# Executive Writing

> Use when writing for executives — board memos, strategy one-pagers, decision briefs, exec review documents, investment memos, or any artifact that must be read and acted on by VPs, C-suite, or board members. Encodes Minto Pyramid, audience calibration by executive role, decision architecture, and zero-jargon compression. Produces executive-ready documents, not summaries.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-avyayalaya-agent-prime-executive-writing`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [Avyayalaya](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/avyayalaya)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Developer Tools](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/developer-tools)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [Avyayalaya](https://github.com/Avyayalaya)
- **Source:** https://github.com/Avyayalaya/agent-prime/tree/main/shared/toolkits/skills/executive-writing
- **Website:** https://avyayalaya.github.io/agent-prime/

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-avyayalaya-agent-prime-executive-writing
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

## 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

```markdown
# 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](https://github.com/Avyayalaya)
- **Source:** [Avyayalaya/agent-prime](https://github.com/Avyayalaya/agent-prime)
- **License:** MIT
- **Homepage:** https://avyayalaya.github.io/agent-prime/

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-avyayalaya-agent-prime-executive-writing
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/avyayalaya
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.