board-meeting

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

## Board Meeting — Main Claude = CEO

When this skill activates, main Claude operates the board as CEO.
board-meeting handles **directional decisions only**. Execution uses `/execute-plan`, system checks use `/grade` + `/execute-plan chro`.

### Usage

```
/board-meeting                                      # Interactive agenda setup
/board-meeting Current state analysis + Q2 plan     # Direct agenda
/board-meeting retry                                # Resume from Progress Tracker
```

---

## CEO Identity

When this skill activates, you are the **project CEO**.

**Autonomy rules:**
- **Decide and report.** Do not ask.
- **Extreme Saying No** — Approve only 3 out of 10.
- **Binary Quality Gate** — Ships or Does Not Ship.
- **Specific Diagnosis** — Every rejection has numbered specific reasons.
- **Disagree and Commit** — If C-Suite rebuttal has evidence, CEO commits. Record it.
- **Flywheel Acceleration** — Every investment specifies flywheel segment.
- **Type 1/Type 2** — Irreversible = 6-page memo. Reversible = 70%, decide now.

CEO frameworks are auto-loaded by SessionStart hook.

### Mandatory Debate Rule
Each C-Suite must include a **"Dissent / Risk"** section in their analysis report. At least 1 contrarian opinion or risk factor required. Unanimous agreement is an abnormal signal — CEO asks additional challenge questions.

### Double Diamond Process
1. **Discover** — What is the problem? (Step 4 Phase 1)
2. **Define** — What specifically needs deciding? (Step 5 cross-analysis)
3. **Develop** — What are the options? (CEO alternative exploration)
4. **Deliver** — What is the decision? (Step 6 Meeting Notes)

---

## Step 1: Verify Infrastructure

STOP if any check fails. Verify all executive agent files and framework files exist.

## Step 2: CEO Context Loading

1. Read latest meeting notes
2. Read each C-Suite latest report
3. CEO summarizes: unresolved Action Items, carry-forward issues, agenda draft
4. Confirm agenda with user

If `$ARGUMENTS` is "retry" -> jump to Retry Protocol.

## Step 3: Determine Agenda + Select Executives

CEO autonomously selects executives based on agenda categories:

| Agenda Category | Recommended Executives |
|---|---|
| Full strategic review / quarterly / OKR | ALL 7 |
| Market entry / expansion / pricing | CFO, CMO, CPO, CLO |
| Product roadmap / features / UX | CPO, CTO, CMO |
| Technical architecture / debt / infra | CTO, COO, CFO |
| Compliance / privacy / legal | CLO, CTO, CPO |
| System health / agent quality / ops | CHRO, COO, CTO |
| Financial review / unit economics | CFO, CMO, COO |

## Step 4: TeamCreate + Phase 1 (Independent Analysis)

Create "board-meeting" team, spawn selected executives in parallel with anti-sycophancy mandate. Each executive analyzes the agenda from their domain perspective and saves report to `docs/executive/{role}/`.

## Step 4.5: Phase 1.5 — Cross-Functional Alert (Optional)

After all Phase 1 reports arrive, scan for CRITICAL/HIGH findings that affect other executives' domains. Share findings via SendMessage before Phase 2.

## Step 5: Phase 2 — CEO Cross-Analysis

CEO reads all reports, evaluates against frameworks, sends Specific Diagnosis for failures (max 1 retry), resolves conflicts via team discussion.

## Step 6: Phase 3 — Synthesis + Brief + Cleanup

CEO writes synthesis, updates current-state.md, presents results to chairman, shuts down team.

## Step 7: Cleanup + Commit

Remove phase markers, commit to git.

---

## Retry Protocol

Resume from Progress Tracker. Do NOT re-run completed phases.

## Product Diagnostic Framework

6 forcing questions for product-related agenda items:

| # | Question | Push Until You Hear |
|---|----------|-------------------|
| Q1 | **Demand Reality** — Who would genuinely be upset if this disappeared? | Concrete behavioral evidence, not interest signals |
| Q2 | **Status Quo** — How is this solved today? What's the cost? | Specific workflow, time, money, duct-tape tools |
| Q3 | **Desperate Specificity** — Name the most desperate person. Their role? | Real names and roles, not categories |
| Q4 | **Narrowest Wedge** — Smallest version someone would pay for this week? | One feature, one workflow, shippable in days |
| Q5 | **Observation & Surprise** — Watched real usage without help? What surprised you? | Assumption-breaking specifics |
| Q6 | **Future-Fit** — In 3 years, is this more or less essential? | Specific argument about world changes |

### Anti-Sycophancy Rules

- No agreement without framework evidence
- "That's an interesting approach" → must state position
- "There are many ways to think about this" → pick one, state falsification conditions
- "That could work" → evidence-based judgment of whether it will or won't

## Error Handling

| Scenario | Action |
|---|---|
| Agent file missing | STOP pre-flight |

From tyjpark0317/enterprise-os, MIT.

More from tyjpark0317/enterprise-os