/nw-outcome-kpi-framework
Outcome KPI definition methodology - synthesizes Who Does What By How Much (Gothelf/Seiden), Running Lean (Maurya), and Measure What Matters (Doerr) into a practical framework for measurable outcome KPIs
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-outcome-kpi-framework --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/nw-outcome-kpi-framework
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Outcome KPI definition methodology - synthesizes Who Does What By How Much (Gothelf/Seiden), Running Lean (Maurya), and Measure What Matters (Doerr) into a practical framework for measurable outcome KPIs
SKILL.md
nw-outcome-kpi-framework.SKILL.mdname: nw-outcome-kpi-framework
description: Outcome KPI definition methodology - synthesizes Who Does What By How Much (Gothelf/Seiden), Running Lean (Maurya), and Measure What Matters (Doerr) into a practical framework for measurable outcome KPIs
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
Outcome KPI Framework
"Doing stuff isn't the point. Achieving stuff is." -- Jeff Gothelf
Defines measurable outcome KPIs for user stories and features. Loaded during Phase 4 (Requirements Crafting) to produce `outcome-kpis.md`. Synthesizes three frameworks: customer-centric OKRs, lean metrics, and OKR methodology.
The Outcome KPI Formula
Primary template from Gothelf/Seiden. Every KPI answers five questions:
| Component | Question | Example | |-----------|----------|---------| | **Who** | Which user segment? | Returning customers with 2+ orders | | **Does What** | What observable behavior changes? | Complete checkout without contacting support | | **By How Much** | What is the measurable target? | 40% reduction in support tickets | | **Measured By** | How do we collect the data? | Support ticket system + checkout analytics | | **Timeframe** | When do we measure? | 30 days post-release, then weekly |
Formula: **[Who] [Does what] [By how much]**
Apply as litmus test: if a KPI cannot answer all five components, it measures an output (feature delivery), not an outcome (behavior change).
Good vs Bad KPIs
| Bad (Output) | Good (Outcome) | |-------------|----------------| | Launch mobile app v2 | Mobile users complete purchases 40% more often | | Build recommendation engine | Users purchase from recommendations, increasing from 10% to 25% | | Deploy onboarding redesign | New users complete onboarding within 24 hours 30% more often | | Ship CSV export | Analysts resolve data questions without engineering support 60% of the time |
Leading vs Lagging Indicators
From Gothelf/Seiden: business results are lagging -- teams cannot directly influence them. Target leading indicators instead.
| Type | Definition | Examples | Actionable? | |------|-----------|----------|-------------| | **Lagging** (Impact) | Business results already happened | Revenue, NPS, market share, churn rate | No -- too slow, too many variables | | **Leading** (Outcome) | Behavior changes predicting business results | Purchase completion rate, feature adoption, retention | Yes -- teams can run experiments | | **Leading** (Secondary) | Behaviors predicting primary leading indicators | Page visits, trial starts, onboarding steps completed | Yes -- most granular, fastest signal |
Outcome Mapping Chain
Map every KPI through this chain to ensure traceability:
Business KPI (Lagging/Impact)
Example: "Increase quarterly revenue by 15%"
|
v
Customer Behavior (Leading/Outcome)
+-- Users complete purchases from recommendations (+25%)
+-- Users return within 7 days (+20%)
|
v
Secondary Behavior (Leading/Secondary)
+-- Users browse recommendation pages (+30%)
+-- Users enable push notifications (+15%)Each layer decomposes into more granular behavioral metrics. Teams target the highest-leverage behavior.
Actionable vs Vanity Metrics
From Maurya (Running Lean): actionable metrics "tie specific and repeatable actions to observed results."
| Dimension | Vanity | Actionable | |-----------|--------|------------| | Measures | Business size (totals) | Individual behavior (rates) | | Data type | Gross aggregates | Ratios and unit economics | | Cause/effect | No insight into why | Directly signal product-market fit | | Examples | Total users, page views, downloads | Activation rate, retention cohort, churn rate | | Decision value | Cannot inform action | Drives specific experiments |
The OMTM (One Metric That Matters)
Pick ONE metric per product stage. Optimizing one metric reveals the next.
| Stage | Focus | Example OMTM | |-------|-------|--------------| | Empathy | Problem validation | Interview pain intensity (qualitative) | | Stickiness | Retention | Churn rate, DAU/MAU ratio | | Virality | Organic growth | Viral coefficient, referral rate | | Revenue | Monetization | Customer Lifetime Value, MRR | | Scale | Growth efficiency | CAC/LTV ratio, payback period |
**Good metric characteristics**: rate or ratio (not absolute number) | comparable across time | simple enough to remember | predictive | behavior-changing.
Customer Factory (AARRR) Constraint Mapping
From Maurya: model the business as a production line. Identify the bottleneck, then focus KPIs there.
| Stage | Key Question | Example Metric | |-------|-------------|----------------| | **Acquisition** | Are we reaching the right people? | Visitor-to-signup conversion rate | | **Activation** | Do users get the "aha moment"? | % completing core action in first session | | **Retention** | Do users come back? | Week-1 return rate, DAU/MAU | | **Revenue** | Do users pay? | Trial-to-paid conversion rate | | **Referral** | Do users tell others? | Referral rate, viral coefficient |
Activation is causal -- it drives retention, revenue, and referral. Prioritize activation KPIs when uncertain.
OKR Integration
From Doerr (Measure What Matters): connect KPIs to strategic objectives.
Writing Key Results
Every Key Result uses the outcome formula. Quality criteria:
1. **Measurable**: "It's not a Key Result unless it has a number" (Marissa Mayer) 2. **Outcome-focused**: "Increase email subscribers by 20%" not "Launch newsletter" 3. **Time-bound**: deadline (typically end of quarter) 4. **Verifiable**: no ambiguity about whether met 5. **Aggressive yet realistic**: stretch without demoralizing
Committed vs Aspirational
| Type | Expected Score | Resource Allocation | Failure Response | |------|---------------|--------------------|-----------------| | **Committed** | 1.0 (must deliver) | Consume most available resources | Requires explanation, replanning | |
Read more
name: nw-outcome-kpi-framework description: Outcome KPI definition methodology - synthesizes Who Does What By How Much (Gothelf/Seiden), Running Lean (Maurya), and Measure What Matters (Doerr) into a practical framework for measurable outcome KPIs user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
Outcome KPI Framework
"Doing stuff isn't the point. Achieving stuff is." -- Jeff Gothelf
Defines measurable outcome KPIs for user stories and features. Loaded during Phase 4 (Requirements Crafting) to produce `outcome-kpis.md`. Synthesizes three frameworks: customer-centric OKRs, lean metrics, and OKR methodology.
The Outcome KPI Formula
Primary template from Gothelf/Seiden. Every KPI answers five questions:
| Component | Question | Example | |-----------|----------|---------| | **Who** | Which user segment? | Returning customers with 2+ orders | | **Does What** | What observable behavior changes? | Complete checkout without contacting support | | **By How Much** | What is the measurable target? | 40% reduction in support tickets | | **Measured By** | How do we collect the data? | Support ticket system + checkout analytics | | **Timeframe** | When do we measure? | 30 days post-release, then weekly |
Formula: **[Who] [Does what] [By how much]**
Apply as litmus test: if a KPI cannot answer all five components, it measures an output (feature delivery), not an outcome (behavior change).
Good vs Bad KPIs
| Bad (Output) | Good (Outcome) | |-------------|----------------| | Launch mobile app v2 | Mobile users complete purchases 40% more often | | Build recommendation engine | Users purchase from recommendations, increasing from 10% to 25% | | Deploy onboarding redesign | New users complete onboarding within 24 hours 30% more often | | Ship CSV export | Analysts resolve data questions without engineering support 60% of the time |
Leading vs Lagging Indicators
From Gothelf/Seiden: business results are lagging -- teams cannot directly influence them. Target leading indicators instead.
| Type | Definition | Examples | Actionable? | |------|-----------|----------|-------------| | **Lagging** (Impact) | Business results already happened | Revenue, NPS, market share, churn rate | No -- too slow, too many variables | | **Leading** (Outcome) | Behavior changes predicting business results | Purchase completion rate, feature adoption, retention | Yes -- teams can run experiments | | **Leading** (Secondary) | Behaviors predicting primary leading indicators | Page visits, trial starts, onboarding steps completed | Yes -- most granular, fastest signal |
Outcome Mapping Chain
Map every KPI through this chain to ensure traceability:
Business KPI (Lagging/Impact)
Example: "Increase quarterly revenue by 15%"
|
v
Customer Behavior (Leading/Outcome)
+-- Users complete purchases from recommendations (+25%)
+-- Users return within 7 days (+20%)
|
v
Secondary Behavior (Leading/Secondary)
+-- Users browse recommendation pages (+30%)
+-- Users enable push notifications (+15%)Each layer decomposes into more granular behavioral metrics. Teams target the highest-leverage behavior.
Actionable vs Vanity Metrics
From Maurya (Running Lean): actionable metrics "tie specific and repeatable actions to observed results."
| Dimension | Vanity | Actionable | |-----------|--------|------------| | Measures | Business size (totals) | Individual behavior (rates) | | Data type | Gross aggregates | Ratios and unit economics | | Cause/effect | No insight into why | Directly signal product-market fit | | Examples | Total users, page views, downloads | Activation rate, retention cohort, churn rate | | Decision value | Cannot inform action | Drives specific experiments |
The OMTM (One Metric That Matters)
Pick ONE metric per product stage. Optimizing one metric reveals the next.
| Stage | Focus | Example OMTM | |-------|-------|--------------| | Empathy | Problem validation | Interview pain intensity (qualitative) | | Stickiness | Retention | Churn rate, DAU/MAU ratio | | Virality | Organic growth | Viral coefficient, referral rate | | Revenue | Monetization | Customer Lifetime Value, MRR | | Scale | Growth efficiency | CAC/LTV ratio, payback period |
**Good metric characteristics**: rate or ratio (not absolute number) | comparable across time | simple enough to remember | predictive | behavior-changing.
Customer Factory (AARRR) Constraint Mapping
From Maurya: model the business as a production line. Identify the bottleneck, then focus KPIs there.
| Stage | Key Question | Example Metric | |-------|-------------|----------------| | **Acquisition** | Are we reaching the right people? | Visitor-to-signup conversion rate | | **Activation** | Do users get the "aha moment"? | % completing core action in first session | | **Retention** | Do users come back? | Week-1 return rate, DAU/MAU | | **Revenue** | Do users pay? | Trial-to-paid conversion rate | | **Referral** | Do users tell others? | Referral rate, viral coefficient |
Activation is causal -- it drives retention, revenue, and referral. Prioritize activation KPIs when uncertain.
OKR Integration
From Doerr (Measure What Matters): connect KPIs to strategic objectives.
Writing Key Results
Every Key Result uses the outcome formula. Quality criteria:
1. **Measurable**: "It's not a Key Result unless it has a number" (Marissa Mayer) 2. **Outcome-focused**: "Increase email subscribers by 20%" not "Launch newsletter" 3. **Time-bound**: deadline (typically end of quarter) 4. **Verifiable**: no ambiguity about whether met 5. **Aggressive yet realistic**: stretch without demoralizing
Committed vs Aspirational
| Type | Expected Score | Resource Allocation | Failure Response | |------|---------------|--------------------|-----------------| | **Committed** | 1.0 (must deliver) | Consume most available resources | Requires explanation, replanning | |
AI agents that guide you from idea to working code, with human judgment at every gate. nWave runs inside Claude Code. It breaks feature delivery into seven waves (discover, diverge, discuss, design, devops, distill, deliver).
Repo: nWave-ai/nWave
Other skills on nwave.
- /nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-abr-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-ad-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Open skill - /nw-agent-creation-workflow
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
Open skill - /nw-agent-testing
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Open skill - /nw-architectural-styles-tradeoffs
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Open skill

