what counts as validation)
+- **Context boundaries** (what to persist vs. retrieve)
+- **Memory architecture** (short-term conversational + long-term persistent)
+- **Retrieval strategies** (semantic search, contextual retrieval)
+
+**Key Principle:** *"If you can't point to evidence, constraints, and definitions, you don't have context. You have vibes."*
+
+**Critical Distinction: Context Stuffing vs. Context Engineering**
+- **Context Stuffing (AI-first):** Jamming volume without intent ("paste entire PRD")
+- **Context Engineering (AI-shaped):** Shaping structure for attention (bounded domains, retrieve with intent)
+
+**The 5 Diagnostic Questions:**
+1. What specific decision does this support?
+2. Can retrieval replace persistence?
+3. Who owns the context boundary?
+4. What fails if we exclude this?
+5. Are we fixing structure or avoiding it?
+
+**AI-first version:** Pasting PRDs into ChatGPT; no context boundaries; "more is better" mentality
+**AI-shaped version:** CLAUDE.md files, evidence databases, constraint registries AI agents reference; two-layer memory architecture; Research→Plan→Reset→Implement cycle to prevent context rot
+
+**Deep Dive:** See [`context-engineering-advisor`](../context-engineering-advisor/SKILL.md) for detailed guidance on diagnosing context stuffing and implementing memory architecture.
+
+---
+
+#### 2. **Agent Orchestration**
+Creating repeatable, traceable AI workflows (not one-off prompts).
+
+**What it includes:**
+- Defined workflow loops: research → synthesis → critique → decision → log rationale
+- Each step shows its work (traceable reasoning)
+- Workflows run consistently (same inputs = predictable process)
+- Version-controlled prompts and agents
+
+**Key Principle:** One-off prompts are tactical. Orchestrated workflows are strategic.
+
+**AI-first version:** "Ask ChatGPT to analyze this user feedback"
+**AI-shaped version:** Automated workflow that ingests feedback, tags themes, generates hypotheses, flags contradictions, logs decisions
+
+---
+
+#### 3. **Outcome Acceleration**
+Using AI to compress **learning cycles** (not just speed up tasks).
+
+**What it includes:**
+- Eliminate validation lag (PoL probes run in days, not weeks)
+- Remove approval delays (AI pre-validates against constraints)
+- Cut meeting overhead (async AI synthesis replaces status meetings)
+
+**Key Principle:** Do less, purposefully. AI removes bottlenecks, not generates more work.
+
+**AI-first version:** "AI writes user stories faster"
+**AI-shaped version:** "AI runs feasibility checks overnight, eliminating 2 weeks of technical discovery"
+
+---
+
+#### 4. **Team-AI Facilitation**
+Redesigning team systems so AI operates as **co-intelligence**, not an accountability shield.
+
+**What it includes:**
+- Review norms (who checks AI outputs, when, how)
+- Evidence standards (AI must cite sources, not hallucinate)
+- Decision authority (AI recommends, humans decide—clear boundaries)
+- Psychological safety (team can challenge AI without feeling "dumb")
+
+**Key Principle:** AI amplifies judgment, doesn't replace accountability.
+
+**AI-first version:** "I used AI" as excuse for bad outputs
+**AI-shaped version:** Clear review protocols; AI outputs treated as drafts requiring human validation
+
+---
+
+#### 5. **Strategic Differentiation**
+Moving beyond efficiency to create **defensible competitive advantages**.
+
+**What it includes:**
+- New customer capabilities (what can users do now that they couldn't before?)
+- Workflow rewiring (processes competitors can't replicate without full redesign)
+- Economics competitors can't match (10x cost advantage through AI)
+
+**Key Principle:** *"If a competitor can copy it by throwing bodies at it, it's not differentiation."*
+
+**AI-first version:** "We use AI to write better docs"
+**AI-shaped version:** "We validate product hypotheses in 2 days vs. industry standard 3 weeks—ship 6x more validated features per quarter"
+
+---
+
+### Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
+
+- **Not about AI tools:** Using Claude vs. ChatGPT doesn't matter. Redesigning workflows matters.
+- **Not about speed:** Writing PRDs 2x faster isn't strategic if PRDs weren't the bottleneck.
+- **Not about automation:** Automating bad processes just scales the bad.
+- **Not about replacing humans:** AI-shaped orgs augment judgment, not eliminate it.
+
+---
+
+### When to Use This Skill
+
+✅ **Use this when:**
+- You're using AI tools but not seeing strategic advantage
+- You suspect you're "AI-first" (efficiency) but want to be "AI-shaped" (transformation)
+- You need to prioritize which AI capability to build next
+- Leadership asks "How are we using AI?" and you're not sure how to answer strategically
+- You want to assess team readiness for AI-powered product work
+
+❌ **Don't use this when:**
+- You haven't started using AI at all (start with basic tools first)
+- You're looking for tool recommendations (this is about organizational design, not tooling)
+- You need tactical "how to write a prompt" guidance (use skills for that)
+
+---
+
+### Facilitation Source of Truth
+
+Use [`workshop-facilitation`](../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
+
+It defines:
+- session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
+- one-question turns with plain-language prompts
+- progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
+- interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
+- numbered recommendations at decision points
+- quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include `Other (specify)` when useful)
+
+This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
+
+## Application
+
+This interactive skill uses **adaptive questioning** to assess your maturity across 5 competencies, then recommends which to prioritize.
+
+### Facilitation Protocol (Mandatory)
+
+1. Ask exactly **one question per turn**.
+2. Wait for the user's answer before asking the next question.
+3. Use plain-language questions (no shorthand labels as the primary question). If needed, include an example response format.
+4. Show progress on every turn using user-facing labels:
+   - `Context Qx/8` during context gathering
+   - `Scoring Qx/5` during maturity scoring
+   - Include "questions remaining" when practical.
+5. Do not use internal phase labels (like "Step 0") in user-facing prompts unless the user asks for internal structure details.
+6. For maturity scoring questions, present concise 1-4 choices first; share full rubric details only if requested.
+7. For context questions, offer concise numbered quick-select options when practical, plus `Other (specify)` for open-ended answers. Accept multi-select replies like `1,3` or `1 and 3`.
+8. Give numbered recommendations **only at decision points**, not after every answer.
+9. Decision points include:
+   - After the full context summary
+   - After the 5-dimension maturity profile
+   - During priority selection and action-plan path selection
+10. When recommendations are shown, enumerate clearly (`1.`, `2.`, `3.`) and accept selections like `#1`, `1`, `1 and 3`, `1,3`, or custom text.
+11. If multiple options are selected, synthesize a combined path and continue.
+12. If custom text is provided, map it to the closest valid path and continue without forcing re-entry.
+13. Interruption handling is mandatory: if the user asks a meta question ("how many left?", "why this label?", "pause"), answer directly first, then restate current progress and resume with the pending question.
+14. If the user says to stop or pause, halt the assessment immediately and wait for explicit resume.
+15. If the user asks for "one question at a time," keep that mode for the rest of the session unless they explicitly opt out.
+16. Before any assessment question, give a short heads-up on time/length and let the user choose an entry mode.
+
+---
+
+### Session Start: Heads-Up + Entry Mode (Mandatory)
+
+**Agent opening prompt (use this first):**
+
+"Quick heads-up before we start: this usually takes about 7-10 minutes and up to 13 questions total (8 context + 5 scoring).
+
+How do you want to do this?
+1. Guided mode: I’ll ask one question at a time.
+2. Context dump: you paste what you already know, and I’ll skip anything redundant.
+3. Best guess mode: I’ll make reasonable assumptions where details are missing, label them, and keep moving."
+
+Accept selections as `#1`, `1`, `1 and 3`, `1,3`, or custom text.
+
+**Mode behavior:**
+
+- **If Guided mode:** Run Step 0 as written, then scoring.
+- **If Context dump:** Ask for pasted context once, summarize it, identify gaps, and:
+  - Skip any context questions already answered.
+  - Ask only the minimum missing context needed (0-2 clarifying questions).
+  - Move to scoring as soon as context is sufficient.
+- **If Best guess mode:** Ask for the smallest viable starting input (role/team + primary goal), then:
+  - Infer missing details using reasonable defaults.
+  - Label each inferred item as `Assumption`.
+  - Include confidence tags (`High`, `Medium`, `Low`) for each assumption.
+  - Continue without blocking on unknowns.
+
+At the final summary, include an **Assumptions to Validate** section when context dump or best guess mode was used.
+
+---
+
+### Step 0: Gather Context
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Collect context using this exact sequence, one question at a time:
+
+1. "Which AI tools are you using today?"
+2. "How does your team usually use AI today: one-off prompts, reusable templates, or multi-step workflows?"
+3. "Who uses AI consistently today: just you, PMs, or cross-functional teams?"
+4. "About how many PMs, engineers, and designers are on your team?"
+5. "What stage are you in: startup, growth, or enterprise?"
+6. "How are decisions made: centralized, distributed, or consensus-driven?"
+7. "What competitive advantage are you trying to build with AI?"
+8. "What's the biggest bottleneck slowing learning and iteration today?"
+
+After question 8, summarize back in 4 lines:
+- Current AI usage pattern
+- Team context
+- Strategic intent
+- Primary bottleneck
+
+---
+
+### Step 1: Context Design Maturity
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Let's assess your **Context Design** capability—how well you've built a "reality layer" that both humans and AI can trust, and whether you're doing **context stuffing** (volume without intent) or **context engineering** (structure for attention).
+
+**Which statement best describes your current state?**
+
+1. **Level 1 (AI-First / Context Stuffing):** "I paste entire documents into ChatGPT every time I need something. No shared knowledge base. No context boundaries."
+   - Reality: One-off prompting with no durability; "more is better" mentality
+   - Problem: AI has no memory; you repeat yourself constantly; context stuffing degrades attention
+   - **Context Engineering Gap:** No answers to the 5 diagnostic questions; persisting everything "just in case"
+
+2. **Level 2 (Emerging / Early Structure):** "We have some docs (PRDs, strategy memos), but they're scattered. No consistent format. Starting to notice context stuffing issues (vague responses, normalized retries)."
+   - Reality: Context exists but isn't structured for AI consumption; no retrieval strategy
+   - Problem: AI can't reliably find or trust information; mixing always-needed with episodic context
+   - **Context Engineering Gap:** No context boundary owner; no distinction between persist vs. retrieve
+
+3. **Level 3 (Transitioning / Context Engineering Emerging):** "We've started using CLAUDE.md files and project instructions. Constraints registry exists. We're identifying what to persist vs. retrieve. Experimenting with Research→Plan→Reset→Implement cycle."
+   - Reality: Structured context emerging, but not comprehensive; context boundaries defined but not fully enforced
+   - Problem: Coverage is patchy; some areas well-documented, others vibe-driven; inconsistent retrieval practices
+   - **Context Engineering Progress:** Can answer 3-4 of the 5 diagnostic questions; context boundary owner assigned; starting to use two-layer memory
+
+4. **Level 4 (AI-Shaped / Context Engineering Mastery):** "We maintain a durable reality layer: constraints registry (20+ entries), evidence database, operational glossary (30+ terms). Two-layer memory architecture (short-term conversational + long-term persistent via vector DB). Context boundaries defined and owned. AI agents reference these automatically. We use Research→Plan→Reset→Implement to prevent context rot."
+   - Reality: Comprehensive, version-controlled context both humans and AI trust; retrieval with intent (not completeness)
+   - Outcome: AI operates with high confidence; reduces hallucination and rework; token usage optimized; no context stuffing
+   - **Context Engineering Mastery:** Can answer all 5 diagnostic questions; context boundary audited quarterly; quantitative efficiency tracking: (Accuracy × Coherence) / (Tokens × Latency)
+
+**Select your level:** [1, 2, 3, or 4]
+
+**Note:** If you selected Level 1-2 and struggle with context stuffing, consider using [`context-engineering-advisor`](../context-engineering-advisor/SKILL.md) to diagnose and fix Context Hoarding Disorder before proceeding.
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+**Agent records:** Context Design maturity = [Level X]
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Agent Orchestration Maturity
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Now let's assess **Agent Orchestration**—whether you have repeatable AI workflows or just one-off prompts.
+
+**Which statement best describes your current state?**
+
+1. **Level 1 (AI-First):** "I type prompts into ChatGPT as needed. No saved workflows or templates."
+   - Reality: Tactical, ad-hoc usage
+   - Problem: Inconsistent results; can't scale or audit
+
+2. **Level 2 (Emerging):** "I have a few saved prompts I reuse. Maybe some custom GPTs or Claude Projects."
+   - Reality: Repeatable prompts, but not full workflows
+   - Problem: Each step is manual; no orchestration
+
+3. **Level 3 (Transitioning):** "We've built some multi-step workflows (research → synthesis → critique). Tracked in tools like Notion or Linear."
+   - Reality: Workflows exist but require manual handoffs
+   - Problem: Still human-in-the-loop for every step; not fully automated
+
+4. **Level 4 (AI-Shaped):** "We have orchestrated AI workflows that run autonomously: research → synthesis → critique → decision → log rationale. Each step is traceable and version-controlled."
+   - Reality: Workflows run consistently; show their work at each step
+   - Outcome: Reliable, auditable, scalable AI processes
+
+**Select your level:** [1, 2, 3, or 4]
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+**Agent records:** Agent Orchestration maturity = [Level X]
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Outcome Acceleration Maturity
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Next, **Outcome Acceleration**—are you using AI to compress learning cycles, or just speed up tasks?
+
+**Which statement best describes your current state?**
+
+1. **Level 1 (AI-First):** "AI helps me write docs faster (PRDs, user stories). Saves me a few hours per week."
+   - Reality: Efficiency gains on artifact creation
+   - Problem: Docs weren't the bottleneck; learning cycles unchanged
+
+2. **Level 2 (Emerging):** "AI helps with research and synthesis (summarize user feedback, analyze competitors). Saves research time."
+   - Reality: Modest learning acceleration
+   - Problem: Still sequential; AI doesn't eliminate validation lag
+
+3. **Level 3 (Transitioning):** "We use AI to run experiments faster (PoL probes, feasibility checks). Cut validation time from weeks to days."
+   - Reality: Learning cycles compressing
+   - Problem: Not yet systematic; only applied to some experiments
+
+4. **Level 4 (AI-Shaped):** "AI systematically removes bottlenecks: overnight feasibility checks, async synthesis replaces meetings, automated validation against constraints. Learning cycles 5-10x faster."
+   - Reality: Fundamental redesign of how learning happens
+   - Outcome: Ship validated features 6x faster than competitors
+
+**Select your level:** [1, 2, 3, or 4]
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+**Agent records:** Outcome Acceleration maturity = [Level X]
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Team-AI Facilitation Maturity
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Now assess **Team-AI Facilitation**—how well you've redesigned team systems for AI as co-intelligence.
+
+**Which statement best describes your current state?**
+
+1. **Level 1 (AI-First):** "I use AI privately. Team doesn't know or doesn't use it. No shared norms."
+   - Reality: Individual tool usage, no team integration
+   - Problem: Inconsistent quality; no accountability for AI outputs
+
+2. **Level 2 (Emerging):** "Team uses AI, but no formal review process. 'I used AI' mentioned casually."
+   - Reality: Awareness but no structure
+   - Problem: AI outputs treated as final; errors slip through
+
+3. **Level 3 (Transitioning):** "We have review norms emerging (AI outputs are drafts, not finals). Evidence standards discussed but not codified."
+   - Reality: Cultural shift underway
+   - Problem: Norms are informal; not everyone follows them
+
+4. **Level 4 (AI-Shaped):** "Clear protocols: AI outputs require human validation, evidence standards codified, decision authority explicit (AI recommends, humans decide). Team treats AI as co-intelligence."
+   - Reality: AI integrated into team operating system
+   - Outcome: High-quality outputs; psychological safety maintained
+
+**Select your level:** [1, 2, 3, or 4]
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+**Agent records:** Team-AI Facilitation maturity = [Level X]
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: Strategic Differentiation Maturity
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Finally, **Strategic Differentiation**—are you creating defensible competitive advantages, or just efficiency gains?
+
+**Which statement best describes your current state?**
+
+1. **Level 1 (AI-First):** "We use AI to work faster (write better docs, respond to customers quicker). Efficiency gains only."
+   - Reality: Table-stakes improvements
+   - Problem: Competitors can copy this within months
+
+2. **Level 2 (Emerging):** "AI enables us to do things we couldn't before (analyze 10x more data, test more hypotheses). New capabilities, but competitors could replicate."
+   - Reality: Capability expansion, but not defensible
+   - Problem: No moat; competitors hire more people to match
+
+3. **Level 3 (Transitioning):** "We've redesigned some workflows around AI (e.g., validate hypotheses in 2 days vs. 3 weeks). Starting to create separation."
+   - Reality: Workflow advantages emerging
+   - Problem: Not yet systematic; only applied in pockets
+
+4. **Level 4 (AI-Shaped):** "We've fundamentally rewired how we operate: customers get capabilities they can't get elsewhere, our learning cycles are 10x faster than industry standard, our economics are 5x better. Competitors can't replicate without full org redesign."
+   - Reality: Defensible competitive moat
+   - Outcome: Strategic advantage that compounds over time
+
+**Select your level:** [1, 2, 3, or 4]
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+**Agent records:** Strategic Differentiation maturity = [Level X]
+
+---
+
+### Step 6: Assess Maturity Profile
+
+**Agent synthesizes:**
+
+Here's your AI-Shaped Readiness Profile:
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────┬───────┬──────────┐
+│ Competency                  │ Level │ Maturity │
+├─────────────────────────────┼───────┼──────────┤
+│ 1. Context Design           │   X   │ [Label]  │
+│ 2. Agent Orchestration      │   X   │ [Label]  │
+│ 3. Outcome Acceleration     │   X   │ [Label]  │
+│ 4. Team-AI Facilitation     │   X   │ [Label]  │
+│ 5. Strategic Differentiation│   X   │ [Label]  │
+└─────────────────────────────┴───────┴──────────┘
+
+Overall Assessment: [AI-First / Emerging / Transitioning / AI-Shaped]
+```
+
+**Maturity Labels:**
+- **Level 1:** AI-First (efficiency only)
+- **Level 2:** Emerging (early capabilities)
+- **Level 3:** Transitioning (redesign underway)
+- **Level 4:** AI-Shaped (strategic transformation)
+
+**Overall Assessment Logic:**
+- **AI-First:** Average level 1-1.5 (mostly Level 1s)
+- **Emerging:** Average level 2-2.5 (mostly Level 2s)
+- **Transitioning:** Average level 3-3.5 (mostly Level 3s)
+- **AI-Shaped:** Average level 3.5-4 (mostly Level 4s)
+
+---
+
+### Step 7: Identify Priority Gap
+
+**Agent asks:**
+
+Based on your maturity profile, which competency should you prioritize first?
+
+**Agent analyzes dependencies:**
+
+**Dependency Logic:**
+1. **Context Design is foundational** — If Level 1-2, this must be priority #1 (Agent Orchestration and Outcome Acceleration depend on it)
+2. **Agent Orchestration enables Outcome Acceleration** — If Context Design is Level 3+, but Agent Orchestration is Level 1-2, prioritize orchestration
+3. **Team-AI Facilitation is parallel** — Can be developed alongside others, but required for scale
+4. **Strategic Differentiation requires Levels 3+ on others** — Don't focus here until foundational competencies are built
+
+**Agent recommends:**
+
+Based on your profile, I recommend focusing on **[Competency Name]** first because:
+
+**Option 1: Context Design (if Level 1-2)**
+- **Why:** Without durable context, AI operates on vibes. Every workflow will be fragile.
+- **Impact:** Unlocks Agent Orchestration and Outcome Acceleration
+- **Next Steps:** Build CLAUDE.md files, start constraints registry, create operational glossary
+
+**Option 2: Agent Orchestration (if Context is 3+, but Orchestration is 1-2)**
+- **Why:** You have context, but no repeatable workflows. Scaling requires orchestration.
+- **Impact:** Turn one-off prompts into reliable, traceable workflows
+- **Next Steps:** Document your most frequent AI workflow, version-control prompts, add traceability
+
+**Option 3: Outcome Acceleration (if Context + Orchestration are 3+)**
+- **Why:** You have infrastructure; now compress learning cycles
+- **Impact:** Strategic advantage emerges from speed-to-learning
+- **Next Steps:** Identify biggest bottleneck in learning cycle, design AI workflow to eliminate it
+
+**Option 4: Team-AI Facilitation (if usage is individual, not team-wide)**
+- **Why:** Can't scale if only you're AI-shaped; team must adopt
+- **Impact:** Organizational transformation, not just individual productivity
+- **Next Steps:** Establish review norms, codify evidence standards, create decision authority framework
+
+**Option 5: Strategic Differentiation (if all others are 3+)**
+- **Why:** You have the foundation; now build the moat
+- **Impact:** Create defensible competitive advantage
+- **Next Steps:** Identify workflow competitors can't replicate, design AI-enabled customer capabilities
+
+**Which would you like to focus on?**
+
+**Options:**
+1. **Accept recommendation** — [Agent provides detailed action plan]
+2. **Choose different priority** — [Agent warns about dependencies but allows override]
+3. **Focus on multiple simultaneously** — [Agent suggests parallel tracks if feasible]
+
+**User response:** [Selection]
+
+---
+
+### Step 8: Generate Action Plan
+
+**Agent provides tailored action plan based on selected priority:**
+
+---
+
+#### If Priority = Context Design
+
+**Goal:** Build a durable "reality layer" that both humans and AI trust—move from context stuffing to context engineering.
+
+**Pre-Phase: Diagnose Context Stuffing (If Needed)**
+If you're at Level 1-2, first diagnose context stuffing symptoms:
+1. Run through the 5 diagnostic questions (see [`context-engineering-advisor`](../context-engineering-advisor/SKILL.md))
+2. Identify what you're persisting that should be retrieved
+3. Assign context boundary owner
+4. Create Context Manifest (what's always-needed vs. episodic)
+
+**Phase 1: Document Constraints (Week 1)**
+1. Create a constraints registry:
+   - Technical constraints (APIs, data models, performance limits)
+   - Regulatory constraints (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)
+   - Strategic constraints (we will/won't build X)
+2. Apply diagnostic question #4 to each constraint: "What fails if we exclude this?"
+3. Format: Structured file AI agents can parse (YAML, JSON, or Markdown with frontmatter)
+4. Version control in Git
+
+**Phase 2: Build Operational Glossary (Week 2)**
+1. List top 20-30 terms your team uses (e.g., "user," "customer," "activation," "churn")
+2. Define each unambiguously (avoid "it depends")
+3. Include edge cases and exceptions
+4. Add to CLAUDE.md or project instructions
+5. This becomes your **long-term persistent memory** (Declarative Memory)
+
+**Phase 3: Establish Evidence Standards + Context Boundaries (Week 3)**
+1. Define what counts as validation:
+   - User feedback: "X users said Y" (with quotes)
+   - Analytics: "Metric Z changed by N%" (with dashboard link)
+   - Competitive intel: "Competitor A launched B" (with source)
+2. Reject: "I think," "We feel," "It seems like"
+3. Define context boundaries using the 5 diagnostic questions:
+   - What specific decision does each piece of context support?
+   - Can retrieval replace persistence?
+   - Who owns the context boundary?
+4. Create Context Manifest document
+5. Codify in team docs
+
+**Phase 4: Implement Memory Architecture + Workflows (Week 4)**
+1. **Set up two-layer memory:**
+   - **Short-term (conversational):** Summarize/truncate older parts of conversation
+   - **Long-term (persistent):** Constraints registry + operational glossary (consider vector database for retrieval)
+2. **Implement Research→Plan→Reset→Implement cycle:**
+   - Research: Allow chaotic context gathering
+   - Plan: Synthesize into high-density SPEC.md or PLAN.md
+   - Reset: Clear context window
+   - Implement: Use only the plan as context
+3. Update AI prompts to reference constraints registry and glossary
+4. Test: Ask AI to cite constraints when making recommendations
+5. Measure: % of AI outputs that cite evidence vs. hallucinate; token usage efficiency
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- ✅ Constraints registry has 20+ entries
+- ✅ Operational glossary has 20-30 terms
+- ✅ Evidence standards documented and shared
+- ✅ Context Manifest created (always-needed vs. episodic)
+- ✅ Context boundary owner assigned
+- ✅ Two-layer memory architecture implemented
+- ✅ Research→Plan→Reset→Implement cycle tested on 1 workflow
+- ✅ AI agents reference these automatically
+- ✅ Token usage down 30%+ (less context stuffing)
+- ✅ Output consistency up (fewer retries)
+
+**Related Skills:**
+- **[`context-engineering-advisor`](../context-engineering-advisor/SKILL.md)** (Interactive) — Deep dive on diagnosing context stuffing and implementing memory architecture
+- `problem-statement.md` — Define constraints before framing problems
+- `epic-hypothesis.md` — Evidence-based hypothesis writing
+
+---
+
+#### If Priority = Agent Orchestration
+
+**Goal:** Turn one-off prompts into repeatable, traceable AI workflows.
+
+**Phase 1: Map Current Workflows (Week 1)**
+1. Pick your most frequent AI use case (e.g., "analyze user feedback")
+2. Document every step you currently take:
+   - Copy/paste feedback into ChatGPT
+   - Ask for themes
+   - Manually categorize
+   - Write summary
+3. Identify pain points (manual handoffs, inconsistent results)
+
+**Phase 2: Design Orchestrated Workflow (Week 2)**
+1. Define workflow loop:
+   - **Research:** AI reads all feedback (structured input)
+   - **Synthesis:** AI identifies themes (with evidence)
+   - **Critique:** AI flags contradictions or weak signals
+   - **Decision:** Human reviews and decides next steps
+   - **Log:** AI records rationale and sources
+2. Each step must be traceable (show sources, reasoning)
+
+**Phase 3: Build and Test (Week 3)**
+1. Implement workflow using:
+   - Claude Projects (if simple)
+   - Custom GPTs (if moderate)
+   - API orchestration (if complex)
+2. Run on 3 past examples; compare to manual process
+3. Measure: Time saved, consistency improved, traceability added
+
+**Phase 4: Document and Scale (Week 4)**
+1. Version-control prompts (Git)
+2. Document workflow steps for team
+3. Train 2 teammates; observe results
+4. Iterate based on feedback
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- ✅ At least 1 workflow runs consistently (same inputs → predictable process)
+- ✅ Each step is traceable (AI cites sources)
+- ✅ Team can replicate workflow without your involvement
+
+**Related Skills:**
+- `pol-probe-advisor.md` — Use orchestrated workflows for validation experiments
+
+---
+
+#### If Priority = Outcome Acceleration
+
+**Goal:** Use AI to compress learning cycles, not just speed up tasks.
+
+**Phase 1: Identify Bottleneck (Week 1)**
+1. Map your current learning cycle (e.g., hypothesis → experiment → analysis → decision)
+2. Time each step
+3. Identify slowest step (usually: validation lag, approval delays, or meeting overhead)
+
+**Phase 2: Design AI Intervention (Week 2)**
+1. Ask: "What if this step happened overnight?"
+   - Feasibility checks: AI spike in 2 hours vs. 2 days
+   - User research synthesis: AI analysis in 1 hour vs. 1 week
+   - Approval pre-checks: AI validates against constraints before meeting
+2. Design minimal AI workflow to eliminate bottleneck
+
+**Phase 3: Run Pilot (Week 3)**
+1. Test AI intervention on 1 real initiative
+2. Measure cycle time: before vs. after
+3. Validate quality: Did AI maintain rigor, or cut corners?
+
+**Phase 4: Scale (Week 4)**
+1. If successful (cycle time down 50%+, quality maintained), apply to 3 more initiatives
+2. Document workflow
+3. Train team
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- ✅ Learning cycle compressed by 50%+ on at least 1 initiative
+- ✅ Quality maintained (no shortcuts that compromise rigor)
+- ✅ Team adopts the accelerated workflow
+
+**Related Skills:**
+- `pol-probe.md` — Use AI to run PoL probes faster
+- `discovery-process.md` — Compress discovery cycles with AI
+
+---
+
+#### If Priority = Team-AI Facilitation
+
+**Goal:** Redesign team systems so AI operates as co-intelligence, not accountability shield.
+
+**Phase 1: Establish Review Norms (Week 1)**
+1. Codify rule: "AI outputs are drafts, not finals"
+2. Define review protocol:
+   - Who reviews AI outputs? (peer, lead PM, cross-functional partner)
+   - When? (before sharing externally, before decisions)
+   - What to check? (accuracy, completeness, evidence citation)
+3. Share with team, get buy-in
+
+**Phase 2: Set Evidence Standards (Week 2)**
+1. AI must cite sources (no hallucinations)
+2. Reject outputs that say "I think" or "it seems"
+3. Require: "According to [source], [fact]"
+4. Add to team operating docs
+
+**Phase 3: Define Decision Authority (Week 3)**
+1. Clarify: AI recommends, humans decide
+2. Document who has authority to override AI recommendations (PM, team lead, cross-functional consensus)
+3. Create escalation path (what if AI and human disagree?)
+
+**Phase 4: Build Psychological Safety (Week 4)**
+1. Team exercise: Share an AI mistake you caught (normalize catching errors)
+2. Reward critical thinking ("Good catch on that AI hallucination!")
+3. Avoid: "Why didn't you just use AI?" (shaming)
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- ✅ Review norms documented and followed by team
+- ✅ Evidence standards codified
+- ✅ Decision authority clear
+- ✅ Team comfortable challenging AI outputs
+
+**Related Skills:**
+- `problem-statement.md` — Evidence-based problem framing
+- `epic-hypothesis.md` — Testable, evidence-backed hypotheses
+
+---
+
+#### If Priority = Strategic Differentiation
+
+**Goal:** Create defensible competitive advantages, not just efficiency gains.
+
+**Phase 1: Identify Moat Opportunities (Week 1)**
+1. Ask: "What could we do with AI that competitors can't replicate by adding headcount?"
+   - New customer capabilities (e.g., "AI advisor suggests personalized roadmap")
+   - Workflow rewiring (e.g., "Validate product ideas in 2 days vs. 3 weeks")
+   - Economics shift (e.g., "Deliver enterprise features at SMB prices via AI automation")
+2. List 5 candidates
+3. Prioritize by defensibility (how hard to copy?)
+
+**Phase 2: Design AI-Enabled Capability (Week 2)**
+1. Pick top candidate
+2. Design end-to-end workflow:
+   - What does customer experience?
+   - What does AI do behind the scenes?
+   - What human judgment is required?
+3. Sketch MVP (minimum viable moat)
+
+**Phase 3: Build and Test (Weeks 3-4)**
+1. Build prototype (can be PoL probe, not production)
+2. Test with 5 customers
+3. Measure: Does this create value competitors can't match?
+
+**Phase 4: Validate Moat (Week 5)**
+1. Ask: "How would a competitor replicate this?"
+   - If answer is "hire more people," it's not a moat
+   - If answer is "redesign their entire org," you have a moat
+2. Document competitive analysis
+3. Decide: Build full version, pivot, or kill
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- ✅ Identified at least 1 AI-enabled capability competitors can't easily copy
+- ✅ Validated with customers (they see the value)
+- ✅ Confirmed defensibility (competitor analysis)
+
+**Related Skills:**
+- `positioning-statement.md` — Articulate your AI-driven differentiation
+- `jobs-to-be-done.md` — Understand what customers hire your AI capabilities to do
+
+---
+
+### Step 9: Track Progress (Optional)
+
+**Agent offers:**
+
+Would you like me to create a progress tracker for your AI-shaped transformation?
+
+**Tracker includes:**
+- Current maturity levels (baseline)
+- Target maturity levels (goal state)
+- Action plan milestones (from Step 8)
+- Review cadence (weekly, monthly)
+
+**Options:**
+1. **Yes, create tracker** — [Agent generates Markdown checklist]
+2. **No, I'll track separately** — [Agent provides summary]
+
+---
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Early-Stage Startup (AI-First → Emerging)
+
+**Context:**
+- Team: 2 PMs, 5 engineers
+- AI Usage: ChatGPT for writing PRDs, occasional Copilot usage
+- Goal: Move faster than larger competitors
+
+**Assessment Results:**
+- Context Design: Level 1 (no structured context)
+- Agent Orchestration: Level 1 (one-off prompts)
+- Outcome Acceleration: Level 1 (docs faster, but learning cycles unchanged)
+- Team-AI Facilitation: Level 2 (team uses AI, but no norms)
+- Strategic Differentiation: Level 1 (efficiency only)
+
+**Recommendation:** Focus on **Context Design** first.
+
+**Action Plan (Week 1-4):**
+- Week 1: Create constraints registry (10 technical constraints)
+- Week 2: Build operational glossary (15 terms)
+- Week 3: Establish evidence standards
+- Week 4: Add context to CLAUDE.md files
+
+**Outcome:** After 4 weeks, Context Design → Level 3. Unlocks Agent Orchestration next quarter.
+
+---
+
+### Example 2: Growth-Stage Company (Transitioning → AI-Shaped)
+
+**Context:**
+- Team: 10 PMs, 50 engineers, 5 designers
+- AI Usage: Claude Projects for research, custom workflows emerging
+- Goal: Build defensible AI advantage before IPO
+
+**Assessment Results:**
+- Context Design: Level 3 (structured context, not comprehensive)
+- Agent Orchestration: Level 3 (some workflows, manual handoffs)
+- Outcome Acceleration: Level 2 (modest gains, not systematic)
+- Team-AI Facilitation: Level 3 (norms emerging, not codified)
+- Strategic Differentiation: Level 2 (new capabilities, but copyable)
+
+**Recommendation:** Focus on **Outcome Acceleration** (foundation is solid; now compress learning cycles).
+
+**Action Plan (Week 1-4):**
+- Week 1: Identify bottleneck (discovery cycles take 3 weeks)
+- Week 2: Design AI workflow to run overnight feasibility checks
+- Week 3: Pilot on 1 initiative (cut cycle to 5 days)
+- Week 4: Scale to 3 initiatives
+
+**Outcome:** Learning cycles 5x faster → strategic separation from competitors → Level 4 Outcome Acceleration + Level 3 Strategic Differentiation.
+
+---
+
+### Example 3: Enterprise Company (AI-First, Scattered Usage)
+
+**Context:**
+- Team: 50 PMs, 300 engineers
+- AI Usage: Individual PMs use various tools, no consistency
+- Goal: Standardize AI usage, create cross-functional workflows
+
+**Assessment Results:**
+- Context Design: Level 2 (docs exist, not structured for AI)
+- Agent Orchestration: Level 1 (no shared workflows)
+- Outcome Acceleration: Level 1 (efficiency only)
+- Team-AI Facilitation: Level 1 (private usage, no norms)
+- Strategic Differentiation: Level 1 (no advantage)
+
+**Recommendation:** Focus on **Team-AI Facilitation** first (distributed team needs shared norms before building infrastructure).
+
+**Action Plan (Week 1-4):**
+- Week 1: Establish review norms (AI outputs are drafts)
+- Week 2: Set evidence standards (AI must cite sources)
+- Week 3: Define decision authority (AI recommends, leads decide)
+- Week 4: Pilot with 3 teams, gather feedback
+
+**Outcome:** Team-AI Facilitation → Level 3. Creates foundation for Context Design and Agent Orchestration next.
+
+---
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### 1. **Mistaking Efficiency for Differentiation**
+**Failure Mode:** "We use AI to write PRDs 2x faster—we're AI-shaped!"
+
+**Consequence:** Competitors copy within 3 months; no lasting advantage.
+
+**Fix:** Ask: "If a competitor threw 2x more people at this, could they match us?" If yes, it's efficiency (table stakes), not differentiation.
+
+---
+
+### 2. **Skipping Context Design**
+**Failure Mode:** Building Agent Orchestration workflows without durable context.
+
+**Consequence:** AI workflows are fragile (context changes break everything).
+
+**Fix:** Context Design is foundational. Don't skip it. Build constraints registry, glossary, evidence standards first.
+
+---
+
+### 3. **Individual Usage, Not Team Transformation**
+**Failure Mode:** "I'm AI-shaped, but my team isn't."
+
+**Consequence:** Can't scale; workflows die when you're on vacation.
+
+**Fix:** Prioritize Team-AI Facilitation. Shared norms > individual productivity.
+
+---
+
+### 4. **Focusing on Tools, Not Workflows**
+**Failure Mode:** "Should we use Claude or ChatGPT?"
+
+**Consequence:** Tool debates distract from organizational redesign.
+
+**Fix:** Tools don't matter. Workflows matter. Focus on redesigning how work gets done, not which AI you use.
+
+---
+
+### 5. **Speed Over Learning**
+**Failure Mode:** "AI helps us ship faster!"
+
+**Consequence:** Ship the wrong thing faster (if you're not compressing learning cycles).
+
+**Fix:** Outcome Acceleration is about learning faster, not building faster. Validate hypotheses in days, not weeks.
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+### Related Skills
+- **[context-engineering-advisor](../context-engineering-advisor/SKILL.md)** (Interactive) — **Deep dive on Context Design competency:** Diagnose context stuffing, implement memory architecture, use Research→Plan→Reset→Implement cycle
+- **[problem-statement](../problem-statement/SKILL.md)** (Component) — Evidence-based problem framing (Context Design)
+- **[epic-hypothesis](../epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md)** (Component) — Testable hypotheses with evidence standards
+- **[pol-probe-advisor](../pol-probe-advisor/SKILL.md)** (Interactive) — Use AI to compress validation cycles (Outcome Acceleration)
+- **[discovery-process](../discovery-process/SKILL.md)** (Workflow) — Apply AI-shaped principles to discovery
+- **[positioning-statement](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md)** (Component) — Articulate your AI-driven differentiation (Strategic Differentiation)
+
+### External Frameworks
+- **Dean Peters** — [*AI-First Is Cute. AI-Shaped Is Survival.*](https://deanpeters.substack.com/p/ai-first-is-cute-ai-shaped-is-survival) (Dean Peters' Substack, 2026)
+- **Dean Peters** — [*Context Stuffing Is Not Context Engineering*](https://deanpeters.substack.com/p/context-stuffing-is-not-context-engineering) (Dean Peters' Substack, 2026) — Deep dive on Competency #1 (Context Design)
+
+### Further Reading
+- **Ethan Mollick** — *Co-Intelligence* (on AI as co-intelligence, not replacement)
+- **Shreyas Doshi** — Twitter threads on PM judgment augmentation with AI
+- **Lenny Rachitsky** — Newsletter interviews with AI-forward PMs