Strategic build
Skill newmindsgroup/ai-agent-skills-library/dist/skills/strategic-build
Shared library of AI agent skills β works across Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Windsurf, OpenCode, and Google Antigravity via a single universal installer.
npx -y skills add newmindsgroup/ai-agent-skills-library --skill strategic-buildAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 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
Distinguishes strategic vs tactical work during development using Shreyas Doshi's frameworks and Marty Cagan's empowered teams principles. Use when making architectural decisions, choosing what to build, preventing "product theater", or applying the LNO framework (Leverage, Neutral, Overhead). Helps avoid feature factory and build work that compounds.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the authorβs claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
12.2 KB, ~3.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Strategic Prototyping: Build What Matters
When This Skill Activates
Claude uses this skill when:
- User asks "should I build this?" or "is this worth it?"
- Making architectural decisions (reusable component, abstraction, etc.)
- Evaluating feature requests
- Distinguishing busy-work from high-impact work
- Preventing premature optimization or "product theater"
Core Frameworks
1. The LNO Framework (Source: Shreyas Doshi, ex-Stripe/Twitter/Google PM)
Leverage, Neutral, Overhead:
"Not all tasks are created equal. Some tasks compound (Leverage), some maintain (Neutral), and some drain without return (Overhead)."
Use when: Prioritizing what to build or evaluating if work is strategic
The Three Categories:
π Leverage Work (10x multipliers)
- Compounds over time
- Enables future work
- Used repeatedly
- Examples: Design systems, core infrastructure, strategic features
β‘οΈ Neutral Work (1x necessary)
- Maintains current state
- Necessary but doesn't compound
- One-time impact
- Examples: Bug fixes, minor UX tweaks, maintenance
β Overhead Work (0x drain)
- Busy-work that doesn't move needle
- "Product theater" - looks like PM work but isn't
- Process for process's sake
- Examples: Excessive docs, meetings about meetings, vanity features
How to Apply:
For any work request, ask:
1. Will this be used 10+ times? (Leverage candidate)
2. Does this unblock future work? (Leverage candidate)
3. Is this maintaining vs building? (Likely Neutral)
4. Is this just "looking busy"? (Overhead - avoid)
BUILD: Leverage > Neutral > Overhead
RATIO: Aim for 70% Leverage, 20% Neutral, 10% Overhead max
Example:
Request: "Make this component reusable across the app"
LNO Analysis:
- Will we reuse it 10+ times?
YES β Leverage work, do it
NO (only 2-3 uses) β Neutral/Overhead, build specific first
- Does it unblock future teams?
YES β Leverage (design system contribution)
NO β Wait until 3rd use case, then refactor
2. The Three Levels of Product Work (Source: Shreyas Doshi)
Impact, Execution, Optics:
"Most execution problems are actually strategy problems. Most failed launches had unclear strategy, not bad execution."
The Hierarchy:
Level 1: IMPACT (Why)
- What outcome matters?
- Why does this move the business?
- What problem are we solving?
- Failure mode: Building without clear success criteria
Level 2: EXECUTION (How)
- How do we build this well?
- Technical decisions
- Quality standards
- Failure mode: Great execution on wrong problem
Level 3: OPTICS (Perception)
- How does this look to stakeholders?
- Updating status, demos, comms
- Failure mode: Theater - looks good but no impact
Critical Insight:
"Teams often confuse Level 2 (execution) for Level 1 (impact). You ship fast but to nowhere. Always validate Level 1 before optimizing Level 2."
How to Apply:
Before building anything:
1. Level 1: What's the outcome? (Impact)
- Define success metric
- Know why this matters
2. Level 2: How to build it? (Execution)
- Technical approach
- Quality bar
3. Level 3: How to communicate? (Optics)
- Stakeholder updates
- Launch narrative
Most teams skip Level 1 and jump to Level 2.
3. Pre-Mortems for Strategic Decisions (Source: Shreyas Doshi)
Imagine Failure Before Building:
"Six months from now, this failed completely. Why did it fail?"
Use when: Making big architectural decisions or starting major features
How:
- Assume Failure: Imagine it's 6 months later, project failed
- Work Backwards: List all reasons it could have failed
- Address Top Risks: Mitigate the most likely failure modes
- Decide: Build with eyes open or don't build at all
Example:
Feature: "Build AI-powered recommendations"
Pre-Mortem (Imagine it failed):
- Model wasn't accurate enough (users ignored recommendations)
- Too slow (users left before results loaded)
- Cold start problem (no data for new users)
- Team underestimated ML expertise needed
Mitigations:
β
Start with hybrid: AI + rule-based fallback
β
Set latency budget: <500ms or use cached results
β
Plan cold start: Popular items + collaborative filtering
β
Hire ML advisor or partner with ML team
4. Empowered vs Feature Teams (Source: Marty Cagan)
Product Theater Warning:
"Too many companies overhired. Product owners, product ops, agile coaches - dramatically overpaid for value they provide. It's project management, not product management."
Feature Team (Avoid This):
- Given features to build
- Success = shipped on time
- PM is project manager
- Result: Feature factory, no ownership
Empowered Team (Aim for This):
- Given problems to solve
- Success = business outcome
- PM discovers solutions
- Result: Innovation, ownership
How to Identify:
Feature Team Signs:
β "We need to ship X by Q2"
β Roadmap is list of features
β Success = velocity, not outcomes
β PM writes tickets, not strategies
Empowered Team Signs:
β
"We need to increase retention by 20%"
β
Roadmap is list of outcomes
β
Success = metrics moved
β
PM discovers solutions
Action: If you're in a feature team, shift your framing:
- Feature request β User problem
- Ship date β Outcome timeline
- Velocity β Impact
Decision Tree: Strategic vs Tactical
DECISION: Should I build this?
β
ββ LNO Check βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β Is this Leverage work? ββYESβββββββ PRIORITIZE
β Is this Overhead? βββYESβββββββββββ SKIP
β Is this Neutral? ββββYESβββββββββββ
β
ββ Three Levels Check ββββββββββββββββββ€
β Clear Level 1 (Impact)? ββNOβββββββ PAUSE & DEFINE
β Clear Level 2 (How)? βββββYESββββββ
β
ββ Pre-Mortem ββββββββββββββββββββββββββ€
β Top failure risks mitigated? NOββββ REDESIGN
β Confident in approach? ββββYESβββββ
β
ββ Feature vs Empowered ββββββββββββββββ€
β Solving problem or building feature?
β Problem-focused βββββββββββββββββββ BUILD
β Feature-focused βββββββββββββββββββ REFRAME AS PROBLEM
β
ββ BUILD WITH STRATEGY ββββββββββββββββ
Action Templates
Template 1: LNO Assessment
# Work Item: [Name]
## LNO Classification
- [ ] **Leverage** - Compounds over time, enables future work
- [ ] **Neutral** - Maintains, necessary but doesn't compound
- [ ] **Overhead** - Busy-work, no meaningful impact
## Evidence
- Times this will be used: [number]
- Future work it enables: [list]
- Business impact if skipped: [high/medium/low]
## Decision
- Priority: [High/Medium/Low]
- Rationale: [explain using LNO framework]
Template 2: Three Levels Check
# Feature: [Name]
## Level 1: IMPACT (Why)
- Problem we're solving: [describe]
- Success metric: [specific number]
- Business outcome: [revenue/retention/acquisition/etc.]
- **β Clear?** [yes/no - if no, stop and define]
## Level 2: EXECUTION (How)
- Technical approach: [describe]
- Quality bar: [standards]
- Timeline: [estimate]
- **Only proceed if Level 1 is clear**
## Level 3: OPTICS (Communication)
- Stakeholders: [list]
- Update cadence: [frequency]
- Launch story: [how we'll talk about it]
Template 3: Pre-Mortem
# Pre-Mortem: [Feature Name]
**Scenario:** It's 6 months from now. This completely failed.
## Why It Failed (Brainstorm)
1. [failure reason]
2. [failure reason]
3. [failure reason]
4. [failure reason]
5. [failure reason]
## Top 3 Risks
1. **Risk:** [most likely failure]
**Mitigation:** [how to prevent]
2. **Risk:** [second most likely]
**Mitigation:** [how to prevent]
3. **Risk:** [third most likely]
**Mitigation:** [how to prevent]
## Go/No-Go Decision
- [ ] Risks acceptable and mitigated
- [ ] Still believe in the approach
- [ ] **Decision:** [Build / Redesign / Skip]
Quick Reference Card
π― Strategic Build Checklist
Before Committing:
- Classified as Leverage/Neutral/Overhead (LNO)
- If not Leverage, questioning if worth building
- Level 1 (Impact) crystal clear
- Success metric defined
- Pre-mortem completed
- Top risks mitigated
During Build:
- Avoiding "product theater" - building real value
- Focusing on outcomes, not just output
- Making decisions with strategy in mind
- Building for reuse only when justified (3+ use cases)
Red Flags (Stop & Reassess):
- Can't articulate the "why" (Level 1 unclear)
- Building because "stakeholder wants it"
- No clear success metric
- Feels like busy-work
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Stripe's API Design (Shreyas Doshi at Stripe)
Challenge: Should we build this new API endpoint?
LNO Analysis:
- Used by 1000+ developers β Leverage
- Enables ecosystem growth β High leverage
- Alternative: Developers build workarounds β Tech debt
Decision: Build (high Leverage work)
Example 2: Feature Factory Trap (Marty Cagan)
Challenge: Product team shipping fast but metrics flat
Diagnosis: Feature Team, not Empowered Team
- Roadmap = list of features
- PM = project manager
- No ownership of outcomes
Fix:
- Shifted to outcome-based roadmap
- PM discovers solutions, not just builds features
- Measured impact, not velocity
Result: Fewer features, better outcomes
Example 3: Premature Abstraction
Request: "Make this component super reusable"
LNO Assessment:
- Currently used: 2 times
- Abstraction adds complexity
- Not clear if we'll need it again
Decision: Build specific, wait for 3rd use case
- First 2 uses: Copy-paste (acceptable tech debt)
- 3rd use: Refactor into shared component (data-driven)
Common Pitfalls
β Mistake 1: Optimizing Execution Without Strategy
Problem: Building fast but in wrong direction Fix: Always validate Level 1 (Impact) before Level 2 (Execution)
β Mistake 2: Overhead Disguised as Work
Problem: Updating stakeholders, writing docs, tweaking process Fix: Audit your week - what % was Leverage vs Overhead?
β Mistake 3: Building for "Someday"
Problem: "We might need this later" β premature abstraction Fix: YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It) - build when needed
β Mistake 4: Feature Team Mentality
Problem: Success = shipped, not impact Fix: Reframe every feature as a problem to solve
Related Skills
- zero-to-launch - For scoping MVP strategically
- decision-frameworks - For structured decision-making
- prioritization-craft - For choosing between options
- strategic-pm - For moving from tactical to strategic thinking
- ship-decisions - For when to ship vs iterate
Key Quotes
Shreyas Doshi:
"The hardest thing about product management isn't the frameworks - it's distinguishing Leverage work from Overhead disguised as work."
Marty Cagan:
"If you're just delivering output, you're a project manager. Product managers deliver outcomes."
Shreyas on Pre-Mortems:
"Most teams do post-mortems when it's too late. Do pre-mortems when you can still change course."
Further Learning
- references/shreyas-doshi-frameworks.md - Deep dive on LNO and Three Levels
- references/marty-cagan-empowered.md - Feature teams vs empowered teams
- references/strategic-vs-tactical.md - Case studies and examples
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most roadmap strategy skills give in ~3.0k tokens
Counted across 591 of the 672 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- read product marketing context before asking questionsin 21 of 591, across 10 files
- base price on perceived value, not costin 15 of 591, across 4 files
- compact after finalizing a planin 14 of 591, across 9 files
- differentiate tiers using features, limits, or supportin 14 of 591, across 3 files
- use Van Westendorp to find acceptable price rangein 13 of 591, across 2 files
- use MaxDiff to identify highly valued featuresin 13 of 591, across 2 files
- map topics to buyer journey stagesin 12 of 591, across 6 files
- Extract domain capabilities and classify subdomainsin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Define bounded contexts around consistency and ownershipin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Establish a ubiquitous language glossary and anti-termsin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Capture context boundaries in ADRs before implementationin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Open the strategic design template if neededin 11 of 591, across 1 file
Said here and by no other author read
- classify work as leverage, neutral, or overhead
- prioritize leverage over neutral over overhead
- validate business impact before execution
- imagine project failure to find top risks
- mitigate the most likely failure modes
- avoid premature abstraction until three use cases
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.