Product Strategy

Purpose

Produce an elite-tier strategic product roadmap that articulates a falsifiable vision, sizes and sequences strategic bets with explicit confidence levels, surfaces tensions between competing priorities, names what you are NOT doing and what that costs, allocates resources against capacity constraints, and sets quarterly gates with kill criteria. The output is a Strategy Document — not a feature backlog, not a Gantt chart, but a decision architecture that tells a team what to build, in what order, why, and what to stop doing.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Building or revising a product roadmap for a quarter, half, or year
• Articulating product vision and translating it to executable strategy
• Running annual or quarterly planning exercises
• Making portfolio allocation decisions across multiple investment areas
• A leadership review requires a strategy document with clear bets and sequencing rationale
• You need to explicitly communicate what you are NOT doing and why

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need competitive intelligence to inform the strategy (use Competitive Market Analysis skill first — its output feeds this skill)
• You need to write a specification for a specific feature (use Specification Writing skill — this skill's output feeds that one)
• You need to define metrics for measuring success of shipped features (use Metric Design & Experimentation skill)
• You need to understand a problem before deciding what to build (use Problem Framing skill — that comes upstream)
• You need a project plan with task-level assignments and sprint breakdowns (this is strategy, not project management)

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

• Feature specifications or PRDs (downstream: Specification Writing skill)
• Sprint planning or task decomposition (execution layer, not strategy layer)
• Competitive analysis (upstream: Competitive Market Analysis skill)
• User research synthesis (upstream: Discovery Research skill)
• OKR writing (adjacent but distinct — this skill produces the strategy that OKRs measure)

---

Context Gate (Step -1: Is a Strategy Document the Right Artifact?)

Before applying any frameworks, verify that a strategy document is what the situation actually requires. The most common waste is building a rigorous strategy when the real need is simpler — or more fundamental.

| Check | If YES | If NO | |-------|--------|-------| | Is the problem defined? Do you know what customer problem you're solving and for whom? | Proceed to vision articulation | STOP. Use Problem Framing skill first. Strategy without a defined problem is a solution in search of one. | | Do you have market context? Do you know who competes, what customers want, and where the market is heading? | Proceed to bet-sizing | Use Competitive Market Analysis and/or Discovery Research first. Strategy without market context is guesswork. | | Is this actually a strategy question? Or is someone asking for a feature list with dates? | Proceed — you're building a decision architecture | Clarify scope. If the ask is "when will feature X ship," that's a project management question, not a strategy question. | | Is the time horizon appropriate? Strategy requires ≥1 quarter. Anything shorter is execution planning. | Proceed with appropriate horizon | Redirect to sprint/milestone planning. Strategy doesn't operate at 2-week increments. | | Do you have resource constraints? Team size, budget, dependencies, or hiring timelines? | Proceed — constraints make strategy real | Flag [RESOURCE-UNCONSTRAINED] — the strategy will be aspirational, not executable. Get constraints before finalizing. | | Is there a company-level strategy this must align with? | Reference it explicitly in vision articulation | Proceed, but flag that this product strategy lacks a company-level anchor — may need realignment later. |

Context Gate outcome: If 2+ checks fail, this skill will produce a less useful artifact. Note the gaps in the output header and proceed with caveats, or pause to gather upstream inputs.

---

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Document

| Time Available | What to Read | What You'll Get | |---------------|-------------|-----------------| | 5 minutes | Executive Summary + Vision Statement + Strategic Bets table (names and confidence only) | The thesis: what we're betting on, how confident we are, and the recommended action | | 15 minutes | Above + Sequencing Rationale + NOT-Doing Section + Strategic Tensions | The decision architecture: why this order, what we're sacrificing, where bets compete | | 30 minutes | Full document | Complete strategy with resource plans, quarterly gates, assumptions, and self-critique |

| Your Role | Start Here | Focus On | |-----------|-----------|----------| | Executive / VP | Executive Summary → Strategic Bets → NOT-Doing Section | Are we betting on the right things? What are we giving up? | | PM / Strategy Lead | Full document, front to back | Sequencing logic, tension resolution, quarterly gates | | Engineering Lead | Resource Plan → Sequencing Rationale → Quarterly Gates | Team allocation, dependency chains, checkpoint criteria | | Designer | Vision Statement → Strategic Bets (hypothesis details) → Quarterly Gates | User outcomes per bet, success criteria, adaptation points | | Finance / Ops | Resource Plan → Strategic Bets (investment sizing) → Assumption Registry | Cost, headcount, hiring timelines, load-bearing assumptions |

Notation Key

| Symbol | Meaning | |--------|---------| | H / M / L | Confidence level: H (>70%), M (40-70%), L (6 months old — verify before presenting | | [RESOURCE-UNCONSTRAINED] | Strategy was built without confirmed resource constraints | | Core / Adjacent / Transformational | Bet categories: Core protects base (H confidence), Adjacent expands (M), Transformational creates new (L) | | Deferred / Declined / Deprecated | NOT-Doing taxonomy: doing later / decided against / actively stopping |

---

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are quality enforcement mechanisms, not style preferences.

1. Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words. "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from strategic conclusions. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: H (>70% confident), M (40-70%), L ( Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Time horizon: [quarterly/half/annual/multi-year] | Confidence band: [Overall H/M/L] | Next review:** [Date]

---

Executive Summary

[≤300 words. Zero jargon. A VP reads only this and makes a resource allocation decision. Final sentence = the recommended strategic direction in bold. Written LAST, appears FIRST.]

---

Step 0: Framework Selection

| Strategy question type | Primary frameworks (apply in full) | Supporting frameworks (scan only) | Skipped (why) | |---|---|---|---| | [e.g., "Annual roadmap for established product"] | [e.g., Vision-to-Roadmap Cascade, Strategic Bet-Sizing, Option-Value Sequencing] | [e.g., Resource Allocation, Roadmap Communication] | [e.g., "N/A — all frameworks load-bearing for annual planning"] |

---

1. Vision Statement

[1-2 sentences. Aspirational but falsifiable. Not "be the best" but "become the default X for Y in Z timeframe."]

Falsification test: [What observable outcome in what timeframe would prove this vision wrong?]

---

2. Strategy Pillars

| # | Pillar | Strategic intent | Maps to vision how | |---|--------|-----------------|-------------------| | P1 | [Theme name — not a feature, not an initiative] | [What this pillar achieves strategically] | [How it advances the vision] | | P2 | | | | | P3 | | | |

---

3. Strategic Bets

Bet 1: [Name]

• Pillar: [Which pillar this serves]
• Category: Core / Adjacent / Transformational
• Hypothesis: If we [specific investment], then [measurable outcome] because [mechanism]
• Confidence: [H/M/L] — based on [evidence summary with tier]
• Investment: [X engineers, Y designers, Z months] = [% of total capacity]
• Success criteria: [Specific, measurable, time-bound]
• Kill criteria: [What observable outcome at what checkpoint tells us to stop]
• Key assumption: [The one thing that must be true for this bet to pay off]

Bet 2: [Name]

[Same structure]

Bet 3: [Name]

[Same structure]

Portfolio Balance Check:

| Category | Count | % of investment | Target range | Assessment | |----------|:-----:|:---------------:|:------------:|:----------:| | Core | | | 50-70% | | | Adjacent | | | 20-30% | | | Transformational | | | 5-15% | |

---

4. Sequencing Rationale

| Sequence | Bet | Rationale type | Counterfactual | |:--------:|-----|---------------|----------------| | 1st | [Bet name] | [Dependency / Information / Option-value / Risk / Revenue] | If we did [other bet] first, [specific consequence] | | 2nd | | | | | 3rd | | | |

Critical path: [Which bet, if delayed, delays everything else]

Information gates: [Which bets reveal information that changes other bets' value]

---

5. Strategic Tensions

| Tension | Bet A | Bet B | Type | Resolution | What we lose | |---------|-------|-------|------|------------|--------------| | [Name] | [Bet] | [Bet] | Resource / Strategic / Timing | [How resolved + rationale] | [Cost of this resolution] |

Strategic debt created: [What speed/quality/scope tradeoff creates debt that must be repaid, and when]

---

6. What We Are NOT Doing

| # | Item | Category | Why not | What we lose | Reconsider if | |---|------|----------|---------|-------------|---------------| | 1 | [Specific initiative/feature/market] | Deferred / Declined / Deprecated | [Reasoning] | [Opportunity cost — not zero] | [Observable condition] | | 2 | | | | | | | 3 | | | | | |

Stakeholder communication: [How to explain the NOT-doing decisions to affected teams/customers without demoralizing or angering]

---

7. Resource Plan

Capacity model:

| Team/Function | Total headcount | Planned (70%) | Reactive (20%) | Exploration (10%) | Override? | |--------------|:---------------:|:-------------:|:---------------:|:-----------------:|:---------:| | Engineering | | | | | | | Design | | | | | | | PM | | | | | |

Per-bet allocation:

| Bet | Eng | Design | PM | Duration | Monthly burn | Dependencies on other teams | |-----|:---:|:------:|:--:|:--------:|:------------:|:-------------------------:| | [Bet 1] | | | | | | | | [Bet 2] | | | | | | |

Hiring implications: [Which bets require hiring? Lead time? What happens if hiring is delayed?]

Capacity check: [Does the sum of all allocations exceed 70% planned capacity? If yes, something must be cut or deferred.]

---

8. Quarterly Gates

| Quarter | Primary bet focus | Gate criteria (pass/fail) | Adaptation triggers | Kill criteria | |---------|------------------|--------------------------|--------------------|--------------| | Q1 | [Bet name] | [Specific, measurable criteria] | [What signal tells us to adjust scope/direction] | [What tells us to stop entirely] | | Q2 | | | | | | Q3 | | | | | | Q4 | | | | |

Replanning protocol: [How and when the strategy gets revised — monthly check-ins, quarterly deep-dives, trigger-based emergency reviews]

---

9. Roadmap Communication Views

| Audience | View | Emphasis | Omit | |----------|------|----------|------| | Executive | Bets + business outcomes + confidence | Investment sizing, portfolio balance | Technical details, sprint-level scope | | Engineering | Dependencies + technical architecture + sequencing | Build sequence, integration points | Business rationale beyond what's needed for decisions | | Design | User outcomes per bet + experience evolution | Success criteria from user perspective | Resource math, financial projections | | Sales/GTM | Customer-facing capabilities + competitive positioning | Timeline for customer-visible features | Internal bets, platform investments |

---

10. Strategic Recommendations (O→I→R→C→W Cascade)

Recommendation 1: [Title]

• Observation [TX]: [What we see]
• Implication: [Why it matters — the mechanism]
• Response: [Specific action + owner + timeline]
• Confidence: [H/M/L] — assumes [key assumption]
• Watch: [Observable signal]; if [threshold], re-assess

Recommendation 2: [Title] [Same structure]

Recommendation 3: [Title] [Same structure]

---

Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Bets it underpins | Confidence | Evidence | What would invalidate this | |---|-----------|-------------------|:----------:|----------|----------------------------| | 1 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | | | 2 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | | | 3 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |

---

Adversarial Self-Critique

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

Weakness 2: [Title] [Same depth]

Weakness 3: [Title] [Same depth]

---

Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to re-assess | Timeline | |---------|-------------------|----------| | [Observable event] | [Which bets/sections break] | [When to check] |

---

Sources

[All sources cited in the analysis, with evidence tier and date.]

**Rules for using this template:**
1. **Do not skip sections.** If a section isn't applicable, write "Skipped — [reason]" and move on.
2. **Every strategic bet must have a hypothesis, confidence level, AND investment size** — no exceptions.
3. **Section headers are conclusions, not labels.** Replace generic headers (e.g., "Q2 Gate") with insight headers (e.g., "Q2: Kill or Double Down on Enterprise Expansion") after completing the section.
4. **The Executive Summary is written last** but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
5. **The NOT-Doing section must contain ≥3 items.** An empty NOT-Doing section means no hard decisions were made.

---

## Domain Frameworks

> This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces a strategy document that requires these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to a feature backlog with dates.

### Framework 1: Vision-to-Roadmap Cascade

The structural bridge from aspiration to execution. Most strategies fail at one of two gaps: (1) vision that never translates to bets, or (2) bets that don't trace back to a coherent vision. The cascade makes both gaps impossible to hide.

**The Five Levels:**

| Level | What it is | What it is NOT | Quality test |
|-------|-----------|---------------|-------------|
| **Vision** | 1-2 sentences. Aspirational but falsifiable. Defines what winning looks like in a specific timeframe. | A mission statement. "Be the best" is not a vision — it's a bumper sticker. | Can you name a specific observable outcome in a specific timeframe that would prove the vision wrong? If not, it's not falsifiable. |
| **Strategy Pillars** | 3-5 themes that bridge vision to execution. Each pillar is a strategic direction, not an initiative. | Feature areas. "AI-powered search" is a pillar. "Add vector search to API" is an initiative. | Remove one pillar. Does the vision become unreachable? If not, the pillar isn't load-bearing — cut it. |
| **Strategic Bets** | Specific investments under each pillar, each with a hypothesis, confidence level, and investment size. | Tasks. "Hire 3 engineers" is a resource action. "Win the mid-market analytics segment by building self-serve onboarding" is a bet. | Does each bet have a testable hypothesis? An explicit confidence level? A named investment? If any are missing, it's a wish, not a bet. |
| **Sequencing** | Which bets first, which later, and why. Dependency logic, information value, option preservation. | Gut priority. "We feel this is more important" is not sequencing. "A must come before

…

## 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.