Turn a strategic question or intake notes into a one-page brief for discussion. Outline options, assumptions, constraints, success measures, and signals for reconsidering the decision, then save the brief as a Markdown file.
/cs:brief <topic> — Generate a one-page strategy brief from an office-hours intake. First step in the strategic sprint pipeline. Use when a strategic question needs to be framed before boardroom deliberation — e.g. locking options, assumptions, and success criteria for a pricing change or a market-entry decision.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /cs:brief <topic> or /cs:brief <office-hours-output>
Turns intake (raw question or office-hours output) into a one-page strategy brief that the boardroom can deliberate on. This is Step 1 of the strategic sprint pipeline.
/cs:office-hours → /cs:brief → /cs:boardroom → /cs:decide → /cs:execute → /cs:post-mortem
↑ you are here
~/.claude/company-context.md (loaded automatically)A single Markdown file under ~/.claude/briefs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md with this structure:
# Strategy Brief: <topic>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Author:** cs-chief-of-staff
**Status:** DRAFT | UNDER REVIEW | APPROVED | RETIRED
## Context
[1-2 paragraphs: where the company sits today on this topic — pulled from company-context.md]
## Question
[The one sentence question the boardroom must answer]
## Options
1. **Option A:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
2. **Option B:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
3. **Option C:** <name> — <one-sentence summary>
(Minimum 2 options. "Do nothing" is always an option.)
## Assumptions
- <assumption 1 — explicit>
- <assumption 2>
- <assumption 3>
## Constraints
- Time: <by when must this decide>
- Money: <budget envelope>
- People: <who can / can't be reallocated>
- Reversibility: <one-way door | two-way door>
## Affected Roles
[Which cs-* advisors should weigh in. Used to route to /cs:boardroom panel composition.]
- [ ] cs-ceo-advisor
- [ ] cs-cfo-advisor
- [ ] cs-cto-advisor
- [ ] cs-cmo-advisor
- [ ] cs-cro-advisor
- [ ] cs-cpo-advisor
- [ ] cs-coo-advisor
- [ ] cs-chro-advisor
- [ ] cs-ciso-advisor
- [ ] cs-general-counsel-advisor
- [ ] cs-cdo-advisor
- [ ] cs-caio-advisor
- [ ] cs-cco-advisor
- [ ] cs-vpe-advisor
- [ ] cs-chief-of-staff
## Success Criteria
[Measurable outcomes that define success — set BEFORE the decision]
- <metric 1, threshold, timeframe>
- <metric 2, threshold, timeframe>
## Kill Criteria
[What signal would tell you in 90 days that this was the wrong call]
- <metric, threshold, action if missed>
/cs:boardroom~/.claude/briefs/The biggest decision-making failure is debating implementation before agreeing on the question. The brief locks the question, options, and success criteria so the boardroom can deliberate without scope creep.
This is also the artifact handoff — the next command consumes this file, not your memory.
/cs:boardroom <brief> — multi-role deliberation/cs:cross-eval <brief> — multi-model sanity check before boardroom (for high-stakes)/cs:freeze <brief> — cooldown lock for irreversible decisionscs-chief-of-staffcontext-engine, board-meetingVersion: 1.0.0
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.
Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.
Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.
Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.
Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.
Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.