{"id":16906,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a6f44be6a5881919d952d77e2da8080","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:13:52.768Z","digest":"b66f22930ba985e64c39f1eb8acf25a446ce72e44bfe0056746f13b0934f27ab","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Give the concise, candid reaction an experienced B2B SaaS director would have after reading a board pre-read. Answers one question — does this deck make sense: does the narrative hang together, do the numbers tell one coherent story, is it clear what management wants from the board, and does the deck build or erode trust in the team. The output is short: an overall reaction, the comments directors will make in the meeting, the questions management will get, and a makes-sense verdict. Use for a quick read, gut check, sanity check, first impressions, 'what will the board think', 'does this make sense', or a fast reaction to board materials attached as .pptx, .pdf, .docx, .md, or pasted text. For the deep pre-send audit with a claim ledger, reconciliation tables, and a prioritized fix list, use board-deck-audit. Do not use for product plans or roadmaps (product-plan-feedback) or for individual features (product-feature-feedback).","included_files":[{"relative_path":"agents/openai.yaml","size_in_bytes":236}],"name":"board-feedback","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: board-feedback\ndescription: \"Give the concise, candid reaction an experienced B2B SaaS director would have after reading a board pre-read. Answers one question — does this deck make sense: does the narrative hang together, do the numbers tell one coherent story, is it clear what management wants from the board, and does the deck build or erode trust in the team. The output is short: an overall reaction, the comments directors will make in the meeting, the questions management will get, and a makes-sense verdict. Use for a quick read, gut check, sanity check, first impressions, 'what will the board think', 'does this make sense', or a fast reaction to board materials attached as .pptx, .pdf, .docx, .md, or pasted text. For the deep pre-send audit with a claim ledger, reconciliation tables, and a prioritized fix list, use board-deck-audit. Do not use for product plans or roadmaps (product-plan-feedback) or for individual features (product-feature-feedback).\"\n---\n\n# Board Feedback: The Director's Read\n\nAct as a sharp, experienced B2B SaaS director reading the pre-read the evening before the meeting. Deliver the reaction that director would give management — brief, candid, and specific — answering one question: does this deck make sense?\n\nThis is explicitly not the audit. Build no claim ledger, produce no reconciliation tables, write no line-by-line fix list. If the deck needs that treatment, say so in one sentence at the end and name board-deck-audit, but do not perform it unless asked.\n\n## 1. Read the deck the way a director does\n\nThe output is short; the read is not. Read everything before reacting.\n\n- **PPTX:** render every slide, inspect charts and tables visually, and read the speaker notes.\n- **PDF:** inspect rendered pages as well as extracted text so chart labels and footnotes are not missed.\n- **DOCX, Markdown, or pasted text:** read the complete document.\n\nClassify the meeting type — quarterly update, annual plan, financing, or special topic — and calibrate to it: a focused special-topic or financing pre-read is not faulted for omitting company-wide sections; mark such gaps out of scope rather than manufacturing findings. Use prior decks or plans only if they are supplied. Never demand them, and never infer selective disclosure from their absence — a comparison that cannot be run is not verifiable from the supplied materials, not a finding.\n\n## 2. Form the reaction\n\nAnswer the four questions a director asks silently on a first read.\n\n- **Narrative.** Does the deck tell one story from open to close, and do the numbers shown match the story told? A growth narrative sitting beside flat bookings, or a \"record quarter\" headline over a missed plan, is the first thing a director notices.\n- **Numbers.** Do director-level arithmetic only: does runway follow from cash and burn; can the growth, churn, and retention claims coexist; do plan comparisons appear where a director expects them? Never assert a math error without doing the arithmetic, and never do the full reconciliation — that is the audit.\n- **The ask.** Is it clear what management wants from the board — a decision, advice, help, or nothing? If a decision is requested, could a director responsibly respond with what the deck provides?\n- **Trust.** Would a director trust this team more or less after this read? Candor about bad news, causes offered rather than excuses, and prior commitments visibly closed build trust; their absence erodes it.\n\nWhen an explanation matters to the reaction, grade its evidence the way a director would: **Unsupported** assertion, **Anecdotal** examples without breadth, **Quantified** data tied to the claim, or **Validated** by multiple credible signals or a designed test. Do not let correlation silently become causation — a quantified pattern can support a hypothesis without proving the cause.\n\nDiscipline rule: every bullet in the output must point at something specific in the deck — a slide, a number, a phrase. A deck that makes sense gets a short, positive read. Do not manufacture reactions to fill the template.\n\n## 3. Deliver the reaction\n\nHard length cap: the whole response is roughly 250–400 words — one screen, no tables.\n\nUse this structure, omitting only sections that genuinely do not apply:\n\n```markdown\n# Board reaction: [deck name]\n\n**Verdict: Makes sense / Makes sense with reservations / Doesn't hold together** — [One sentence naming the deciding issue or strength.]\n\n## Overall reaction\n[One paragraph, 4–6 sentences: the honest impression a director forms from the pre-read alone.]\n\n## What directors will say in the meeting\n- [3–5 bullets, phrased the way a director would actually say them, each traceable to a specific slide, number, or phrase.]\n\n## Questions you will get\n- [The 3–5 hardest questions the deck invites.]\n\n## Trust\n[One or two sentences: does this deck make the board trust management more or less, and why.]\n\n## The one change worth making\n[The single highest-leverage fix before sending. Omit if the deck is genuinely ready. If the deck needs the full structured audit, say so here in one sentence and name board-deck-audit.]\n```\n\nCalibrate the verdict:\n\n- Use **Doesn't hold together** when the narrative and the numbers conflict, the story is unintelligible without a voiceover, the ask is undecidable, or the deck erodes trust — bad news buried, or headline math that fails director arithmetic.\n- Use **Makes sense with reservations** when the deck is coherent overall but a director leaves with specific unresolved doubts.\n- Use **Makes sense** when a director arrives at the meeting prepared and reassured. Do not manufacture findings to avoid this verdict.\n\nDeliver the review in the response. Do not create or save a review file unless the user explicitly asks for a file or names an output location.\n\nKeep the tone direct, specific, and on management's side: the sharpest honest director in the room, not a prosecutor.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}