code-ai-installer 2.2.0 → 2.4.0

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
+---
+name: wsjf-scoring
+description: Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)
+---
+# WSJF Scoring
+
+> **Category:** Prioritization  ·  **Slug:** `wsjf-scoring`
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Enterprise B2B context with large initiatives and long cycles.
+- When RICE is insufficient due to time-sensitivity / opportunity cost.
+- In SAFe (Scaled Agile) environments — standard for portfolio/ART planning.
+- When you need to explicitly surface **cost of delay**.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|-------|:--------:|-------------|
+| Epic / initiative list | ✅ | Large items, 1+ sprint |
+| Business value data | ✅ | Revenue, retention impact |
+| Time criticality factors | ✅ | Deadlines, market windows |
+| Risk reduction opportunity | ✅ | Unknowns resolved |
+| Job size estimate | ✅ | Relative sizing (T-shirt or points) |
+
+## Data Sources
+
+1. Financial projections — business value component.
+2. Market analysis — time criticality.
+3. Risk register — RR/OE factor.
+4. Engineering estimates — job size.
+
+### Related Skills
+
+| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
+|-------|-------------|----------------|
+| `rice-scoring` | Alternative method | Choose one for consistency |
+| `epic-breakdown` | Job size estimation | Before WSJF |
+| `product-roadmap` | Scored list → theme assignment | After WSJF |
+
+## Formula
+
+```
+WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
+
+Cost of Delay (CoD) = User-Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
+```
+
+Three CoD components (scale 1-10 Fibonacci: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20):
+- **User-Business Value (UBV):** value to users/business if delivered now
+- **Time Criticality (TC):** value lost with each week of delay
+- **Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE):** risk mitigation + future opportunities enabled
+
+Job Size — relative (also 1-20 Fibonacci).
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 0 — Identify Epic-level Items
+
+WSJF works at **epic-level**, not stories. If items are too small — aggregate.
+
+### Step 1 — User-Business Value (UBV)
+
+Questions:
+- How much revenue uplift?
+- How many customers retained / expanded?
+- How strategic is it?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — Minimal impact
+- **3-5** — Moderate
+- **8-13** — High
+- **20** — Transformational
+
+B2B SaaS typical:
+- Enterprise feature unlocking Fortune 500 deals: 13-20
+- SMB onboarding improvement: 5-8
+- UX polish: 2-3
+
+### Step 2 — Time Criticality (TC)
+
+Questions:
+- Is there a hard deadline (regulatory, customer contract)?
+- Does a window of opportunity close?
+- What is the damage per week of delay?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — No deadline, no decay
+- **3-5** — Some time pressure
+- **8-13** — Hard deadline within quarter
+- **20** — Existential / immediate
+
+### Step 3 — Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement (RR/OE)
+
+Questions:
+- Does it solve a critical architectural risk?
+- Does it unlock future initiatives (platform play)?
+- Does it reduce technical debt blocking other work?
+
+Scale:
+- **1-2** — Standalone, no downstream
+- **3-5** — Enables 1-2 future items
+- **8-13** — Unlocks major platform capability
+- **20** — Foundational
+
+### Step 4 — Job Size
+
+Relative estimation by Fibonacci. If smallest epic = 1, others are relative.
+
+Factors:
+- Engineering effort
+- Design complexity
+- Integration touches
+- Testing scope
+- Deployment complexity
+
+Not precise estimates — relative sizing.
+
+### Step 5 — Calculate WSJF
+
+```
+CoD = UBV + TC + RR/OE
+WSJF = CoD / Job Size
+```
+
+Higher WSJF = higher priority.
+
+Example:
+- Epic: SSO SAML implementation
+- UBV: 13 (unlocks enterprise tier)
+- TC: 8 (2 deals waiting)
+- RR/OE: 5 (unlocks SCIM in next quarter)
+- Job Size: 8 (medium-large)
+- WSJF = (13 + 8 + 5) / 8 = **3.25**
+
+### Step 6 — Rank
+
+Sort by WSJF descending. Top items first.
+
+### Step 7 — Sanity Check
+
+- Top item — is it genuinely highest priority?
+- Bottom item — really lowest?
+- Job Size relative consistency — 13-sized item actually ~6× larger than 2-sized?
+
+### Step 8 — Portfolio View
+
+For portfolio of 20+ epics:
+- Visualize on 2D: CoD (y-axis) × Job Size (x-axis)
+- Diagonal from top-left = higher WSJF
+- Discuss outliers: why large jobs with low CoD?
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] Epic-level items (not stories)
+- [ ] Each component (UBV, TC, RR/OE) scored with rationale
+- [ ] Fibonacci scale applied consistently
+- [ ] Job Size relative, not absolute time
+- [ ] Sanity check — top/bottom make sense
+- [ ] Portfolio view created if >10 items
+- [ ] Scoring session included cross-functional stakeholders (eng + biz + security)
+
+## Handoff
+
+The result is input for:
+- **`product-roadmap`** — scored epics → PI planning (if SAFe)
+- **`epic-breakdown`** — top epics → stories
+- **Tech Lead** → capacity allocation
+- **PM** → quarter planning
+
+Format: WSJF table + 2D portfolio view. Via `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|-------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Precise job size estimates | False precision | Fibonacci relative |
+| All items scored same | Not discriminating | Spread across scale |
+| Skip RR/OE | Miss platform plays | Score all three CoD |
+| No rationale | Scores look arbitrary | 1-line per score |
+| Solo scoring | Lost perspectives | Cross-functional session |
+| WSJF for tiny items | Overkill | Use for epics (>sprint) |
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+# WSJF Portfolio — Q2 2026
+
+## Scoring Legend
+Scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20 (Fibonacci)
+- UBV: User-Business Value
+- TC: Time Criticality
+- RR/OE: Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement
+
+## Epic Scores
+
+| # | Epic | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | WSJF | Rationale |
+|---|------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:----:|-----------|
+| 1 | SSO SAML | 13 | 8 | 5 | 26 | 8 | 3.25 | «2 enterprise deals waiting» |
+| 2 | Mobile app | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 0.65 | «Large effort, low urgency» |
+
+## Top 5 (Rank by WSJF)
+1. [Epic 1] — WSJF 3.25
+...
+
+## Portfolio 2D (CoD × Job Size)
+[Placeholder for chart]
+```
+
+## Worked Example — TeamFlow Enterprise Epic Portfolio WSJF
+
+**Context:** TeamFlow — 10 enterprise customers (500+ employee accounts), 8 in active expansion negotiation. WSJF applied at epic-level portfolio Q2-Q3 2026. SAFe-adjacent process: quarterly Program Increment planning.
+
+### Epic Portfolio (9 epics, SAFe PI Planning session)
+
+| # | Epic | Business Context | UBV | TC | RR/OE | CoD | Job Size | **WSJF** |
+|---|------|------------------|:---:|:--:|:-----:|:---:|:--------:|:--------:|
+| 1 | **SSO SAML + SCIM Provisioning** | 2 enterprise deals waiting ($800K ARR), 3 more in Q3 pipeline | 13 | 13 | 5 | 31 | 5 | **6.20** |
+| 2 | **SOC 2 Type II for AI features** | Compliance gate for 4 Enterprise deals + existing customer renewals | 13 | 8 | 3 | 24 | 8 | **3.00** |
+| 3 | **AI Summarization (Core MVP)** | Flagship feature, category positioning | 13 | 5 | 5 | 23 | 13 | **1.77** |
+| 4 | **Aggregate Dashboard (Enterprise tier)** | Unlocks Enterprise tier pricing ($15+ seat), 80 mid+ accounts | 8 | 5 | 8 | 21 | 8 | **2.63** |
+| 5 | **Data Residency (EU + APAC regions)** | 2 EU enterprise blocked by data residency; APAC prospect | 8 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 13 | **1.38** |
+| 6 | **Zoom/Meet Native Integration** | Competitive parity (Lattice shipped Q4 2025) | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | **0.85** |
+| 7 | **Audit Log API** | Enterprise SIEM integration — nice-to-have, deal enhancer | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 5 | **2.20** |
+| 8 | **Mobile App (iOS + Android)** | Managers want mobile review; not blocking deals | 5 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 20 | **0.45** |
+| 9 | **HIPAA Attestation for Healthcare segment** | 1 prospect in healthcare vertical | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 13 | **0.62** |
+
+### Scoring Rationale (per component)
+
+**Epic 1 — SSO SAML + SCIM (WSJF 6.20):**
+- **UBV 13:** 2 deals × $400K avg = $800K immediate + multiplier effect on Q3 pipeline
+- **TC 13:** Deals close quarterly — delay 1 quarter = lose deals to competitor
+- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks enterprise sales motion (future deals easier)
+- **Job Size 5:** Moderate — SCIM complex but SAML standardized
+
+**Epic 2 — SOC 2 Type II (WSJF 3.00):**
+- **UBV 13:** 4 Enterprise deals + renewal protection (~$1.5M combined)
+- **TC 8:** 6-month audit cycle — must complete for Q4 renewal wave
+- **RR/OE 3:** One-time certification, doesn't unlock future ones
+- **Job Size 8:** Significant — SOC 2 requires audit firm engagement + documentation + attestation
+
+**Epic 3 — AI Summarization Core (WSJF 1.77):**
+- **UBV 13:** Transformational — category play
+- **TC 5:** Competitors may launch parallel AI, but 6-month window exists
+- **RR/OE 5:** Unlocks AI tier pricing + future AI initiatives (platform investment)
+- **Job Size 13:** Large — 6-8 engineers × 3 months + ongoing
+
+**Epic 4 — Aggregate Dashboard (WSJF 2.63):**
+- **UBV 8:** Strong — Enterprise tier unlock
+- **TC 5:** Seasonality — Board review cycles in Q2 + Q4
+- **RR/OE 8:** Unlocks all future People Ops analytics features (huge downstream value)
+- **Job Size 8:** Medium-large
+
+**Epic 8 — Mobile App (WSJF 0.45):**
+- **UBV 5:** Marginal — managers workflow primarily desktop
+- **TC 2:** No hard deadline, no lost deals attributed
+- **RR/OE 2:** Standalone, minimal platform leverage
+- **Job Size 20:** Massive — 2 platforms, 2 teams, likely 6+ months
+
+### Ranked Portfolio (by WSJF)
+
+1. **SSO SAML + SCIM** (6.20) — ship Q2 sprint 1-2 (2 weeks)
+2. **SOC 2 Type II** (3.00) — parallel track, Q2 end target
+3. **Aggregate Dashboard** (2.63) — Q2 sprint 3-6
+4. **Audit Log API** (2.20) — Q2 Q3 sprint 7-8 quick win
+5. **AI Summarization Core** (1.77) — Q2 sprint 3-8 (biggest epic but lower WSJF)
+6. **Data Residency EU** (1.38) — Q3 priority
+7. **Zoom/Meet Integration** (0.85) — Q3-Q4 (competitive parity not burning)
+8. **HIPAA Attestation** (0.62) — Q4 (1 customer waiting, low revenue impact)
+9. **Mobile App** (0.45) — **DEFER, reconsider next PI**
+
+### 2D Portfolio View (CoD × Job Size)
+
+```
+CoD (y)
+ 31  │ Epic 1 ★       
+ 24  │         Epic 2 ★
+ 23  │             Epic 3 (large)
+ 21  │         Epic 4 ★
+ 18  │                         Epic 5
+ 11  │ Epic 7 (small)    Epic 6
+  9  │                                 Epic 8 (huge)
+  8  │                         Epic 9
+     └─────────────────────────────────────────
+       5       8       13              20   Job Size (x)
+
+★ = top-left quadrant (high CoD, smaller job = high WSJF priority)
+```
+
+### Insight from Portfolio View
+
+- **Top-left cluster** (Epics 1, 2, 4, 7): high CoD + manageable size = **PI priority**
+- **Epic 3 (AI Summarization)** is odd-one-out: high CoD but largest job size. Need to **decompose** into sub-epics to manage better (done in `$epic-breakdown`).
+- **Epic 8 (Mobile)** bottom-right: huge job, marginal CoD → **defer**. Re-evaluate next PI if customer feedback elevates.
+- **Portfolio balance:** 4 high-WSJF items fit in Q2 capacity with AI decomposition.
+
+### Decomposition Trigger (Epic 3)
+
+Epic 3 «AI Summarization Core» has WSJF 1.77 due to job size penalty. **Decompose in `$epic-breakdown`**:
+- Sub-epic A: Transcription infrastructure (shared platform) — medium, CoD via RR/OE
+- Sub-epic B: Summary generation pipeline — small-medium, CoD via UBV
+- Sub-epic C: Manager review UI — small, CoD via usability
+- Each sub-epic gets own WSJF rescoring — likely higher than parent due to better size ratio
+
+### PI Commitment (Q2)
+
+| Epic | Assignment | Teams | PI Objectives |
+|------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| Epic 1 | Committed | Platform + Security | «SSO live by Sprint 2» |
+| Epic 2 | Committed | Security + Compliance | «SOC 2 attestation by Sprint 12» |
+| Epic 3 (decomposed) | Committed | AI team | «MVP summarization shipped by Sprint 8» |
+| Epic 4 | Committed | Analytics + Eng | «Dashboard beta by Sprint 10» |
+| Epic 7 | Stretch | Platform | «Audit API if capacity» |
+
+> **WSJF lesson:** Mobile App (Epic 8) WSJF 0.45 was **controversial** initially — loud customer voices «we need mobile». WSJF forced accounting: $20 pm effort for marginal CoD = **terrible ratio**. Deferring saved 20 pm for higher-impact work. AI Summarization (Epic 3) WSJF 1.77 — counterintuitively NOT highest — but this is an artifact of large job size. **Decomposition** fixes this: sub-epics score much higher individually. WSJF doesn't work on monolithic giant epics — decompose first.

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/claude.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "name": "wsjf-scoring",
+  "display_name": "WSJF Scoring",
+  "description": "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\".",
+  "triggers": [
+    "wsjf-scoring",
+    "WSJF",
+    "weighted shortest job first",
+    "SAFe"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "wsjf-scoring"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/copilot.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "name": "wsjf-scoring",
+  "display_name": "WSJF Scoring",
+  "description": "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\".",
+  "triggers": [
+    "wsjf-scoring",
+    "WSJF",
+    "weighted shortest job first",
+    "SAFe"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "wsjf-scoring"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/gemini.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "name": "wsjf-scoring",
+  "display_name": "WSJF Scoring",
+  "description": "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\".",
+  "triggers": [
+    "wsjf-scoring",
+    "WSJF",
+    "weighted shortest job first",
+    "SAFe"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "wsjf-scoring"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "WSJF Scoring"
+  short_description: "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)"
+  default_prompt: "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\"."
+dependencies:
+  tools: []
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: true

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/qwen.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "name": "wsjf-scoring",
+  "display_name": "WSJF Scoring",
+  "description": "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)",
+  "default_prompt": "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\".",
+  "triggers": [
+    "wsjf-scoring",
+    "WSJF",
+    "weighted shortest job first",
+    "SAFe"
+  ],
+  "capabilities": [
+    "wsjf-scoring"
+  ],
+  "tools": [],
+  "implicit_invocation": true
+}

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/wsjf-scoring/agents/skill.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+version: 1
+name: "wsjf-scoring"
+display_name: "WSJF Scoring"
+description: "Weighted Shortest Job First — SAFe-style prioritization for enterprise B2B (cost of delay / job size)"
+default_prompt: "Use $wsjf-scoring when the task relates to the skill \"WSJF Scoring\"."
+triggers:
+  - "wsjf-scoring"
+  - "WSJF"
+  - "weighted shortest job first"
+  - "SAFe"
+capabilities:
+  - "wsjf-scoring"
+tools: []
+invocation:
+  explicit: true
+  implicit: true
+localization:
+  default_locale: "en"
+  available_locales:
+    - "en"