agentsclimarketplace

Roadmap reality check

Skill Abhillashjadhav/PM-agent-OS/.claude/skills/roadmap-reality-check

Evidence-aware product-management skills and reviewer agents for discovery, strategy, build, launch, and iteration.

Install
npx -y skills add Abhillashjadhav/PM-agent-OS --skill roadmap-reality-check

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Strategy-stage skill: audits a roadmap against unit economics — every item tagged supported or unsupported with the economic mechanism stated. Use when the user provides a roadmap plus business numbers and asks what's economically justified — 'reality-check this roadmap', 'which items pay for themselves', 'what survives contact with the P&L', 'does this lineup make economic sense' — or when /pm routes such a request here. Do NOT use to author a roadmap, to prioritize purely by customer impact without economics, to size markets (opportunity-sizer's job), or for definitions of unit-economics terms.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Roadmap Reality Check

A roadmap in, an economics audit out. Every item must show its causal chain to money — or wear the UNSUPPORTED tag until it can.

Verification gates (defined first; output is blocked until all pass)

  • G1 — Tag + mechanism: every roadmap item is tagged SUPPORTED or UNSUPPORTED (as stated), and every tag carries a stated economic mechanism — the causal chain to revenue, gross margin, retention, or CAC, quantified from provided numbers where possible. A tag without a mechanism fails.
  • G2 — Input-only arithmetic: all math uses numbers from the input; anything else is [ESTIMATE: derivation]. Imported industry benchmarks ("PLG converts at 3%") presented as fact fail the gate.
  • G3 — Flip conditions: every UNSUPPORTED item names the missing evidence or number that would flip it. UNSUPPORTED is a verdict on the stated case, not a kill order — the output must say so.

Steps

  1. Bank the numbers. Extract price, margin, CAC, churn, user count, and any per-item figures from the input. These are the only facts. Missing a number the audit needs? Say which, and either ask or proceed with a labeled ESTIMATE range.
  2. Trace each item's mechanism. Which lever does it pull — new revenue (deals, expansion), margin (COGS, support cost), retention (churn), or acquisition (CAC, conversion)? Write the chain: R4 → fewer settings tickets → lower support cost / less rage-churn. Flag every assumed link (ticket volume → churn is an assumption unless the input ties them).
  3. Run the arithmetic. COGS-heavy features get the margin math (a $6/user/mo AI feature against a $49 price moves gross margin ~12 points — show it). Deal-unblocking features get ARR vs. CAC. Refactors get cost-of-inaction.
  4. Tag honestly. SUPPORTED = the provided numbers plus stated mechanism carry the case. UNSUPPORTED (as stated) = the mechanism is missing a load-bearing number or the math goes the wrong way. Strategic bets without economics stay UNSUPPORTED with their flip condition — the tag measures evidence, not vision.
  5. Summarize exposure. N supported / M unsupported, plus the single biggest economic exposure on the roadmap (usually the item that quietly changes COGS or CAC the most).
  6. Gate pass. Check every item for tag + mechanism (G1), every figure for provenance (G2), every UNSUPPORTED for a flip condition (G3). Fix and re-run; maximum 2 repair loops, then report the failure instead of the output.

Output format

ROADMAP REALITY CHECK (inputs: $49/user/mo · 78% GM · CAC $900 · churn 2.2%/mo · 2,000 users)
R1. AI meeting summaries — UNSUPPORTED (as stated)
    Mechanism: adds ~$6/user/mo COGS → GM 78% → ~66% (−12pts) [derived from input]
    Flip condition: evidence the feature lifts retention or supports a price increase ≥ the margin cost
R2. SSO + audit logs — SUPPORTED
    Mechanism: unblocks $110k ARR (3 named deals, per sales notes) at standard margin; no new per-user COGS
...
SUMMARY: 2 supported / 3 unsupported · biggest exposure: R1 margin compression
GATE CHECK: G1 pass (n/n tagged+mechanism) · G2 pass · G3 pass

Hard rules

  1. No tag without a mechanism, no mechanism without its chain to a named lever (revenue, margin, retention, CAC). "Strategic" is not a mechanism.
  2. Never import benchmarks as facts. Industry conversion rates, adoption curves, or cost figures not in the input appear only as [ESTIMATE] with a derivation, and an item whose case rests on one stays UNSUPPORTED (as stated).
  3. Show the margin math for anything with per-unit COGS — AI features especially. A feature that moves gross margin more than 2 points must have that movement in its mechanism line.
  4. UNSUPPORTED items keep their flip condition. The audit's job is to name the missing number, not to kill ideas.

Limitations

  • The audit is as good as the numbers provided; wrong inputs produce a confidently wrong audit — garbage in is not detectable from inside.
  • Mechanisms are causal hypotheses made explicit, not proven causation — the assumed links are flagged so the reader knows which chains to test.
  • Second-order effects (competitive response, cannibalization between items) are noted only when the input surfaces them.
  • This audits economics, not desirability or feasibility — an item can be SUPPORTED and still be the wrong thing to build.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.