aesthetic-instrument
great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks,…
Transform an output-focused roadmap (feature list) into an outcome-focused one. Rewrites initiatives as outcome statements reflecting user and business impact. Use when a roadmap lists features instead of results, when making a roadmap more strategic, or when communicating what
$ npx -y skills add avelikiy/great_cto --skill outcome-roadmap --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/outcome-roadmapContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Transform an output-focused roadmap (feature list) into an outcome-focused one. Rewrites initiatives as outcome statements reflecting user and business impact. Use when a roadmap lists features instead of results, when making a roadmap more strategic, or when communicating what
name: outcome-roadmap description: "Transform an output-focused roadmap (feature list) into an outcome-focused one. Rewrites initiatives as outcome statements reflecting user and business impact. Use when a roadmap lists features instead of results, when making a roadmap more strategic, or when communicating what success looks like vs what will be built." when_to_use: | Apply when: - CTO provides a feature list and asks "what should we do next quarter" - pm agent receives a roadmap full of features, not outcomes - stakeholders need to understand why we're building things, not just what - a roadmap review reveals it lists outputs (features) but not outcomes (results) Guards — do NOT apply when: - The input already states outcomes with metrics - This is a single-feature PRD (use /prd instead) effort: low allowed-tools: Read, Write paths: - "docs/plans/**" - "docs/requirements/**"
Converts a feature-focused roadmap into an outcome-focused one.
**Core principle:** Teams build features, but customers and businesses care about outcomes. An outcome roadmap communicates WHAT CHANGES, not what gets built.
---
For every initiative on the roadmap, apply:
Enable [customer segment] to [desired customer outcome] so that [business impact]
Examples:
| Output (old) | Outcome (new) | |---|---| | Q2: Build advanced search filters | Q2: Enable customers to find products 50% faster through intuitive discovery | | Q2: AI recommendations | Q2: Increase average order value 20% through personalised recommendations | | Q3: Dashboard redesign | Q3: Help operators monitor all systems with 80% less time spent on dashboards | | Q3: SSO integration | Q3: Remove auth friction for enterprise admins so we can close 3+ enterprise deals | | Q4: Mobile app | Q4: Enable users to complete core workflows on mobile so 7-day retention increases from 20% to 35% |
---
If the user provides a roadmap file, read it. If they describe it verbally, extract the initiative list.
For each initiative, ask internally:
For each item in the roadmap:
1. **Identify the output**: What feature or project is planned? 2. **Uncover the outcome**: Why are we building it? Keep asking "So what?" until you reach real customer or business value. 3. **Rewrite**: Use the formula above. Include a metric if possible.
**"So what?" chain example:**
If the roadmap has 5+ items, group related outcomes into themes:
## Outcome Roadmap — <Product> <Quarter/Year> ### Strategic context <1–2 sentences on what the team is optimising for this period> ### Q<N> Outcomes | Initiative | Outcome Statement | Primary Metric | Target | |------------|------------------|----------------|--------| | <original feature name> | Enable [segment] to [outcome] so that [business impact] | <metric> | <target> | ### What we're NOT doing this quarter (and why) - <deprioritised initiative>: <reason — not enough signal / too early / wrong priority> ### Key assumptions - <assumption this roadmap depends on — if it's wrong, the outcomes change>
Before presenting, check:
---
❌ **"We will build X"** — that's an output, not an outcome.
❌ **"Improve UX"** — unmeasurable. Rewrite as: "Reduce time to complete checkout from 4min to 90sec".
❌ **Outcome without a metric** — if you can't measure it, you can't know if you achieved it.
❌ **Outcomes that require building a specific solution** — "Enable users to access features via mobile app" locks the solution. Better: "Enable users to complete core workflows on any device".
---
When the pm agent receives a feature list without a PRD: 1. Check if the list looks like outputs (feature names) or outcomes (result statements) 2. If outputs → apply this skill to transform before decomposing into tasks 3. Pass the outcome statements into the PLAN doc as the "Why" for each task group
You already have the agent. This is everything around it. great_cto runs Claude Code as a pipeline of 70 specialist agents — an independent model checks each stage before the next builds on it, spending caps refuse rather than warn, and three decisions stay yours: what gets built, how, and whether it ships.
Repo: avelikiy/great_cto
great_cto's own committed aesthetic — the instrument panel. Dark five-step surface ladder, exactly one accent, two faces divided by MEANING (Geist speaks,…
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that great_cto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect…
Analyze images, websites, and Figma files to extract their design and generate a `design.md` with token system, component inventory, and reconstruction notes.…
Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md),…
Structured idea generation + multi-LLM debate for the product-owner stage. Diverge (generate genuinely different bets), debate (a 4-persona panel on 4 models…
Run the great_cto controlled Codex lifecycle with controller-owned writes, verifier evidence, human gates and optional artifact release.