plan-ceo-review

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Use when a user asks for CEO review, founder-mode review, think bigger, strategy review, rethink this plan, is this ambitious enough, or critique of an existing product, strategy, roadmap, or implementation plan.

3installs

Sourcepatinaproject/skills

Added on2026-05-18

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add patinaproject/skills plan-ceo-review

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

CEO Plan Review

Pressure-test a plan that already exists. Decide whether it is ambitious enough, focused enough, sequenced well, and worth the opportunity cost.

Be opinionated. A useful review makes a clear scope call, names the strongest objection, and gives the smallest next move that would prove or disprove the recommendation.

When to Use

The user asks for a CEO review, founder-mode review, strategy review, ambition review, or "think bigger" pass.
The user provides an implementation plan, product spec, roadmap proposal, issue plan, PR plan, strategy memo, launch plan, or pasted plan.
A
```
superteam
```
artifact needs advisory strategic critique before its owning teammate decides what to change.

When Not to Use

The user has only an idea and no plan. Ask for the plan, or route to
```
office-hours
```
for pre-plan discovery.
The user wants customer discovery, demand validation, or a first design doc. Use
```
office-hours
```
.
The user wants code review, test review, or implementation quality review. Use the repo's review workflow.
Inside
```
superteam
```
, do not approve Gate 1, replace Planner, replace Reviewer, or alter Finisher shutdown. This skill is advisory only.

Inputs

Identify the artifact before reviewing. If context is missing, ask at most three clarifying questions; otherwise state assumptions and proceed.

What kind of plan is it: implementation, product, strategy, roadmap, issue, PR, launch, or operations?
Who benefits: user, buyer, operator, maintainer, teammate, or sponsor?
What outcome, constraint, and evidence matter most?

Review Modes

Choose exactly one mode for the verdict.

Mode	Use When	Behavior
`Expand`	Directionally right, but too local	Name the larger bet and the smallest credible move toward it
`Selectively expand`	Core scope is right, but one missing move would add leverage	Keep the center, add the highest-leverage move, gate later expansion
`Hold`	Scope is right and execution discipline matters most	Tighten premise, success criteria, sequencing, and surprise risk
`Reduce`	Plan is overloaded, premature, or trying to solve too much	Strip to the essential wedge and defer what has not earned its cost

Workflow

Restate the plan in one sentence, using the user's concrete nouns.
Identify the outcome that would make the work matter.
Test the premise: what assumption, if false, makes the plan wasteful?
Test ambition: does this create a meaningful change or only tidy the local surface?
Test scope: should the plan expand, selectively expand, hold, or reduce?
Test user value: who benefits, what changes in their workflow, and what proof would validate it?
Test sequencing: what must happen first, what can wait, and what gate prevents thrash?
Test risks: premise, product, execution, and opportunity cost.
Recommend one decision, the smallest next move, and the next artifact to produce.

Keep the review concrete. Do not write a broad essay, generic strategy advice, or a second plan unless the user asks for one.

Calibration

```
Expand
```
: "This solves the admin problem, but the bigger bet is becoming the weekly operating review."
```
Selectively expand
```
: "Keep the importer, but add a saved failure report because it changes trust."
```
Hold
```
: "Do not add dashboard scope; the plan already proves the riskiest integration."
```
Reduce
```
: "Drop multi-account support until one account can complete the workflow cleanly."

Output

Use these headings:

```
Verdict
```
: one mode plus one-sentence rationale.
```
Premise check
```
: core assumption, why it might be false, evidence that would change the review.
```
Ambition check
```
: current ambition, stronger outcome, what would make this matter.
```
Scope decision
```
: add, keep, defer, remove.
```
User value
```
: beneficiary, workflow change, validating proof.
```
Sequencing
```
: first move, later moves, decision gates.
```
Risks
```
: premise, product, execution, and opportunity-cost risks.
```
Recommendation
```
: decision, smallest next move, next artifact to produce.

If a field does not apply, write

None

and explain why in one phrase.

Red Flags

The plan optimizes an internal artifact but cannot name a user workflow that improves.
The plan adds architecture, process, or polish before proving the premise.
The plan says "platform" but lacks a narrow wedge.
The plan is busy, but the expected outcome is small.
The plan claims strategic value without naming a business, user, or trust consequence.
The review stays neutral when the plan needs a decision.
The review asks broad discovery questions after the user has already supplied a plan.