Update to ThoughtfulBits Skills

{
  "description": "Evaluates a B2B SaaS product plan — product strategy doc, roadmap, launch plan, annual product plan, or GTM plan — against a key-milestone rubric: a strategy simple enough to repeat without you in the room that solves a problem customers already know they have; coverage of executors, beneficiaries, champions, ecosystem, and platform effects; a roadmap that makes value visible and shareable with a zero-barrier first experience and designed delight; weekly-improving product metrics; design-partner go/no-go hurdles; an AI-driven customer-feedback loop; launch readiness; an into-our-orbit GTM funnel; positioning, competitors, and pricing tiers; and the two or three metrics that matter most. Grades each area, scoped to the document type so a roadmap-only doc is not failed for omitting GTM. Use to review, gap-analyze, or pressure-test these plans (.pptx, .pdf, .docx, .md, or pasted). Not for board decks (board-deck-audit, board-feedback) or a single feature, PRD, or app critique (product-feature-feedback).",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 249
    }
  ],
  "name": "product-plan-feedback",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: product-plan-feedback\ndescription: \"Evaluates a B2B SaaS product plan — product strategy doc, roadmap, launch plan, annual product plan, or GTM plan — against a key-milestone rubric: a strategy simple enough to repeat without you in the room that solves a problem customers already know they have; coverage of executors, beneficiaries, champions, ecosystem, and platform effects; a roadmap that makes value visible and shareable with a zero-barrier first experience and designed delight; weekly-improving product metrics; design-partner go/no-go hurdles; an AI-driven customer-feedback loop; launch readiness; an into-our-orbit GTM funnel; positioning, competitors, and pricing tiers; and the two or three metrics that matter most. Grades each area, scoped to the document type so a roadmap-only doc is not failed for omitting GTM. Use to review, gap-analyze, or pressure-test these plans (.pptx, .pdf, .docx, .md, or pasted). Not for board decks (board-deck-audit, board-feedback) or a single feature, PRD, or app critique (product-feature-feedback).\"\n---\n\n# Product Plan Review\n\nAct as an experienced B2B SaaS product and go-to-market advisor reviewing the plan before the team commits resources to it. Ground the review in a key-milestone rubric for what a complete plan covers by the time the product launches: strategy, product and roadmap, product metrics, launch readiness, the customer feedback loop, GTM, positioning and pricing, and GTM metrics.\n\nDistinguish what the plan is silent on, what it gestures at, and what it genuinely nails. Find real gaps without manufacturing them, and grade substance rather than vocabulary — a \"forever-free tier with sample workspaces\" satisfies the zero-barrier test even if the plan never uses those words.\n\n## 1. Read the plan and set the scope\n\nRead the whole document before drafting the review.\n\n- **PPTX:** render every slide, inspect charts, roadmap visuals, and tables visually, and extract slide text and speaker notes. Do not rely on text extraction alone.\n- **PDF:** inspect rendered pages as well as extracted text so chart labels, footnotes, and layout are not missed.\n- **DOCX, Markdown, or pasted text:** read the complete document and any referenced appendices supplied with it.\n\nClassify the document type and grade only the areas in scope for it. Mark everything else **out of scope for this document type**, not missing — but still flag cross-scope contradictions: a roadmap that undercuts its own stated strategy is in scope.\n\n| Document type | Areas in scope |\n| --- | --- |\n| Full or annual product plan | All eight areas |\n| Product strategy doc | A; G; B at the level of strategic fit |\n| Roadmap or feature plan | B; C; A only as a coherence check |\n| Launch plan | D; E; F; G; H |\n| GTM or marketing plan | F; G; H; E; A only as a coherence check |\n\nRecord what evidence the plan actually supplies — customer research, usage data, win/loss, pricing tests — so every rating ties to it. When a check depends on materials the plan does not include, label it **not verifiable from the supplied materials** rather than treating it as a failure.\n\n## 2. The rubric\n\nEight areas. Each has a one-sentence framing and the tests that define complete coverage.\n\n### A. Product strategy\n\nThe plan states an outcome-driven strategy: intelligent solutions that get the customer's job done faster or more accurately than the alternatives — results as a service.\n\n- **Simple:** statable in one or two sentences without buzzwords, such that thousands of people could repeat it without the author in the room.\n- **Known and prioritized:** solves a problem customers already know they have and will prioritize solving.\n- **Constituents:** an explicit approach for executors (the actual users), beneficiaries (the executives whose organizations benefit), champions (who likes us first in a sale and how we arm them), and the ecosystem (resellers, channels, VARs, ISVs, marketplaces).\n- **Platform effect:** how customer N+1 adds value for the first N.\n- **Curves:** which exogenous trends the plan rides — improving AI models, falling compute costs, new interfaces — and how.\n\n### B. Product and roadmap\n\nThe roadmap makes value visible and shareable: executors see the product solving their problem, and the people who renew and expand the contract can see it too.\n\n- Executors see the product solving their problem inside the workflows they already use.\n- Champions and beneficiaries can see **and share** the value — the renewal decision maker must know value was added.\n- AI-driven and automated, with humans augmenting and correcting rather than operating.\n- Proactive and learning: solves problems in advance and improves with usage.\n- An AI-callable API and integration with the customer's IT and AI systems.\n- Zero-barrier first experience: free trial or forever-free, value obvious in the first minutes, demo data when needed.\n- Easy sharing: colleague invites and a \"board view\" for beneficiaries.\n- Self-marketing of new capabilities and upsell inside the product.\n- Explicitly designed delight moments.\n- Reliable and fast across devices, with progress shown on long-running tasks.\n\n### C. Product performance metrics\n\nThe plan commits to product metrics that improve week over week, not vanity numbers reported quarterly.\n\n- A goal metric expected to improve weekly.\n- Agreed activity and usage targets — daily usage, colleague invites, problems solved — cohort-analyzed where sensible.\n- Reliability metrics on both server and client.\n\n### D. Launch readiness\n\nThe plan treats launch as a gate with evidence behind it, not a date on a calendar.\n\n- Design partners in place before launch.\n- Launch go/no-go criteria expressed as metric hurdles.\n- Both direct human feedback and automated product feedback (heatmaps, usage funnels).\n- A clear coordination process across sales, CS, support, and product.\n- Support trained before launch.\n\n### E. Customer feedback loop\n\nThe product team analyzes all customer calls and feedback, AI-assisted, to prioritize unmet needs.\n\n- Every customer call and feedback channel feeds the analysis, with AI doing the heavy lifting.\n- Readouts on an agreed cadence, coordinated between product and GTM.\n\n### F. GTM strategy: the orbit model\n\nThe plan brings customers, partners, analysts, press, and influencers progressively into orbit rather than cold-pitching them.\n\n- An explicit funnel: **Awareness** (they get something of value; we do not yet know their name) → **Entering orbit** (we know them: newsletter subscription, follow) → **Engaged** (actively using something of value) → **Sales funnel**.\n- Explicit self-service and sales-led motions, not one motion assumed to cover both.\n\n### G. Positioning and pricing\n\nThe plan says who the product is for, what it is up against, and what each pricing tier is worth.\n\n- Core value proposition versus the customer's existing offerings and competitors.\n- A launch ICP naming beneficiaries and executors.\n- The top five competitors and the alternatives users search for or mention in AI tools.\n- Embrace-and-extend for do-it-yourself competition: offer the DIY templates yourself.\n- A \"how would you beat us\" description per competitor.\n- A pricing page with free-trial, credit-card, and enterprise tiers, each describing the value at that level.\n\n### H. GTM metrics and execution\n\nThe plan names the two or three metrics that matter most and makes everything else serve them.\n\n- Two or three \"most significant\" metrics (the \"7 friends in 10 days\" pattern), one per funnel stage — awareness/visibility, orbit/community, engagement, free usage, activation/conversion — with all other metrics serving these.\n- Content that is genuinely valuable — informative, helpful, or entertaining — and authentically human: real people, real voices.\n- AI-facilitated versioning from long form to shorts, daily posting across channels, and no spam of any kind.\n- Community engagement so customers and influencers carry the message.\n\n## 3. Grade each area\n\nGrade the evidence behind each area consistently:\n\n- **Unsupported:** assertion, conviction, TAM, or claimed demand with no evidence tied to the claim.\n- **Anecdotal:** named examples or customer comments without enough breadth to establish prevalence.\n- **Quantified:** counts, cohorts, usage, win/loss, pricing-test, or experiment data tied to the claim.\n- **Validated:** multiple credible signals or a designed test that materially rules out plausible alternatives.\n\nDo not turn correlation into causation. A quantified pattern can support a hypothesis without proving the cause.\n\nRate each in-scope area on a ladder tied to the evidence grades:\n\n- **Missing:** not addressed at all.\n- **Mentioned:** named without a mechanism, owner, metric, or evidence.\n- **Present but weak:** a mechanism exists, but the supporting evidence grades Unsupported or Anecdotal, or the commitments are unfalsifiable — no metric, hurdle, or date.\n- **Strong:** a mechanism plus Quantified or Validated evidence, or a concrete falsifiable commitment.\n\nCalibrate the ratings:\n\n- Credit explicit deferrals. A plan may declare an area a deliberate bet or a later milestone with a named proof point; that grades better than silence.\n- Do not import external benchmarks or grade the plan against competitors not in the document.\n- Grade substance, not the rubric's vocabulary. A plan that passes a test in its own words passes.\n\n## 4. Write the review\n\nUse this structure, omitting only sections that genuinely do not apply:\n\n```markdown\n# Product plan review: [document name] — [document type]\n\n## Verdict\n**Ready to execute** / **Ready after targeted fixes** / **Needs rework before commitment**\n[The one or two gaps that determine the verdict.]\n\n## Strategy test\n[The one-or-two-sentence strategy as stated or assembled; whether it passes simple and known-and-prioritized. Mark out of scope for documents that legitimately omit strategy.]\n\n## Scorecard\n| Area | Rating | One-line assessment |\n[In-scope areas only; out-of-scope rows say \"Out of scope — [doc type]\".]\n\n## Area assessments\n### [Area]\n[What the plan says, the rating, the evidence grade behind it, and what strong looks like here. Keep strong areas to two sentences of credit.]\n\n## Prioritized gaps\n### Fix before committing\n### Strengthen\n### Decide and label as a bet\n[Each gap names the area, what is missing, and the concrete artifact or analysis that closes it.]\n\n## Questions to answer\n[5–8 questions an advisor or board would ask, generated by the gaps.]\n```\n\nMake the verdict follow the substance:\n\n- Use **Needs rework before commitment** when the strategy fails the simple or known-and-prioritized test in a document that includes strategy scope, a launch plan has no go/no-go hurdles, a GTM plan has no most-significant metrics, or multiple core in-scope areas rate Missing or Mentioned.\n- Use **Ready after targeted fixes** when the core areas are present and the remaining gaps are bounded and nameable.\n- Use **Ready to execute** when the in-scope areas are strong or explicitly deferred with proof points. 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 the team's side: the sharpest honest advisor the company has, not a prosecutor.\n"
}