Create or update STRATEGY.md through guided questions about a product’s purpose, users, success metrics, and investment areas. Capture a shared basis for product decisions, with draft review and focused updates to existing documents.
Create or update STRATEGY.md. Use when starting a product, adding a strategy doc, or changing direction or roadmap.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
The current year is 2026 - use it when dating the document.
ce-strategy writes and maintains its part of STRATEGY.md - the repo-root project document that captures what the project is, who it serves, how it succeeds, and where the team is investing. The file is shared with other tools and people; this skill writes only the sections references/strategy-template.md names. Downstream skills read it when it exists: ce-ideate, ce-brainstorm, and ce-plan for what work is on-strategy; ce-product-pulse for the product name and key metrics; ce-dogfood for the primary persona. Its frontmatter keys and this skill's section headings are the contract those skills parse - keep them for every section this skill authors; a meaning an existing section already carries is merged into it (references/update-run.md).
Done: STRATEGY.md exists at the repo root and the user has seen what will be written and had an edit pass. For a file in this skill's house format, every required section is filled from answers that survived pushback (or explicitly deferred to a linked legacy doc) and the file matches references/strategy-template.md. For a file in any other shape, done is the user-approved minimal edits applied, with the document's shape unchanged. A section the user could not sharpen in two rounds is written as given and named in chat as worth revisiting - a completed run, not a blocked one.
ce-brainstorm, schedules and prioritization in the issue tracker, implementation plans in ce-plan; do not let them creep into the doc, and do not update the tracker or reconcile in-flight work.references/update-run.md states the test) is maintained in house format on every write: headings renamed, sections in the template's current order, missing required sections offered. Do not treat it as multi-writer merely because the file is shared in principle. A file in any other shape, hand-written or from another tool, is read by meaning and edited in its own shape and idiom: no restructuring into the template, no uninvited frontmatter or headings. Either way, two things are never edited: a section carrying an author-approved marker (e.g. <!-- <tool>: author-approved 2026-07-10 -->), and a doc the user does not own. For those, report the conflict, or write a separate file that links to it. A targeted update preserves every other section's content exactly. Where that section sits follows the same ownership test: a solely-owned file takes the template's order; a multi-writer file is never reordered. references/update-run.md defines the rest and is a required read before you edit an existing file.Ask one question at a time through the host's blocking question tool already in the current tool list. Match by capability; never probe a user-facing tool to discover it. Fall back to numbered options on the visible chat surface only when no such tool is listed or a real question call errors. Never silently skip the question.
Any argument this skill was invoked with — present in the current prompt or conversation, from the user or a calling skill — is a focus hint: a section to revisit (metrics, positioning, tracks; older names such as approach or who it's for map to the current section) or a scope hint. With none, proceed open-ended and let the file state decide the path.
Phase 0 produces a repo model and a decision about which phase runs next, whatever the harness reads. references/grounding.md is a non-optional load: it carries the full source list and the wording of the disagreement question and the focus hint.
The repo model is your working understanding of what this product is. Read STRATEGY.md if it exists. Take what the product is from its stated intent and structure - README, CONCEPTS.md, docs/, sibling docs such as PRODUCT.md, what the code is organized around - and bound that read to "what is this and who is it for" rather than profiling the whole repo. Take what is getting attention now from recent commits or PRs. Attention informs only the Tracks question and staleness in an update run; where it disagrees with stated intent, that is a question for the user, never a conclusion. Show the model in chat before the first question: three to five lines on what you take the product to be, who it seems to serve, and where attention has gone, each with its source named, and invite correction. If the model did not supply the product's name, ask for it here - the template's frontmatter and title need it. A repo with no substantive content is a normal path: say so in one line and run the interview ungrounded.
The next phase is announced in one line by file state: no file -> Phase 1 ("Strategy doc not found - let's write it."), after the legacy-sibling offer in references/grounding.md when one applies; file exists -> Phase 2 ("Found existing strategy - let's review and update.").
Read references/interview.md before the first question - a non-optional load. The opening questions, pushback rules, anti-pattern examples, quality bar, blocking-question tool per host, and the two-round cap live there; improvising from memory produces a passive transcription instead of a strategy doc.
Run the interview in this order (the document itself follows the template's order; Boundaries is asked after the stress test, where its content comes from):
When every section is captured, read references/strategy-template.md, fill it in, present the full draft in chat, offer one round of edits, then write STRATEGY.md.
Read references/update-run.md first - a non-optional load, before the summary, the drift check, or any question. It decides how drift candidates are raised, which section is revisited, and what is preserved untouched. An update run summarizes the file's current state in 3-5 lines, and names any section the repo model suggests is stale as a candidate rather than a verdict. It then revisits the section the focus hint named, or the one the user picks when asked. The user may pick any section; list the drift candidates first, as suggestions rather than as the only choices. Every other section's content is left untouched, and its place follows the ownership test in references/update-run.md. Questions and pushback still come from references/interview.md, applied as if this were a first run.
Note in one line where the file lives and that ce-ideate, ce-brainstorm, and ce-plan pick it up as grounding on their next run. If no downstream skill has run here yet, suggest ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm as a next step.
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.
Monitor an open GitHub pull request over time, respond to review feedback, and address automated check failures. Apply and push fixes, then report whether it appears ready to merge or what still blocks progress.
Develop independent solutions to a defined problem, compare them against shared requirements, and combine useful contributions into a coherent recommendation. An independent assessment and evidence checks support the selection, while unresolved tradeoffs and verification needs remain explicit.
Turn a vague feature idea into clear requirements through dialogue. Define what to build, its scope, and success criteria, then capture the result in a short chat summary or a requirements document ready for implementation planning.
Review code changes or a pull request for bugs, effects on existing behavior, test gaps, and project standards. Receive findings supported by the code and a clear account of review coverage, with local fixes available when explicitly requested.
Save working changes as local Git commits with messages that explain the outcome. Follow the project's commit style, select files explicitly, and split clearly separate changes into a few logical commits when appropriate.
Commit and push code changes, then open a pull request with a clear title and description. You can also draft or update PR descriptions and hand published requests to the follow-up monitoring workflow.