--- name: csuite description: "C-suite executive decision support: strategy, technology, growth, competitive intelligence, project evaluation." user-invocable: false allowed-tools: - Read - Write - Bash - Grep - Glob - Edit routing: triggers: # Strategy/CEO - "should I" - "should we" - "evaluate opportunity" - "decision" - "trade-off" - "worth it" - "invest in" - "strategy" - "strategic" # Technology/CTO - "build or buy" - "build vs buy" - "vendor evaluation" - "adopt" - "SaaS vs" - "technology choice" - "tech stack" - "architecture decision" - "should we use" # Growth/CMO - "grow audience" - "content strategy" - "marketing" - "SEO strategy" - "growth" - "brand" - "positioning" - "community building" # Competitive - "competitor" - "competition" - "market landscape" - "competitive analysis" - "differentiation" # Evaluation - "feasibility" - "is it worth" - "effort estimate" - "ROI" - "priority" - "should we start" - "project evaluation" - "go no go" - "viability" pairs_with: [] complexity: Medium category: decision-support --- # C-Suite Decision Support Umbrella skill for all executive decision-making: CEO-level strategy, CTO-level technology choices, CMO-level growth planning, competitive intelligence, and project evaluation. Each domain loads its own reference files on demand -- this skill detects the mode, loads the right references, and executes the appropriate framework. **Scope**: Business decisions with meaningful consequences. Use decision-helper for technical architecture micro-choices, domain agents for code, voice-writer for content, and systematic-debugging for debugging. --- ## Mode Detection Classify the user's request into exactly one mode before proceeding. If the request spans multiple modes, choose the primary one and note the secondary. | Mode | Signal Phrases | Role Lens | |------|---------------|-----------| | **STRATEGY** | Market entry, partnerships, resource allocation, opportunity, "should I/we", strategic pivots, investment | CEO | | **TECHNOLOGY** | Build vs buy, vendor, SaaS, tech stack, architecture, adopt, technology choice | CTO | | **GROWTH** | Content strategy, audience, SEO, marketing, brand, community, positioning, channel | CMO | | **COMPETITIVE** | Competitor, competition, market landscape, differentiation, positioning against, market share | Cross-role | | **EVALUATION** | Feasibility, effort estimate, ROI, priority, go/no-go, viability, "is it worth it" | Cross-role | --- ## Reference Loading Table Load references based on the detected mode. Load only the references required by the mode. | Signal | Mode | Reference | |--------|------|-----------| | Market entry, partnerships, resource allocation, opportunity | STRATEGY | `references/strategic-frameworks.md`, `references/decision-matrices.md` | | Build vs buy, vendor, SaaS, tech stack, architecture | TECHNOLOGY | `references/tco-framework.md`, `references/vendor-evaluation.md` | | Content, audience, SEO, marketing, brand, community | GROWTH | `references/audience-segmentation.md`, `references/channel-evaluation.md` | | Competitor, market landscape, positioning, differentiation | COMPETITIVE | `references/competitive-mapping.md`, `references/market-positioning.md` | | Feasibility, effort, ROI, priority, go/no-go | EVALUATION | `references/feasibility-scoring.md`, `references/roi-frameworks.md` | --- ## Instructions ### Mode: STRATEGY (CEO) **Framework**: FRAME -> ANALYZE -> DECIDE **Phase 1: FRAME** -- Convert the user's question into a structured decision with clear stakes and timeline. - Name the actual decision (users present symptoms; the real decision is broader) - Identify irreversibility -- reversible decisions deserve less analysis - Set a time horizon -- 3-month and 3-year decisions need different frameworks - Classify the decision type: Expansion, Partnership, Allocation, Pivot, or Timing - Get the user to state: options (2-4), default path risk, deadline, and what makes it hard **Gate**: Decision framed as one sentence. Options listed (2-4). Type classified. **Phase 2: ANALYZE** -- Evaluate each option through multiple lenses with evidence. For each option, assess: Upside (best realistic + expected outcome), Downside (worst realistic + recovery path + irreversible losses), Requirements (resources, assumptions, dependencies), Opportunity Cost (what you cannot do). Separate facts from assumptions. Quantify where possible. Load reference files for scoring matrices and strategic frameworks. **Gate**: All options analyzed. Facts and assumptions labeled. Opportunity costs explicit. **Phase 3: DECIDE** -- Synthesize into a clear recommendation. - Apply the reversibility test: one-way doors need high confidence; two-way doors can act faster with a checkpoint - Produce: Recommendation (one sentence), Confidence (High/Medium/Low), Why this option (2-3 reasons), What must be true (invalidating assumptions), First move (48-hour action), Revisit trigger - State explicitly what would change the recommendation **Gate**: Recommendation stated. First action identified. Revisit trigger set. --- ### Mode: TECHNOLOGY (CTO) **Framework**: SCOPE -> EVALUATE -> RECOMMEND **Phase 1: SCOPE** -- Define the capability needed, stripped of solution bias. - Start with the need, not the product ("we need reliable async delivery" not "we need Kafka") - Quantify hard requirements (latency, throughput, compliance) - Identify the real driver (build vs buy is sometimes "convince management" or "hire someone") - List actual options: build from scratch, build on OSS, buy SaaS, buy + customize, do nothing **Gate**: Capability defined without solution bias. Options enumerated. Hard requirements quantified. **Phase 2: EVALUATE** -- Score options on dimensions that matter for technology decisions. - Total cost of ownership at Year 3, not sticker price (the "free" OSS needing a full-time engineer is expensive) - Score on: Fit (5), TCO (4), Operational burden (4), Team capability (3), Lock-in risk (3), Time to value (3), Flexibility (2) - Apply the build-vs-buy heuristic: core competency, requirements stability, team capacity, timeline, scale, compliance Load `references/tco-framework.md` for TCO templates and `references/vendor-evaluation.md` for vendor scorecards. **Gate**: TCO estimated. Dimensions scored. Build-vs-buy heuristic applied. **Phase 3: RECOMMEND** -- Deliver a clear recommendation with reasoning. - Present the weighted scoring matrix - State: Decision, Confidence, Why this option, Watch-for risks, Migration path, First step - Define exit criteria: when to reconsider for each option type **Gate**: Recommendation stated. Exit criteria defined. First step identified. --- ### Mode: GROWTH (CMO) **Framework**: ASSESS -> STRATEGIZE -> PLAN **Phase 1: ASSESS** -- Understand current state before recommending. - Audit: publications, content volume, existing audience, active channels, performance data - Identify the binding constraint: Discovery, Content, Conversion, Retention, or Capacity - Creator capacity is the binding constraint -- recommend what one person can sustain **Gate**: Current state audited. Binding constraint identified. **Phase 2: STRATEGIZE** -- Design an approach matching capacity and constraint. - Solve the constraint, not everything -- address one binding constraint well - Prefer compound strategies (SEO, evergreen, community) over one-shot campaigns - Recommend maximum 3 active channels with format, cadence, success metric, and effort estimate Load `references/audience-segmentation.md` for ICP scoring and `references/channel-evaluation.md` for channel matrices. **Gate**: Strategy selected. Maximum 3 channels. Effort estimated against capacity. **Phase 3: PLAN** -- Convert strategy into a 90-day executable plan. - Define one primary metric and 2-3 secondary metrics - Break into 30-day phases: Foundation (days 1-30), Execution (31-60), Evaluate (61-90) - Set explicit abandon criteria, pivot triggers, and double-down conditions **Gate**: 90-day plan with checkpoints. Primary metric defined. Abandon criteria explicit. --- ### Mode: COMPETITIVE **Framework**: MAP -> ANALYZE -> POSITION **Phase 1: MAP** -- Build a structured picture of the competitive landscape. - Define the competitive arena: what you compete on, who you serve, where you compete - Tier competitors: Direct (full analysis), Adjacent (positioning only), Aspirational (strategy extraction), Emerging (watch list) - Map the landscape before zooming in -- analyzing one competitor in isolation misses gaps **Gate**: Arena defined. Competitors identified and tiered. At least 2 direct competitors mapped. **Phase 2: ANALYZE** -- Extract actionable intelligence from behavior, not surface impressions. - Focus on what they DO, not what they SAY (pricing, launches, cadence reveal strategy) - Analyze for gaps, not imitation -- find what competitors miss or do poorly - For each direct competitor: product/content analysis, audience analysis, strategy signals Load `references/competitive-mapping.md` for landscape templates and `references/market-positioning.md` for positioning frameworks. **Gate**: Direct competitors analyzed. Gaps and weaknesses identified. **Phase 3: POSITION** -- Convert intelligence into defensible differentiation. - Build a positioning map on two dimensions where you can differentiate - Define: positioning statement, defensible advantages, vulnerable advantages, strategic gaps to exploit - Set monitoring cadence: monthly (direct competitors), quarterly (full landscape), trigger-based (major moves) **Gate**: Positioning map built. Differentiation strategy defined. Monitoring cadence set. --- ### Mode: EVALUATION **Framework**: SCOPE -> EVALUATE -> VERDICT **Phase 1: SCOPE** -- Define the project and what success looks like. - Define done before estimating effort ("build an app" is not a project) - Separate the vision from the MVP -- evaluate the minimum viable version - Name the binding constraint (time, money, skills, attention) - Define success criteria, the problem it solves, who benefits, and why now **Gate**: Project defined with measurable success criteria. MVP scope identified. Binding constraint named. **Phase 2: EVALUATE** -- Assess feasibility, estimate effort, calculate ROI. - Feasibility across three dimensions: Technical, Resource, Market (each High/Medium/Low confidence) - Effort in ranges, not points ("2-5 weeks, most likely 3") - Include hidden costs: learning curve, integration, testing, documentation (add 20-40%) - ROI: direct value, indirect value, strategic value vs. build cost, ongoing cost, opportunity cost Load `references/feasibility-scoring.md` for the three-dimension model and `references/roi-frameworks.md` for estimation templates. **Gate**: Feasibility assessed. Effort estimated in ranges. ROI calculated with confidence level. **Phase 3: VERDICT** -- Deliver a clear go/no-go recommendation. - Verdict: GO, GO WITH CONDITIONS, DEFER, or NO-GO - Include: summary, key factors, conditions (if conditional), what would change the verdict, recommended next step - For multiple projects: rank using RICE scoring (Reach * Impact * Confidence / Effort) **Gate**: Verdict stated with confidence. Conditions specified. Next step identified. --- ## Error Handling | Error | Cause | Solution | |-------|-------|----------| | Too many options | 5+ options creating paralysis | Eliminate obviously inferior options first. Get to 2-4 before running full framework. | | Not enough information | User cannot answer framing questions | Identify 2-3 critical unknowns. Recommend time-boxed research sprint before deciding. | | Analysis paralysis | Keeps adding criteria or second-guessing | Apply reversibility test. If reversible, recommend best current option with checkpoint. | | Emotional attachment | User has already decided, wants validation | Name the pattern directly. Ask: stress-test the choice, or genuinely evaluate all options? | | Comparing apples to oranges | Options at different abstraction levels | Normalize to the capability level. Compare what each option gives for the specific need. | | Vendor lock-in fear | Over-weights lock-in, under-weights time-to-value | Quantify actual switching cost. Compare concrete switching cost against concrete speed benefit. | | Build bias (NIH) | Team wants to build because it is more interesting | Apply core competency test: "If this disappeared, would customers notice?" | | Vanity metrics | Optimizes followers/likes instead of outcomes | Redirect to "one metric that matters" -- what action should the audience take? | | Scope creep during evaluation | Keeps adding features to project definition | Freeze scope at end of Phase 1. Additional features evaluate as v2. | | Optimism bias | Effort estimates too low | Apply reference class test. If no similar project, add 50% to pessimistic estimate. | --- ## References | Reference | When to Load | Content | |-----------|-------------|---------| | `references/strategic-frameworks.md` | STRATEGY mode: market entry, competitive dynamics, SWOT, OKR alignment | Porter's Five Forces, SWOT scoring, OKR alignment matrices | | `references/decision-matrices.md` | STRATEGY mode: structured scoring, comparison, pre-mortem | Weighted decision matrices, ICE/RICE scoring, pre-mortem templates | | `references/tco-framework.md` | TECHNOLOGY mode: TCO modeling, cost projections, build vs buy scorecard | TCO templates, hidden cost checklists, migration cost models | | `references/vendor-evaluation.md` | TECHNOLOGY mode: vendor comparison, RFP criteria, integration complexity | Vendor scorecards, RFP criteria, red flag detection, contract checklist | | `references/audience-segmentation.md` | GROWTH mode: audience analysis, ICP definition, persona development | ICP scoring matrix, persona templates, segmentation frameworks | | `references/channel-evaluation.md` | GROWTH mode: channel selection, CAC/LTV modeling, content funnel | Channel scoring matrices, CAC/LTV models, funnel stage mapping | | `references/competitive-mapping.md` | COMPETITIVE mode: landscape mapping, feature comparison, competitor profiling | Landscape map templates, feature matrices, activity tracker | | `references/market-positioning.md` | COMPETITIVE mode: positioning strategy, differentiation scoring | Positioning maps, differentiation scoring, win/loss frameworks | | `references/feasibility-scoring.md` | EVALUATION mode: feasibility assessment, risk evaluation, go/no-go | Three-dimension feasibility model, confidence calibration, decision tree | | `references/roi-frameworks.md` | EVALUATION mode: effort estimation, ROI calculation, project comparison | T-shirt sizing, three-point estimation, risk-adjusted NPV |