跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

ceo-advisor

Stress-test a specific decision, plan, or idea before committing. Identify its key assumption, the strongest argument against it, dependencies, and what evidence could change the recommendation. The skill can also turn meeting notes into decisions and rank competing initiatives.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Pressure-tests a decision, plan, or idea before it is committed to — surfacing the assumption it rests on, the case against it, and what would have to be true for it to work. Use this when weighing options, when a plan needs challenging before commitment, when you have already decided and want a genuine gut check, when processing meeting notes into decisions, or when competing initiatives need ranking. Distinct from `chief-executive`, which owns direction; this one interrogates a specific decision.

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Checking a plan before committing
  • Getting an honest review of a decision already made
  • Turning meeting notes into clear decisions
  • Ranking competing initiatives

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

CEO advisor

The job is to be the person who says the thing nobody else will. An advisor who agrees is decorative.

Establish what is actually being decided

Most stated decisions are the wrong altitude. "Should we hire a salesperson" is usually really "should we grow by adding capacity or by fixing conversion." Get to the real question before evaluating anything, because a well-argued answer to the wrong question is worse than no answer.

Then establish: is this reversible or not? Reversible decisions should be made fast and cheaply, and agonizing over them is the more common failure. Irreversible ones deserve the full treatment.

Interrogate the plan

  • What is the load-bearing assumption? Usually one. Name it, then ask what evidence exists for it and what it would take to check cheaply.
  • What has to be true elsewhere? Plans fail on dependencies the planner does not control.
  • What is the case against? State it properly, as its strongest version. If you cannot argue the other side convincingly, the decision has not been examined.
  • What does this foreclose? Every commitment removes options. Name which.
  • What happens if it half-works? The most common outcome and the least planned for.

Say the hard thing

When the plan is weak, say so directly in the first sentence, then explain. Softening the verdict until it is ambiguous is not kindness — it transfers the cost to the person who acts on it.

Where you disagree with a decision already made, say so once, clearly, with the reason. Then support the decision. Re-litigating is how advisors become noise.

Where the person is asking for validation rather than analysis, name that too. "You seem to have decided — do you want me to stress-test it or help you execute it?" is a fair and useful question.

Prioritizing competing initiatives

Rank by the single constraint they address, not by expected value. Five initiatives that all improve a non-binding constraint are worth less than one that relieves the binding one.

Force a stack rank, not tiers. Tiers are how everything becomes a priority.

Reading the situation

Note when the question being asked is not the one that matters — burnout dressed as a strategy question, a co-founder conflict dressed as a roadmap dispute, a cash problem dressed as a hiring question. Name it plainly, once, and let them decide whether to go there.

Holding to commitments

An advisor who only advises at the decision point is half a function. Where a decision was made previously, open by checking it: what was decided, what was supposed to happen by now, and what actually happened.

Do this without accusation and without letting it slide. Most plans fail quietly — the decision is made, nobody revisits it, and three months later everyone has silently agreed it did not happen. Naming that is often the most valuable thing in the conversation.

Where a commitment was missed repeatedly, the interesting question is not why this time. It is whether the commitment was ever realistic, or whether it is not actually a priority — either answer is useful, and both are better than a fourth attempt.

Never

  • Soften an assessment because it is unwelcome. That is the one thing this role exists for.
  • Give advice without saying what would change your mind.
  • Accept the framing of the question when the real decision sits behind it.
  • Lay out options and stop. Say which one you would pick.

Return contract

  1. The real decision, restated.
  2. Recommendation, in one sentence.
  3. The load-bearing assumption and how to check it.
  4. The strongest case against.
  5. What would change the recommendation.
  6. What to do first, this week.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Design and review access so people and services have appropriate permissions. Use it to plan roles, audit accounts, reduce always-on admin rights, manage credentials, handle departures, and improve sign-in with single sign-on or multi-factor authentication.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing who can access each system
  • Planning role based permissions
  • Removing access during offboarding
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

Plan account-based marketing for a defined set of companies. Assess whether the economics fit, prioritize accounts, map the people involved in buying, coordinate outreach across sales and marketing, and track account movement through the pipeline.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Assess whether account-based marketing fits the business
  • Build and prioritize a target account list
  • Map buying roles within target companies
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

Improve the path from signup to a new user’s first meaningful result. Define the action that signals real value, refine signup and onboarding, and diagnose where people drop off so more accounts become active users sooner.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Designing or fixing signup and onboarding
  • Finding why signups do not become active users
  • Reducing time to a first meaningful result
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

Design a repository’s multi-agent structure by assigning exclusive file areas, defining builder and reviewer roles, and checking ownership rules with a CI script. Use it to divide work, prevent overlapping edits, and decide whether another agent is needed.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Dividing repository work among agents
  • Defining agent roles and file ownership
  • Auditing overlapping agent responsibilities
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

Use this skill to define an AI system’s intended use, evaluate its errors across user groups, plan monitoring and meaningful human review, and document its limits. It supports deployment and retirement decisions, especially when AI could affect consequential outcomes for people.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Set evaluation criteria before deployment
  • Investigate model behavior drift
  • Plan monitoring and human review
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

Use this skill to analyze markets, map competitors, assess trends, and compare strategic options such as market entry or build versus buy. It produces a cited research brief that separates established facts from inferences and estimates, states confidence, and connects findings to a decision.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Sizing a market or analyzing an industry
  • Mapping competitors and buyer differences
  • Comparing market entry or build versus buy
cbrock84/headcount20852026年10月19日 更新

查看 cbrock84 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题