Executive Writing

Purpose

Produce an executive-ready document — strategy one-pager, board memo, or decision brief — that a VP, C-suite exec, or board member can read and act on without a guided walkthrough. The output encodes Minto Pyramid structure, role-calibrated framing, decision architecture, and zero-jargon compression into a document that a PM cannot produce at this quality unaided.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Writing a strategy one-pager for executive alignment on a direction
• Preparing a board or exec review memo to be read asynchronously before a meeting
• Drafting a decision brief that must produce a decision in a meeting
• Framing an investment memo, product strategy, or resource allocation request for C-suite approval
• Translating an existing analysis (competitive war map, metric design, spec) into exec-readable format
• Any situation where the reader is a VP+ and the document must produce action, not just comprehension

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need the analysis itself (use Competitive Market Analysis, Metric Design, or Problem Framing first — then run this skill to package the output)
• The audience is your engineering team or direct reports (write a spec or PRD instead)
• You need a presentation deck (this produces written documents, not slides — though the structure translates)
• The "executive" is actually a working-level PM who wants detail (give them the full analysis)
• You need a project status update (use a dashboard or status template, not a strategic document)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

• Generating the underlying analysis or evidence (this skill packages existing insight, it does not create it)
• Slide deck design or visual presentation (document structure only)
• Meeting facilitation or talking points (the document stands alone — if it needs a presenter, it failed)
• Organizational communication (all-hands, change management, team announcements)

---

Context Gate (Step -1)

Before writing anything, verify that an executive document is the right artifact. Answer these four questions:

| Check | Question | If No | |-------|----------|-------| | Artifact fit | Does this situation require a written document read by executives? | If the exec prefers a 5-minute verbal brief, write talking points instead. If the exec wants a dashboard, build a dashboard. Match the exec's consumption mode. | | Analysis readiness | Do you have a clear recommendation backed by evidence? | If you don't have a recommendation yet, run Problem Framing or Competitive Analysis first. An executive document without a recommendation is an information dump (FM-1). | | Decision authority | Does the reader have the authority to act on the Ask? | If not, you're writing to the wrong person. Identify the decision-maker and calibrate for them. | | Timing | Is this the right moment for this document? | If the decision isn't ripe (missing data, org not ready, dependencies unresolved), say so. Premature documents waste executive attention. |

If all four pass: Proceed to Step 0. If any fail: Address the gap before writing. A document sent to the wrong person, at the wrong time, without a recommendation, is worse than no document.

---

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Skill

| Time | What to read | |------|-------------| | 5 min | Purpose, Format Rules, Step 0 routing table, Output Template for your document type | | 15 min | Add: Domain Frameworks 1-3 (Format Routing, Minto Pyramid, Audience Calibration) + Failure Modes | | 30 min | Full skill — all frameworks, Quality Gradients, Worked Example |

| Role | Start here | |------|-----------| | PM writing for their VP | Step 0 routing → Strategy One-Pager template → Audience Calibration (Framework 3) | | PM writing for the CEO/board | Step 0 routing → Board Memo template → Minto Pyramid (Framework 2) + Evidence Cascade (Framework 7) | | PM facilitating a decision meeting | Step 0 routing → Decision Brief template → Decision Architecture (Framework 4) | | PM reviewing someone else's exec doc | Quality Gate (Framework 8) → Failure Modes → Evaluation Criteria |

Notation Key

| Symbol | Meaning | |--------|---------| | H / M / L | Confidence level: H (>70%), M (40-70%), L (70% confident), M (40-70%), L ( Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Author: [Name] | For: [Audience role + name] | Ask type: [Decision / Alignment / Input]

---

Situation (2-3 sentences)

[What's true today that everyone agrees on. Establish common ground. No new information — just shared reality.]

Complication (2-3 sentences)

[What changed, what broke, or what opportunity emerged. This is the tension that demands action.]

Strategic Options

Option 1: [Name — verb phrase, not noun]

[2-3 sentences. What we'd do, what it costs, what it achieves.]

• Upside: [Specific benefit with magnitude]
• Risk: [Specific risk with probability and impact]
• Timeline: [When we'd see results]

Option 2: [Name]

[Same structure]

Option 3: [Name] (if applicable)

[Same structure]

Recommendation: [State the recommended option clearly. Include confidence level (H/M/L) and the key assumption driving it.]

Key Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |------|:-----------:|:------:|------------| | [Specific scenario] | H/M/L | [Quantified if possible] | [Concrete action] |

The Ask

[What you need from the reader. By when. What happens if delayed.]

---

Appendix available on request: [list what's available — full analysis, data tables, sensitivity analysis]

### Template B: Board / Exec Review Memo

```markdown
# [Title — Strategic Conclusion as Header]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Author:** [Name] | **For:** [Board / Exec Team / specific role] | **Read time:** [X min] | **Ask type:** [Decision / Alignment / Input]

---

## TL;DR (3 bullets max)

- [Bullet 1: The situation in one sentence]
- [Bullet 2: The recommendation in one sentence]
- [Bullet 3: The ask in one sentence]

---

## Situation

[2-3 paragraphs. What's true, what the market looks like, where we are. Only include context the reader needs to understand the complication. Not a comprehensive background — just enough to ground what follows.]

## Complication

[1-2 paragraphs. What changed. What's at stake. Why this requires executive attention now, not next quarter.]

## Resolution: [State the Recommendation]

[2-3 paragraphs. The recommended course of action. Why this option over others. What it costs, what it achieves, and by when.]

**Confidence:** [H/M/L] — assumes [key assumption]

## Evidence

### [Evidence Theme 1 — Insight as Header]

[2-3 data points with source and evidence tier. One implication per paragraph.]

### [Evidence Theme 2]

[Same structure]

### [Evidence Theme 3] *(if needed)*

[Same structure]

## Options Considered

| Option | Description | Pros | Cons | Cost | Risk |
|--------|-------------|------|------|:----:|:----:|
| **[Recommended]** | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |
| [Alternative 1] | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |
| [Alternative 2] | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |

## Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|------|:-----------:|:------:|------------|-------|
| [Scenario 1] | H/M/L | [$$$ or strategic] | [Concrete action] | [Name/team] |
| [Scenario 2] | H/M/L | [$$$ or strategic] | [Concrete action] | [Name/team] |

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Confidence | Evidence | What Would Invalidate |
|---|-----------|:----------:|---------|----------------------|
| 1 | [Load-bearing assumption] | H/M/L | [Source (TX)] | [Observable signal] |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

## The Ask

[What you need. By when. What happens if delayed. What the next step is if approved.]

---

## Appendix *(separate page)*

[Full data tables, methodology, sensitivity analysis, detailed competitor data, source list with evidence tiers. Executives read this only if challenged or curious.]

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[What assumption is being made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this recommendation is wrong.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to Re-Assess | Timeline |
|---------|-------------------|----------|
| [Observable event] | [Which sections break] | [When to check] |

Template C: Decision Brief

# Decision: [State the Decision in One Sentence]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Decision owner:** [Name/role] | **Meeting:** [Date, duration] | **Deadline:** [When the decision must be made]

---

## Decision Statement

[One paragraph. What must be decided. Why now. What happens if we don't decide.]

## Context (4-5 sentences max)

[Only what's needed to evaluate the options. Not a comprehensive background. If the reader needs more, link to the appendix.]

## Options

### Option A: [Name — verb phrase]

[2-3 sentences. What we'd do.]

| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|-----------|
| **Cost** | [$$, headcount, opportunity cost] |
| **Timeline** | [When we'd see results] |
| **Risk** | [H/M/L — specific scenario] |
| **Reversibility** | [Easy to reverse / Hard to reverse / One-way door] |
| **Key tradeoff** | [What we give up by choosing this] |

### Option B: [Name]

[Same structure]

### Option C: [Name] *(if applicable)*

[Same structure]

## Recommendation

**[State the recommended option.]** Confidence: [H/M/L].

**Why this option:** [2-3 sentences — the decisive factor]
**Key assumption:** [The single assumption that, if wrong, changes the recommendation]
**What's reversible:** [What we can undo if wrong]
**What's not:** [What we can't undo — the irreversible commitment]

## What We Need from This Meeting

- [ ] **Decision:** [Approve Option X / Choose between A and B / Provide direction on Z]
- [ ] **By:** [Date]
- [ ] **If not decided:** [Consequence — delay cost, missed window, blocked dependency]

---

*Supporting analysis: [link or "available on request"]*

Rules for using these templates:

1. Do not skip sections. If a section isn't applicable, write "Not applicable — [reason]" and move on.
2. Headers are conclusions, not labels. Replace generic headers (e.g., "Market Analysis") with insight headers (e.g., "We're Losing Enterprise Deals on Security, Not Features") after completing the section.
3. The TL;DR / Executive Summary is written last but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
4. Bold the mechanism, not the entity. "Google's investment is $4-6B annually in TPUs" not "Google is investing in TPUs."
5. Every table cell with a risk rating must include a specific scenario, not just H/M/L.

---

Domain Frameworks

> This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its decision tables, scoring rubrics, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces executive documents that encode these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to generic summaries.

Framework 1: Format Routing (Step 0)

Before writing a word of content, select the document format. Wrong format = wrong output, regardless of content quality.

Routing Table:

| Signal in the request | Document type | Why | |----------------------|---------------|-----| | "Need alignment on direction" / "strategy review" / "where should we go" | Strategy One-Pager | Exec needs to agree on a direction, not make a specific choice. One page forces compression. | | "Board meeting" / "exec review" / "need to present the case" / "read-ahead" | Board/Exec Review Memo | Async consumption before a meeting. Must stand alone. Comprehensive but structured. | | "Need a decision by Friday" / "approve this" / "choose between" / "go/no-go" | Decision Brief | A specific decision must happen. Options must be comparable. Meeting-optimized. | | "Investment memo" / "funding request" / "resource allocation" | Board Memo (with financial emphasis) | SCR structure with evidence cascade and ROI framing. | | "Quick update for leadership" | None — use a status template instead | This skill is for strategic documents, not status updates. Redirect. |

Decision table — format selection:

| Dimension | Strategy One-Pager | Board Memo | Decision Brief | |-----------|:------------------:|:----------:|:--------------:| | Page count | 1 (strict) | 3-5 | 1-2 | | Read time | 2-3 min | 10-15 min | 5-7 min | | Ask type | Alignment | Alignment or Decision | Decision | | Options presented | 2-3 with recommendation | 2-4 with full analysis | 2-3 with tradeoff matrix | | Evidence depth | Headline only | Level 1 + Level 2 | Level 1 + selected Level 2 | | Best when | Time-constrained exec needs to decide or align | Exec will read before a meeting, or as decision record | Group of execs must align on a choice in a meeting | | Worst when | Complex multi-stakeholder decision needing full analysis | Quick decision that doesn't warrant 5 pages | No clear options exist yet |

Scoring rubric — did you pick the right format?

| Rating | Criteria | |--------|---------| | Correct | Format matches the exec's consumption mode, the decision's complexity, and the meeting context | | Suboptimal | Format works but adds friction — e.g., a 5-page memo for a decision that needed a one-pager | | Wrong | Format actively hinders the goal — e.g., a one-pager for a board meeting that needed a full evidence trail |

---

Framework 2: Minto Pyramid / SCR Structure

Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle is the backbone of executive communication. The structure: answer first, then grouped supporting arguments, then evidence. Executives read top-down and stop when convinced. Structure accordingly.

The SCR Framework (Situation-Complication-Resolution):

| Element | Purpose | Length | Common failure | |---------|---------|--------|---------------| | Situation | Establish common ground. What's true today that everyone agrees on. | 2-3 sentences | Too long — becoming a history lesson instead of shared context | | Complication | Create tension. What changed, broke, or emerged. | 2-3 sentences | Too vague — "the market is changing" (everything is always changing) | | Resolution | Deliver the answer. Your recommendation. | 1-2 sentences | Buried on page 4 instead of stated up front |

Decision table — when to use SCR vs. other structures:

| Structure | When to use | When NOT to use | |-----------|------------|----------------| | SCR (Minto) | Default for all exec communication. Especially: strategy docs, memos, recommendations | When the exec already knows the situation (skip S, go straight to CR) | | SCQA (add Question) | When you want to explicitly frame the question before answering. Board presentations. | When the question is obvious from the complication | | Lead with Ask | When the exec's time is under 2 minutes. Slack messages, email subject lines. | When the exec needs context to evaluate the ask | | Narrative build-up | Almost never for executives. Maybe for a keynote speech. | Any written document for a time-constrained reader |

The Pyramid Structure (below the SCR):

                    RESOLUTION (answer)
                   /         |         \
          Argument 1    Argument 2    Argument 3
          /    |   \      /  |  \       /  |  \
       E1.1 E1.2 E1.3  E2.1 E2.2    E3.1 E3.2

Rules for the pyramid:

• MECE at every level. Arguments under the resolution are Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. No overlap. No gaps.
• Each argument is one idea. If an argument contains "and," it's two arguments.
• Evidence supports its argument, not the resolution directly. Don't jump from evidence to conclusion without the intermediate argument.
• **Maximu

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Avyayalaya
• Source: Avyayalaya/agent-prime
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://avyayalaya.github.io/agent-prime/

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.