본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

outcome-vs-output

Audit a roadmap or backlog to distinguish outcomes from outputs. Use when the user says "outcome vs output", "escaping the build trap", "are we building the right things", "roadmap review", "feature factory", "output-driven team", "we keep shipping but nothing changes", or wants to shift focus from shipping features to delivering value - even if they don't explicitly say "outcome vs output".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.8 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Overview

Based on Escaping the Build Trap by Melissa Perri. The "build trap" is when teams measure success by features shipped instead of value delivered. Feature factories build a lot - and move metrics very little. Perri's framework: every item in your backlog should trace to a measurable outcome. If it can't, question whether it should be built at all.

The output/outcome distinction:

  • Output - something you ship ("we launched a dashboard")
  • Outcome - a change in user or business behavior ("users now self-serve 40% of support queries")

Outputs are inputs to outcomes. Shipping outputs that don't move outcomes is waste.

Workflow

Step 1: List the current roadmap or backlog items

Work from the actual list. Don't audit hypothetically.

Step 2: Classify each item

For each item, ask: "Is this an output or an outcome?"

  • Output: a feature, a page, a report, an integration, a tool
  • Outcome: a change in what users do or what the business achieves

Mark each: O (output) or OC (outcome).

Step 3: Link outputs to outcomes

For every output, complete this sentence: "If we build [output], we expect [user behavior change], which will result in [business metric change]."

If you can't complete the sentence, the output is not yet justified. Put it on hold.

Step 4: Identify orphaned outputs

Outputs with no traceable outcome are "orphaned." These are the build trap. Common sources:

  • Stakeholder requests with no user research behind them
  • "We should have this" features with no metric attached
  • Copy-what-competitors-have items

List all orphaned outputs. For each, decide: find the outcome it serves, reframe it, or remove it.

Step 5: Check outcome ownership

For each outcome on the roadmap: does a specific team own it? Outcomes without owners don't get achieved.

Step 6: Rewrite the roadmap in outcome language

Replace output-based roadmap items with outcome-based ones.

Before: "Q1: Launch user dashboard, Add CSV export, Rebuild notifications" After: "Q1: Users can self-serve progress tracking (currently requires support ticket)"

Step 7: Set a ratio target

Perri's guidance: a healthy team should spend 70%+ of capacity on outcome-driven work. Calculate the current ratio. If it's below 50%, the team is in the build trap.

Anti-Patterns

1. Relabeling outputs as outcomes Bad: "Our outcome is to launch the dashboard." Good: Launching is never an outcome. "Users track their own progress without contacting support" is an outcome.

2. Outcomes without baselines Bad: "Increase engagement." Good: "Increase weekly active usage from 2.1 to 3.5 sessions per user." Outcomes without baselines can't be measured, so they can never be achieved.

3. Too many outcomes Bad: 12 outcomes for a quarter across one team. Good: 1-3 outcomes per team. More than that means none will be achieved.

4. Measuring outputs as proof of outcomes Bad: "We shipped 14 features this quarter - great execution." Good: "We shipped 14 features. Did any of them move the metrics we cared about?"

Quality Checklist

  • Every roadmap item classified as output or outcome
  • Every output linked to an outcome via "if we build X, we expect Y"
  • Orphaned outputs identified and decision made (justify, reframe, or remove)
  • Every outcome has an owner
  • Roadmap rewritten in outcome language
  • Output-to-outcome ratio calculated and above 50%

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

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

qa-aman의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고