본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

chief-information-officer

The CIO's remit — running the technology the company works on, service quality, IT spend, and the boundary with product engineering. Use this to set IT priorities, decide what IT owns versus engineering, structure IT spend or an IT roadmap, judge whether to build, buy or outsource, or work out why IT is seen as a cost center rather than an enabler.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md5.5 KB
  • references/sources.md945 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Chief Information Officer

The CIO runs the technology the company works on. The CTO runs the technology the company sells. Confusing the two is why IT ends up owning a product roadmap it cannot resource, or why engineering ends up running a help desk badly.

What this department owns

The systems every employee depends on and nobody markets: identity, endpoints, network, corporate applications, the service desk, and the backup and restore path. Its output is measured in availability, time-to-resolution, and how little anyone has to think about it.

  • it-operations:service-desk — the front door, and the honest measure of whether any of this works
  • it-operations:systems-administration and it-operations:network-administration — the estate
  • it-operations:endpoint-management — the most exposed surface, because it leaves the building
  • it-operations:identity-lifecycle-administration — execution of joiner-mover-leaver
  • it-operations:it-asset-management — what you have, who has it, what it costs
  • it-operations:backup-and-recovery — the restore, tested rather than assumed
  • it-operations:virtualization-operations — the hypervisor layer the servers actually run on
  • it-operations:cloud-administration — the corporate cloud and SaaS estate, distinct from the product's
  • it-operations:telephony-and-conferencing — voice, rooms, and the obligations they carry
  • it-operations:collaboration-platform-administration — mail, chat, meetings and file sharing, where most of the organization's unstructured data actually lives

The boundaries that cause arguments

State them once, in writing, and the recurring turf disputes stop:

  • Security sets policy; IT executes it. security:access-and-identity decides what a role should be entitled to; this department provisions it. security:vulnerability-management decides what is urgent; it-operations:systems-administration runs the cadence.
  • Engineering owns the product estate; IT owns the corporate estate. technology:cloud-infrastructure designs the environment the product runs in. Where a corporate system runs in the same cloud, ownership follows who the users are, not where it is hosted.
  • Continuity objectives are the business's; the restore is IT's. operations:business-continuity-and-resilience sets RTO and RPO with the process owners; this department has to deliver against them and should say plainly when it cannot.

Build, buy, or outsource

Default to buy for anything that is not a differentiator. Building an internal tool that a mature product already solves is a decision to maintain it forever, staffed by people who would rather be doing something else.

Outsource where the work is commoditized and the failure is recoverable — first-line support out of hours, hardware logistics. Keep in-house what needs institutional context or carries irreversible risk: identity, data, and anything where a bad decision is discovered a year later.

The recovery you have never tested is a plan, not a capability

Backups that have never been restored, failovers never exercised, and runbooks never followed under pressure are all assertions. The characteristic discovery during a real incident is that one of them was wrong in a way nobody could have known without trying.

Test on a schedule, with the person who would actually do it rather than the one who designed it, and time the restore — recovery time is the number the business will ask for, and the only honest answer comes from having done it. The same logic applies to the communication plan: its first real exercise should not be its first real incident.

Spend, and the cost-center trap

Attribute IT cost to the functions consuming it rather than reporting one aggregate. An undifferentiated IT budget invites across-the-board cuts, because nobody can see what any of it buys.

The trap is real: a department judged only on cost is asked only to be cheaper, and the first casualties are refresh cycles and patching, which surface as incidents two years later with no visible cause. Report service outcomes alongside cost, and be specific about what a proposed cut removes.

Track the split between running the estate and changing it, and defend it as a target rather than letting it be the residue after everything else. An estate consuming everything on keeping the lights on has no capacity to improve, and next year it will consume more — the ratio decays on its own unless someone holds it.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Accept a continuity objective you have not demonstrated you can meet.
  • Let identity policy and identity execution sit with the same reviewer.
  • Build an internal tool for a solved commodity problem.
  • Report IT cost without reporting what it delivered.
  • Count an untested restore as a recovery capability.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

cbrock84/headcount2.1천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

cbrock84의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고