code-ai-installer 4.0.0 → 4.0.1-a

package/domains/product/locales/en/.agents/skills/okr-framework/SKILL.md

@@ -1,284 +1,299 @@
----
-name: okr-framework
-description: Objectives & Key Results for B2B product teams — quarterly cycle, measurable key results
----
-# OKR Framework
-
-> **Category:** Strategy  ·  **Slug:** `okr-framework`
-
-## When to Use
-
-- During quarterly planning for the product team.
-- When translating vision → operational goals.
-- When aligning with exec-level goals (cascading OKR).
-- During post-quarter review — grading KRs.
-
-## Input
-
-| Field | Required | Description |
-|-------|:--------:|-------------|
-| Product vision | ✅ | What is the long-term north star |
-| North Star Metric | ✅ | Measurable anchor |
-| Company-level goals | ✅ | Which OKRs come from above |
-| Previous quarter grade | ⬚ | For adjustments |
-| Team capacity | ✅ | Honest assessment of resources |
-
-## Data Sources
-
-1. `$product-vision` — long-term direction.
-2. `$north-star-metric` — primary metric.
-3. Company OKR — alignment with company goals.
-4. Previous quarter results — learning.
-
-### Related Skills
-
-| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
-|-------|-------------|----------------|
-| `product-vision` | Vision | Before OKR — for alignment |
-| `north-star-metric` | NSM | KRs often tied to NSM |
-| `product-roadmap` | Initiatives | OKR → roadmap themes |
-| `rice-scoring` | Priorities | Which initiatives this quarter |
-
-## Structure
-
-```
-Objective (qualitative goal, inspirational)
-  ├── Key Result 1 (measurable, outcome, not output)
-  ├── Key Result 2
-  └── Key Result 3
-```
-
-## Protocol
-
-### Step 0 — Cascade from Company
-
-1. Review company-level Objectives.
-2. Which of them does our product team drive?
-3. Alignment is not through copy-paste — through "how we contribute".
-
-### Step 1 — Objectives (1-3)
-
-Rules:
-- **Qualitative, inspirational** — not a number
-- Clear enough to know «did we achieve it?»
-- Time-bounded (usually a quarter)
-- 1-3 per quarter — more = distraction
-
-✅ Good: «Become the default onboarding tool for mid-market engineering teams»  
-❌ Bad: «Increase feature adoption» (weakly inspirational) or «Grow ARR by 15%» (this is a KR, not an O)
-
-### Step 2 — Key Results per Objective (2-5)
-
-Rules:
-- **Measurable** — numeric target
-- **Outcome, not output** (not «ship feature X», but «feature X used by Y teams»)
-- **Ambitious** — 70% grade = success (target = stretch)
-- **Time-boxed** (by end of quarter)
-
-KR types:
-- **Impact metrics:** NRR, activation rate, retention
-- **Leading indicators:** time-to-value, feature adoption
-- **Quality:** p95 latency, error rate, NPS
-
-Mix types — not all impact, not all leading.
-
-✅ Good KR: «Grow weekly active teams from 120 to 180»  
-❌ Bad KR: «Ship checkout redesign» (output, not outcome)
-
-### Step 3 — Ambition Calibration
-
-Stretch goals:
-- **Committed KRs** (must hit) — 100% target. Typically 0.8× ambitious.
-- **Aspirational KRs** — 70% target. Typically 1.3× ambitious.
-
-In B2B SaaS the usual mix: 70% committed + 30% aspirational.
-
-### Step 4 — Initiatives Mapping
-
-For each KR — **which initiatives** (features, projects) drive it? Via `$product-roadmap`.
-
-| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
-|----|------------|:---------------:|----------|
-| KR1 | Onboarding checklist | +15% activation | Week 4-8 |
-
-### Step 5 — Sanity Check
-
-- Does team capacity suffice? (not over-ambitious)
-- Does each Objective have ≥ 2 KRs?
-- Do KRs cover leading + lagging?
-- Conflict check: does achieving one KR not destroy another?
-
-### Step 6 — Review Cadence
-
-- **Weekly:** progress check (burndown style)
-- **Mid-quarter:** re-calibration (adjust committed/aspirational if reality changed)
-- **End-of-quarter:** grade each KR (0-1.0), retro
-
-### Step 7 — Grading
-
-- 0.0-0.3 — failed / didn't prioritize
-- 0.4-0.6 — didn't hit but made progress
-- 0.7 — hit target (healthy for aspirational)
-- 1.0 — fully achieved (if consistently 1.0 → KRs not ambitious enough)
-
-## Validation (Quality Gate)
-
-- [ ] 1-3 Objectives per team / quarter
-- [ ] 2-5 KRs per Objective
-- [ ] KRs measurable (numeric, not subjective)
-- [ ] KRs outcome-focused, not output
-- [ ] Mix leading + lagging
-- [ ] Initiatives mapped to KRs
-- [ ] Capacity-checked
-- [ ] Cascade alignment with company OKR
-- [ ] Review cadence planned
-
-## Handoff
-
-The result is input for:
-- **`product-roadmap`** — initiatives mapped to KRs
-- **`rice-scoring`** — prioritization of initiatives within quarter
-- **Data Analyst** (`$saas-metrics`, `$hypothesis-template`) — how to measure KRs
-
-Format: OKR doc (one page per quarter). Via `$handoff`.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
-|-------|-------------|-------------------|
-| Too many Objectives | Focus lost | Max 3 |
-| KR = feature ship | Output, not outcome | Measure customer impact |
-| Vague KR | «Improve X» | Numeric: «X from A to B» |
-| No ambition | Always 1.0 | Aspirational: stretch 70% |
-| Ignoring capacity | Overcommit | Honest capacity check |
-| Copy-paste from company | Not cascaded | «How we contribute to» |
-
-## Template
-
-```markdown
-# OKR Q2 2026 — [Team Name]
-
-## O1: [Inspirational Objective]
-- **KR1.1:** [Metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [date]
-- **KR1.2:** [Metric] from X to Y
-- **KR1.3:** ...
-
-### Initiatives for O1
-| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
-| ... |
-
-## O2: ...
-
----
-
-## Health Check
-- [ ] Objectives inspire
-- [ ] KRs measurable
-- [ ] Capacity-honest
-- [ ] Cascade checked
-
-## Review Schedule
-- Weekly Tuesday: progress
-- Mid-Q (week 6): re-calibrate
-- End-Q: grade + retro
-```
-
-## Worked Example — TeamFlow Q2 2026 OKRs (Product team, post-Mediator)
-
-**Context:** TeamFlow (B2B SaaS HR-tech, $8M ARR). After Mediator synthesis of visions (Alpha + Beta), the team forms Q2 OKRs for the Product team. Company-level OKRs: grow ARR 50% YoY ($8M → $12M by Q4) + launch AI tier + NRR 105% → 110%.
-
-```markdown
-# OKR Q2 2026 — TeamFlow Product Team
-
-## Company Context (cascade input)
-- **Company O:** Become category-leading People Ops platform by 2027
-- **Company KR:** $12M ARR by Q4 2026 (from $8M), NRR 115%, launch AI tier
-- **Our cascade role:** Drive product-led expansion; enable Enterprise tier; make AI MVP successful
-
----
-
-## O1: Ship AI 1:1 tier that managers love and buyers pay for
-
-**Ambition:** Aspirational (70% grade = success)
-
-- **KR1.1:** 40 customers (of 200 base) upgraded to AI Team tier ($8/seat) by June 30
-  - Baseline: 0 (tier not existing yet)
-  - Target: 40 accounts = 20% base penetration
-  - Stretch: 60 accounts
-- **KR1.2:** Among upgraded accounts, 65% of active managers use AI summarization weekly (vs zero baseline)
-- **KR1.3:** AI summarization NPS ≥ 50 (vs general TeamFlow NPS 45)
-- **KR1.4:** Action items completion rate lifts from 60% baseline to 75% in AI tier accounts
-
-### Initiatives for O1
-| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
-|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
-| KR1.1 | AI Team tier launch (feature flag gated) | 40 upgrade conversations | Week 4-10 |
-| KR1.1 | GTM campaign (email, webinar, in-app) | +15 upgrades | Week 6-12 |
-| KR1.2 | Onboarding flow for new AI users (checklist + first-success moment) | +25pp adoption | Week 8-10 |
-| KR1.3 | Feedback loop (in-product rating after each summary) | Signal for iteration | Week 6-ongoing |
-| KR1.4 | Automated reminders for AI-extracted action items | +15pp completion | Week 10-12 |
-
----
-
-## O2: Establish Enterprise tier as credible expansion path
-
-**Ambition:** Committed (100% grade = must hit)
-
-- **KR2.1:** 5 Enterprise tier accounts signed ($50+/seat, min 300 seats each) by June 30
-  - Baseline: 10 Enterprise accounts on legacy pricing
-  - Target: 5 on new Enterprise tier
-- **KR2.2:** Enterprise pilot: 3 design partners live on aggregate dashboard + health score features
-- **KR2.3:** Security review passed: SOC 2 Type II controls documented for AI features (blocker for 2 deals)
-- **KR2.4:** 0 Enterprise contract rejections due to compliance/AI concerns (baseline: 2 in Q1)
-
-### Initiatives for O2
-| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
-|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
-| KR2.1 | Enterprise tier pricing + packaging docs | Sales enablement | Week 2-4 |
-| KR2.2 | Aggregate dashboard MVP (from Beta vision) | 3 design partners engaged | Week 6-12 |
-| KR2.3 | SOC 2 Type II audit for AI tier | Unblock enterprise deals | Week 1-8 |
-| KR2.4 | Compliance FAQ + objection handling deck | Sales reduces objection time | Week 4 |
-
----
-
-## O3: Build data foundation for 2027 category leadership
-
-**Ambition:** Aspirational (70%)
-
-- **KR3.1:** 1:1 behavioral data pipeline instruments 100% of AI tier events (reliable for downstream analytics)
-- **KR3.2:** Privacy architecture passes external audit (trust layer for future AI features)
-- **KR3.3:** Benchmark engine MVP — 3 industry/segment comparisons live for Enterprise accounts
-
-### Initiatives for O3
-| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
-|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
-| KR3.1 | Event schema + instrumentation (PM + Data) | Data basis for Q3 features | Week 4-8 |
-| KR3.2 | Privacy architecture review + attestation | Moat reinforcement | Week 2-10 |
-| KR3.3 | Benchmark calculation engine | Enterprise delight | Week 10-13 |
-
----
-
-## Health Check
-- [x] Objectives inspire — all tie to category positioning
-- [x] KRs measurable — all numeric (% / count / NPS / binary)
-- [x] Capacity-honest — 8 eng + 3 PM + 2 design = 13 person-weeks capacity per sprint × 13 sprints = 169 weeks total available; planned initiatives ≈ 120 person-weeks (71% capacity, 29% buffer)
-- [x] Cascade checked — O1 drives Company KR «launch AI tier»; O2 drives «NRR 115%»; O3 drives «category leadership»
-
-## Review Schedule
-- **Weekly Tuesday 10am:** progress burndown + adjustments (15 min per Objective)
-- **Mid-Q (Week 6, May 12):** re-calibrate commitments, move committed↔aspirational if reality shifted
-- **End-Q (June 30):** grade all KRs (0-1.0), retrospective, input for Q3
-
-## Grading Rubric (applied at end-Q)
-
-Example grade for KR1.1 (40 account upgrades):
-- Hit 40 → 1.0 (hit target)
-- Hit 30 → 0.75 (healthy progress, 75% of target)
-- Hit 20 → 0.5 (partial)
-- Hit 10 → 0.25 (minimal)
-- Hit 0 → 0.0
-
-For aspirational KRs, 0.7 = green. For committed KRs, anything below 1.0 triggers retro.
-```
-
-> **OKR lesson:** O1, O2, O3 distribute across Alpha and Beta priorities — O1 is Alpha-weighted (workflow + managers), O2 is Beta-weighted (analytics + buyers), O3 is foundation for both. This prevents OKR-level re-litigation of the Mediator synthesis — the roadmap is now guided by the triple Objective, not by camp politics.
+---
+name: okr-framework
+description: Objectives & Key Results for B2B product teams — quarterly cycle, measurable key results
+type: triggered
+domain: product
+owners:
+  - pm
+gates:
+  - PM
+tech: []
+topic: []
+triggers:
+  - okr-framework
+  - OKR
+  - objectives key results
+related: []
+budget_lines: 299
+schema_version: 1
+---
+# OKR Framework
+
+> **Category:** Strategy  ·  **Slug:** `okr-framework`
+
+## When to Use
+
+- During quarterly planning for the product team.
+- When translating vision → operational goals.
+- When aligning with exec-level goals (cascading OKR).
+- During post-quarter review — grading KRs.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|-------|:--------:|-------------|
+| Product vision | ✅ | What is the long-term north star |
+| North Star Metric | ✅ | Measurable anchor |
+| Company-level goals | ✅ | Which OKRs come from above |
+| Previous quarter grade | ⬚ | For adjustments |
+| Team capacity | ✅ | Honest assessment of resources |
+
+## Data Sources
+
+1. `$product-vision` — long-term direction.
+2. `$north-star-metric` — primary metric.
+3. Company OKR — alignment with company goals.
+4. Previous quarter results — learning.
+
+### Related Skills
+
+| Skill | What we take | When to invoke |
+|-------|-------------|----------------|
+| `product-vision` | Vision | Before OKR — for alignment |
+| `north-star-metric` | NSM | KRs often tied to NSM |
+| `product-roadmap` | Initiatives | OKR → roadmap themes |
+| `rice-scoring` | Priorities | Which initiatives this quarter |
+
+## Structure
+
+```
+Objective (qualitative goal, inspirational)
+  ├── Key Result 1 (measurable, outcome, not output)
+  ├── Key Result 2
+  └── Key Result 3
+```
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 0 — Cascade from Company
+
+1. Review company-level Objectives.
+2. Which of them does our product team drive?
+3. Alignment is not through copy-paste — through "how we contribute".
+
+### Step 1 — Objectives (1-3)
+
+Rules:
+- **Qualitative, inspirational** — not a number
+- Clear enough to know «did we achieve it?»
+- Time-bounded (usually a quarter)
+- 1-3 per quarter — more = distraction
+
+✅ Good: «Become the default onboarding tool for mid-market engineering teams»  
+❌ Bad: «Increase feature adoption» (weakly inspirational) or «Grow ARR by 15%» (this is a KR, not an O)
+
+### Step 2 — Key Results per Objective (2-5)
+
+Rules:
+- **Measurable** — numeric target
+- **Outcome, not output** (not «ship feature X», but «feature X used by Y teams»)
+- **Ambitious** — 70% grade = success (target = stretch)
+- **Time-boxed** (by end of quarter)
+
+KR types:
+- **Impact metrics:** NRR, activation rate, retention
+- **Leading indicators:** time-to-value, feature adoption
+- **Quality:** p95 latency, error rate, NPS
+
+Mix types — not all impact, not all leading.
+
+✅ Good KR: «Grow weekly active teams from 120 to 180»  
+❌ Bad KR: «Ship checkout redesign» (output, not outcome)
+
+### Step 3 — Ambition Calibration
+
+Stretch goals:
+- **Committed KRs** (must hit) — 100% target. Typically 0.8× ambitious.
+- **Aspirational KRs** — 70% target. Typically 1.3× ambitious.
+
+In B2B SaaS the usual mix: 70% committed + 30% aspirational.
+
+### Step 4 — Initiatives Mapping
+
+For each KR — **which initiatives** (features, projects) drive it? Via `$product-roadmap`.
+
+| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
+|----|------------|:---------------:|----------|
+| KR1 | Onboarding checklist | +15% activation | Week 4-8 |
+
+### Step 5 — Sanity Check
+
+- Does team capacity suffice? (not over-ambitious)
+- Does each Objective have ≥ 2 KRs?
+- Do KRs cover leading + lagging?
+- Conflict check: does achieving one KR not destroy another?
+
+### Step 6 — Review Cadence
+
+- **Weekly:** progress check (burndown style)
+- **Mid-quarter:** re-calibration (adjust committed/aspirational if reality changed)
+- **End-of-quarter:** grade each KR (0-1.0), retro
+
+### Step 7 — Grading
+
+- 0.0-0.3 — failed / didn't prioritize
+- 0.4-0.6 — didn't hit but made progress
+- 0.7 — hit target (healthy for aspirational)
+- 1.0 — fully achieved (if consistently 1.0 → KRs not ambitious enough)
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] 1-3 Objectives per team / quarter
+- [ ] 2-5 KRs per Objective
+- [ ] KRs measurable (numeric, not subjective)
+- [ ] KRs outcome-focused, not output
+- [ ] Mix leading + lagging
+- [ ] Initiatives mapped to KRs
+- [ ] Capacity-checked
+- [ ] Cascade alignment with company OKR
+- [ ] Review cadence planned
+
+## Handoff
+
+The result is input for:
+- **`product-roadmap`** — initiatives mapped to KRs
+- **`rice-scoring`** — prioritization of initiatives within quarter
+- **Data Analyst** (`$saas-metrics`, `$hypothesis-template`) — how to measure KRs
+
+Format: OKR doc (one page per quarter). Via `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|-------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Too many Objectives | Focus lost | Max 3 |
+| KR = feature ship | Output, not outcome | Measure customer impact |
+| Vague KR | «Improve X» | Numeric: «X from A to B» |
+| No ambition | Always 1.0 | Aspirational: stretch 70% |
+| Ignoring capacity | Overcommit | Honest capacity check |
+| Copy-paste from company | Not cascaded | «How we contribute to» |
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+# OKR Q2 2026 — [Team Name]
+
+## O1: [Inspirational Objective]
+- **KR1.1:** [Metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [date]
+- **KR1.2:** [Metric] from X to Y
+- **KR1.3:** ...
+
+### Initiatives for O1
+| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
+| ... |
+
+## O2: ...
+
+---
+
+## Health Check
+- [ ] Objectives inspire
+- [ ] KRs measurable
+- [ ] Capacity-honest
+- [ ] Cascade checked
+
+## Review Schedule
+- Weekly Tuesday: progress
+- Mid-Q (week 6): re-calibrate
+- End-Q: grade + retro
+```
+
+## Worked Example — TeamFlow Q2 2026 OKRs (Product team, post-Mediator)
+
+**Context:** TeamFlow (B2B SaaS HR-tech, $8M ARR). After Mediator synthesis of visions (Alpha + Beta), the team forms Q2 OKRs for the Product team. Company-level OKRs: grow ARR 50% YoY ($8M → $12M by Q4) + launch AI tier + NRR 105% → 110%.
+
+```markdown
+# OKR Q2 2026 — TeamFlow Product Team
+
+## Company Context (cascade input)
+- **Company O:** Become category-leading People Ops platform by 2027
+- **Company KR:** $12M ARR by Q4 2026 (from $8M), NRR 115%, launch AI tier
+- **Our cascade role:** Drive product-led expansion; enable Enterprise tier; make AI MVP successful
+
+---
+
+## O1: Ship AI 1:1 tier that managers love and buyers pay for
+
+**Ambition:** Aspirational (70% grade = success)
+
+- **KR1.1:** 40 customers (of 200 base) upgraded to AI Team tier ($8/seat) by June 30
+  - Baseline: 0 (tier not existing yet)
+  - Target: 40 accounts = 20% base penetration
+  - Stretch: 60 accounts
+- **KR1.2:** Among upgraded accounts, 65% of active managers use AI summarization weekly (vs zero baseline)
+- **KR1.3:** AI summarization NPS ≥ 50 (vs general TeamFlow NPS 45)
+- **KR1.4:** Action items completion rate lifts from 60% baseline to 75% in AI tier accounts
+
+### Initiatives for O1
+| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
+|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
+| KR1.1 | AI Team tier launch (feature flag gated) | 40 upgrade conversations | Week 4-10 |
+| KR1.1 | GTM campaign (email, webinar, in-app) | +15 upgrades | Week 6-12 |
+| KR1.2 | Onboarding flow for new AI users (checklist + first-success moment) | +25pp adoption | Week 8-10 |
+| KR1.3 | Feedback loop (in-product rating after each summary) | Signal for iteration | Week 6-ongoing |
+| KR1.4 | Automated reminders for AI-extracted action items | +15pp completion | Week 10-12 |
+
+---
+
+## O2: Establish Enterprise tier as credible expansion path
+
+**Ambition:** Committed (100% grade = must hit)
+
+- **KR2.1:** 5 Enterprise tier accounts signed ($50+/seat, min 300 seats each) by June 30
+  - Baseline: 10 Enterprise accounts on legacy pricing
+  - Target: 5 on new Enterprise tier
+- **KR2.2:** Enterprise pilot: 3 design partners live on aggregate dashboard + health score features
+- **KR2.3:** Security review passed: SOC 2 Type II controls documented for AI features (blocker for 2 deals)
+- **KR2.4:** 0 Enterprise contract rejections due to compliance/AI concerns (baseline: 2 in Q1)
+
+### Initiatives for O2
+| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
+|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
+| KR2.1 | Enterprise tier pricing + packaging docs | Sales enablement | Week 2-4 |
+| KR2.2 | Aggregate dashboard MVP (from Beta vision) | 3 design partners engaged | Week 6-12 |
+| KR2.3 | SOC 2 Type II audit for AI tier | Unblock enterprise deals | Week 1-8 |
+| KR2.4 | Compliance FAQ + objection handling deck | Sales reduces objection time | Week 4 |
+
+---
+
+## O3: Build data foundation for 2027 category leadership
+
+**Ambition:** Aspirational (70%)
+
+- **KR3.1:** 1:1 behavioral data pipeline instruments 100% of AI tier events (reliable for downstream analytics)
+- **KR3.2:** Privacy architecture passes external audit (trust layer for future AI features)
+- **KR3.3:** Benchmark engine MVP — 3 industry/segment comparisons live for Enterprise accounts
+
+### Initiatives for O3
+| KR | Initiative | Expected impact | Timeline |
+|----|------------|-----------------|----------|
+| KR3.1 | Event schema + instrumentation (PM + Data) | Data basis for Q3 features | Week 4-8 |
+| KR3.2 | Privacy architecture review + attestation | Moat reinforcement | Week 2-10 |
+| KR3.3 | Benchmark calculation engine | Enterprise delight | Week 10-13 |
+
+---
+
+## Health Check
+- [x] Objectives inspire — all tie to category positioning
+- [x] KRs measurable — all numeric (% / count / NPS / binary)
+- [x] Capacity-honest — 8 eng + 3 PM + 2 design = 13 person-weeks capacity per sprint × 13 sprints = 169 weeks total available; planned initiatives ≈ 120 person-weeks (71% capacity, 29% buffer)
+- [x] Cascade checked — O1 drives Company KR «launch AI tier»; O2 drives «NRR 115%»; O3 drives «category leadership»
+
+## Review Schedule
+- **Weekly Tuesday 10am:** progress burndown + adjustments (15 min per Objective)
+- **Mid-Q (Week 6, May 12):** re-calibrate commitments, move committed↔aspirational if reality shifted
+- **End-Q (June 30):** grade all KRs (0-1.0), retrospective, input for Q3
+
+## Grading Rubric (applied at end-Q)
+
+Example grade for KR1.1 (40 account upgrades):
+- Hit 40 → 1.0 (hit target)
+- Hit 30 → 0.75 (healthy progress, 75% of target)
+- Hit 20 → 0.5 (partial)
+- Hit 10 → 0.25 (minimal)
+- Hit 0 → 0.0
+
+For aspirational KRs, 0.7 = green. For committed KRs, anything below 1.0 triggers retro.
+```
+
+> **OKR lesson:** O1, O2, O3 distribute across Alpha and Beta priorities — O1 is Alpha-weighted (workflow + managers), O2 is Beta-weighted (analytics + buyers), O3 is foundation for both. This prevents OKR-level re-litigation of the Mediator synthesis — the roadmap is now guided by the triple Objective, not by camp politics.