skills/status-update-writer/SKILL.md
# Status Update Writer ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "write a status update", "weekly update", "stakeholder update", "write a project update", or "status report". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Gather Context Ask: 1. What project or initiative is this for? 2. What happened this week? (Paste notes, Slack messages, whatever you have — the messier the better) 3. Who is the audience? (CEO, VP Eng, cross-functional team, skip-level, board) 4. Is there bad news? (If so, I'll help you frame it
npx skillsauth add aakashg/pm-claude-skills skills/status-update-writerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Activate when the user asks to "write a status update", "weekly update", "stakeholder update", "write a project update", or "status report".
Ask:
If the user pastes raw notes, Slack threads, or bullet points, extract and structure the information directly. Never ask the user to organize it first.
Follow this exact structure:
TL;DR (2 sentences max) The entire update if they read nothing else. Lead with the single most important thing. Bad news goes here, not buried below.
Status: [pick one]
Progress This Week
Next Week
Risks & Blockers
Decisions Needed (include only if applicable)
Metrics (include only if applicable and the user provides data)
Adjust content and depth based on audience:
| Audience | Focus On | Leave Out | |----------|----------|-----------| | CEO / C-suite | Outcomes, metrics, strategic implications | Implementation details, technical decisions | | VP / Director | Progress against milestones, risks, resource needs | Code-level details, day-to-day tasks | | Cross-functional | Dependencies, timeline impacts, what they need to know | Internal team dynamics, technical debt | | Engineering lead | Technical blockers, architecture decisions, velocity | Business context they already know | | Skip-level | Your team's impact, growth, wins | Minutiae that your direct manager handles | | Board | Metrics, trajectory, market context | Everything operational |
Subject: Weekly Update - Auth Project
Hi team,
This week we continued working on the authentication project. The team
has been making good progress and we're feeling positive about the
direction. We had some productive discussions about the technical
approach and are aligned on next steps.
We're also looking into some issues that came up during testing but
nothing major. The team is working hard and we expect to have more
updates next week.
On track for launch, will keep you posted.
Thanks,
Sarah
What's wrong: No specifics anywhere. "Some issues" is hiding something. "Making good progress" could mean anything. No metrics, no dates, no owners. Reader learns nothing.
TL;DR: Auth migration is at risk. We found a session handling bug
that affects 12% of users on mobile. Fix is in progress — ETA Thursday.
Launch pushed from March 7 to March 14.
Status: AT RISK
Progress This Week:
- Shipped auth migration to 40% of web users (up from 10% last week)
- Error rate holding at 0.3% — within our 1% threshold
- Completed load testing: system handles 5x current peak traffic
Next Week:
- Fix mobile session bug (owner: Jake, ETA Thursday)
- Expand to 100% of web users if mobile fix validates (owner: Sarah)
- Begin mobile rollout at 10% by Friday (owner: Sarah)
Risks & Blockers:
- RISK: Mobile session bug could have deeper root cause than initial
diagnosis suggests. Likelihood: Medium. Impact: Additional 1-week
delay. Mitigation: Jake is pairing with platform team on diagnosis.
If not resolved by Thursday, we'll ship web-only and decouple mobile.
- BLOCKER: Need QA sign-off on load test results before expanding
beyond 40%. Owner: Maria. Need by: Tuesday EOD.
Decision Needed:
Should we launch web-only on March 10 if the mobile bug isn't fixed,
or hold everything for March 14? I recommend launching web-only —
88% of auth traffic is web, and decoupling de-risks the mobile fix.
Need a decision from @VP-Eng by Wednesday.
What's different: Specific numbers everywhere. Bad news is in the TL;DR, not hidden. Every risk has a mitigation. The decision request includes a recommendation with reasoning.
Metrics:
- Users: going well
- Revenue: looking good
- NPS: stable
Metrics:
- WAU: 142K (target: 150K) — flat for 3 weeks. Investigating whether
the new onboarding friction is suppressing activation.
- Revenue: $1.2M MRR (+4% MoM) — on track for Q1 target of $1.3M
- NPS: 34 (down from 38 last month) — correlated with auth migration
complaints. Expect recovery after bug fixes ship.
Hiding bad news at the bottom. If your launch date slipped, that is the TL;DR, not a footnote. Stakeholders lose trust when they discover you buried the lead.
Confusing activity with progress. "Had 6 meetings about the migration" is activity. "Migrated 40% of users with 0.3% error rate" is progress. Report outcomes, not effort.
Using weasel words. "Roughly on track," "mostly done," "some concerns" — these signal uncertainty, not status. Be precise. If unknown, say "investigating, will update by [date]."
Including everything. A status update is not a diary. Only include what matters to THIS audience at THIS level. Your VP does not need to know about a refactored utility function.
No action items. Every update must make clear what you need from the reader. If nothing, say so. But most "nothing needed" updates are missing something.
The default format above is weekly. For other cadences, adjust scope and depth:
Daily Standup / Async Daily
Yesterday: Shipped auth migration to 40% of web users
Today: Running load tests, expanding to 60% if results hold
Blocked: Waiting on QA sign-off from Maria (need by EOD)
Monthly Update
Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
When the user doesn't specify cadence, default to weekly. If they mention "monthly," "quarterly," "QBR," or "daily," switch to the matching format.
testing
# Prompt Engineer ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "improve this prompt", "make this prompt better", "optimize this prompt", "prompt engineer this", or "rewrite this prompt". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Analyze the Current Prompt Read the user's prompt and diagnose issues across these dimensions: | Dimension | What to Check | |-----------|--------------| | **Role** | Is there a specific role/persona? Generic "you are an expert" doesn't count. | | **Context** | Does the LLM have enough
development
# Product Design Reviewer ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "review this design", "give design feedback", "critique this UI", "check this mockup", or "design review". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Understand the Context Ask: 1. What is the user trying to accomplish in this flow? 2. Who is the target user? (New user, power user, admin, etc.) 3. What's the platform? (Web, mobile, tablet) 4. What stage is this? (Early concept, ready for eng, post-launch iteration) If the user shares a screens
development
# LinkedIn Post Writer ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "write a LinkedIn post", "draft a LinkedIn post", "LinkedIn post about [topic]", or "turn this into a LinkedIn post". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Get the Core Idea Ask: 1. What's the one insight or takeaway? 2. Who is the target audience? 3. Any specific hook or angle you want? 4. What format? (Listicle, story, hot take, lesson learned, framework — or let me pick) If the user provides raw notes, a thread, or an article link, extrac
development
# Idea Validator ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "validate this idea", "is this idea good", "stress test this", "evaluate this product idea", or "should I build [X]". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Understand the Idea Ask: 1. What's the idea in one sentence? 2. Who specifically has this problem? (Job title, company size, situation) 3. How are they solving it today? 4. Why are you the right person/team to build this? If the user gives a vague answer to #2 (e.g., "everyone" or "businesses")