技能备份 - 2026-04-15 (40个技能)
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# Example: Director Readiness Coaching
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
You are moving from senior IC or group PM work into Director-level expectations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prompt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
I'm a senior PM managing two PMs, strong on execution, weak on org influence, and interviewing for Director roles in 3 months. Coach me.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Output Excerpt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Diagnosis
|
||||
- You are operating strongly at team altitude and inconsistently at org altitude.
|
||||
- Your likely interview risk is not execution depth. It is proving that you can shape priorities across teams and influence without direct authority.
|
||||
|
||||
Gaps to close in the next 90 days
|
||||
- Build 3 stories that show portfolio tradeoffs, not just feature delivery.
|
||||
- Practice framing decisions in terms of company bets, not just team output.
|
||||
- Create a weekly visibility loop with engineering, design, and GTM stakeholders.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended plan
|
||||
- Weeks 1-2: inventory past projects and rewrite 5 stories using org-level impact language.
|
||||
- Weeks 3-6: run mock interviews focused on conflict, strategy, and delegation.
|
||||
- Weeks 7-12: ship one visible cross-functional improvement and capture evidence of influence.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Gets Reused
|
||||
|
||||
Career coaching becomes sticky when the advice is specific to role altitude, not generic motivation.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
# Example: PRD Review And Pushback
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
You already have a PRD draft, but you want a strong PM peer review instead of grammar cleanup.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prompt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Review this PRD for a notification preferences center. Flag solution smuggling, weak metrics, overscoping, and delivery risk. Be opinionated.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Output Excerpt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Findings
|
||||
- The problem statement is solution-smuggled. "Users need a preferences dashboard" starts from UI, not from the user problem.
|
||||
- Success metrics are incomplete. There is no baseline, no target, and no guardrail metric.
|
||||
- Scope is too broad for one release: channel controls, digest preferences, quiet hours, admin policy, and migration are multiple slices.
|
||||
- User stories are horizontal. API work, UI work, and notification service updates are separated instead of being cut by user value.
|
||||
|
||||
Suggested reframing
|
||||
- Problem: users receive too many irrelevant notifications and lack confidence they can control frequency without missing critical updates.
|
||||
- First release: account-level email preferences + unsubscribe rescue flow + instrumentation for preference changes and unsubscribe reduction.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended next step
|
||||
- Rewrite the problem statement and success metrics first. Do not expand solution detail until scope is sliced vertically.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Good Looks Like
|
||||
|
||||
The review should not stop at criticism. It should:
|
||||
|
||||
- name the anti-pattern directly
|
||||
- explain the consequence
|
||||
- propose a thinner, more testable slice
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
# Example: SaaS Health Diagnostic
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
You want a fast diagnosis from a small set of numbers, not a finance lecture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prompt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Analyze these metrics: MRR $50k, 500 customers, gross margin 80%, monthly churn 8%, CAC $500.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Output Excerpt
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Diagnosis
|
||||
- 8% monthly churn compounds to roughly 63% annual churn. This is a red flag, not a mild retention issue.
|
||||
- ARPA is about $100/month. With 80% gross margin and 8% monthly churn, better LTV is about $1,000.
|
||||
- LTV:CAC is about 2:1. That is below a healthy SaaS target, even though payback is workable at about 6.25 months.
|
||||
- The bottleneck is retention, not acquisition efficiency. Scaling paid acquisition before fixing churn will hide the real problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Likely root causes to inspect next
|
||||
- Weak activation in the first 14 days
|
||||
- Low repeat value for the core job
|
||||
- Poor fit in one or more acquisition cohorts
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended next step
|
||||
- Pull 3 monthly cohorts, compare retention at day 30 / 60 / 90, and isolate the biggest drop-off before changing spend.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters
|
||||
|
||||
The useful part is not just the math. The skill converts the math into a decision:
|
||||
|
||||
- what is actually broken
|
||||
- what not to optimize yet
|
||||
- what analysis should come next
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user