Review product roadmaps through six questions about customer needs, retention, priorities, and tradeoffs. Produce a recommendation on what to ship, refine, or stop, with measurable criteria for reassessing the decision after 90 days.
/cs:cpo-review <plan> — JTBD-driven interrogation of product roadmap, PMF signal, and portfolio focus. Use when committing a quarter's roadmap, deciding whether to kill a feature, or claiming PMF without a retention curve.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Command: /cs:cpo-review <plan>
The JTBD-driven builder cuts the roadmap in half. Six questions to surface what to ship and what to kill.
What job is this feature hired to do, in the user's words?
What user behavior does this move, and how does that ladder to the North Star?
What's the retention curve for users who hire this job — is it flat, decaying, or smiling?
Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort — what's the score and where does this rank in the queue?
python product-team/skills/product-manager-toolkit/scripts/rice_prioritizer.py
What gets cut if this ships? Name the specific initiative or feature.
What signal would tell you in 90 days that this was the wrong bet?
python ../../../c-level-advisor/skills/cpo-advisor/scripts/pmf_scorer.py
python ../../../c-level-advisor/skills/cpo-advisor/scripts/portfolio_analyzer.py
# CPO Review: <feature/plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## JTBD
> <one sentence in user voice>
## North Star Link
- Metric moved: <name>
- Expected delta: <%>
## PMF Signal
- Retention curve shape: flat / smiling / decaying
- Cohort sample size: N
## Score
- RICE: <number>
- Rank in queue: #N of M
## Cut List
- Cut: <initiative>
- Reason: <why this matters more>
## Kill Criteria (90 days)
- Metric: <name>
- Threshold: <value>
- Action if missed: <kill | iterate>
## Verdict
🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 KILL
/cs:cmo-review — does the positioning support this feature?/cs:execute — build the 90-day plan/cs:post-mortem — if kill criteria triggeredcs-cpo-advisorcpo-advisorproduct-team/skills/product-manager-toolkit/Version: 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.