notque/csuite

C-Suite Decision Support

Umbrella skill for all executive decision-making: CEO-level strategy, CTO-level technology choices, CMO-level growth planning, competitive intelligence, and project evaluation. Each domain loads its own reference files on demand -- this skill detects the mode, loads the right references, and executes the appropriate framework.

Scope: Business decisions with meaningful consequences. Use decision-helper for technical architecture micro-choices, domain agents for code, voice-writer for content, and systematic-debugging for debugging.

---

Mode Detection

Classify the user's request into exactly one mode before proceeding. If the request spans multiple modes, choose the primary one and note the secondary.

| Mode | Signal Phrases | Role Lens | |------|---------------|-----------| | STRATEGY | Market entry, partnerships, resource allocation, opportunity, "should I/we", strategic pivots, investment | CEO | | TECHNOLOGY | Build vs buy, vendor, SaaS, tech stack, architecture, adopt, technology choice | CTO | | GROWTH | Content strategy, audience, SEO, marketing, brand, community, positioning, channel | CMO | | COMPETITIVE | Competitor, competition, market landscape, differentiation, positioning against, market share | Cross-role | | EVALUATION | Feasibility, effort estimate, ROI, priority, go/no-go, viability, "is it worth it" | Cross-role |

---

Reference Loading Table

Load references based on the detected mode. Load only the references required by the mode.

| Signal | Mode | Reference | |--------|------|-----------| | Market entry, partnerships, resource allocation, opportunity | STRATEGY | references/strategic-frameworks.md, references/decision-matrices.md | | Build vs buy, vendor, SaaS, tech stack, architecture | TECHNOLOGY | references/tco-framework.md, references/vendor-evaluation.md | | Content, audience, SEO, marketing, brand, community | GROWTH | references/audience-segmentation.md, references/channel-evaluation.md | | Competitor, market landscape, positioning, differentiation | COMPETITIVE | references/competitive-mapping.md, references/market-positioning.md | | Feasibility, effort, ROI, priority, go/no-go | EVALUATION | references/feasibility-scoring.md, references/roi-frameworks.md |

---

Instructions

Mode: STRATEGY (CEO)

Framework: FRAME -> ANALYZE -> DECIDE

Phase 1: FRAME -- Convert the user's question into a structured decision with clear stakes and timeline.

• Name the actual decision (users present symptoms; the real decision is broader)
• Identify irreversibility -- reversible decisions deserve less analysis
• Set a time horizon -- 3-month and 3-year decisions need different frameworks
• Classify the decision type: Expansion, Partnership, Allocation, Pivot, or Timing
• Get the user to state: options (2-4), default path risk, deadline, and what makes it hard

Gate: Decision framed as one sentence. Options listed (2-4). Type classified.

Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Evaluate each option through multiple lenses with evidence.

For each option, assess: Upside (best realistic + expected outcome), Downside (worst realistic + recovery path + irreversible losses), Requirements (resources, assumptions, dependencies), Opportunity Cost (what you cannot do).

Separate facts from assumptions. Quantify where possible. Load reference files for scoring matrices and strategic frameworks.

Gate: All options analyzed. Facts and assumptions labeled. Opportunity costs explicit.

Phase 3: DECIDE -- Synthesize into a clear recommendation.

• Apply the reversibility test: one-way doors need high confidence; two-way doors can act faster with a checkpoint
• Produce: Recommendation (one sentence), Confidence (High/Medium/Low), Why this option (2-3 reasons), What must be true (invalidating assumptions), First move (48-hour action), Revisit trigger
• State explicitly what would change the recommendation

Gate: Recommendation stated. First action identified. Revisit trigger set.

---

Mode: TECHNOLOGY (CTO)

Framework: SCOPE -> EVALUATE -> RECOMMEND

Phase 1: SCOPE -- Define the capability needed, stripped of solution bias.

• Start with the need, not the product ("we need reliable async delivery" not "we need Kafka")
• Quantify hard requirements (latency, throughput, compliance)
• Identify the real driver (build vs buy is sometimes "convince management" or "hire someone")
• List actual options: build from scratch, build on OSS, buy SaaS, buy + customize, do nothing

Gate: Capability defined without solution bias. Options enumerated. Hard requirements quantified.

Phase 2: EVALUATE -- Score options on dimensions that matter for technology decisions.

• Total cost of ownership at Year 3, not sticker price (the "free" OSS needing a full-time engineer is expensive)
• Score on: Fit (5), TCO (4), Operational burden (4), Team capability (3), Lock-in risk (3), Time to value (3), Flexibility (2)
• Apply the build-vs-buy heuristic: core competency, requirements stability, team capacity, timeline, scale, compliance

Load references/tco-framework.md for TCO templates and references/vendor-evaluation.md for vendor scorecards.

Gate: TCO estimated. Dimensions scored. Build-vs-buy heuristic applied.

Phase 3: RECOMMEND -- Deliver a clear recommendation with reasoning.

• Present the weighted scoring matrix
• State: Decision, Confidence, Why this option, Watch-for risks, Migration path, First step
• Define exit criteria: when to reconsider for each option type

Gate: Recommendation stated. Exit criteria defined. First step identified.

---

Mode: GROWTH (CMO)

Framework: ASSESS -> STRATEGIZE -> PLAN

Phase 1: ASSESS -- Understand current state before recommending.

• Audit: publications, content volume, existing audience, active channels, performance data
• Identify the binding constraint: Discovery, Content, Conversion, Retention, or Capacity
• Creator capacity is the binding constraint -- recommend what one person can sustain

Gate: Current state audited. Binding constraint identified.

Phase 2: STRATEGIZE -- Design an approach matching capacity and constraint.

• Solve the constraint, not everything -- address one binding constraint well
• Prefer compound strategies (SEO, evergreen, community) over one-shot campaigns
• Recommend maximum 3 active channels with format, cadence, success metric, and effort estimate

Load references/audience-segmentation.md for ICP scoring and references/channel-evaluation.md for channel matrices.

Gate: Strategy selected. Maximum 3 channels. Effort estimated against capacity.

Phase 3: PLAN -- Convert strategy into a 90-day executable plan.

• Define one primary metric and 2-3 secondary metrics
• Break into 30-day phases: Foundation (days 1-30), Execution (31-60), Evaluate (61-90)
• Set explicit abandon criteria, pivot triggers, and double-down conditions

Gate: 90-day plan with checkpoints. Primary metric defined. Abandon criteria explicit.

---

Mode: COMPETITIVE

Framework: MAP -> ANALYZE -> POSITION

Phase 1: MAP -- Build a structured picture of the competitive landscape.

• Define the competitive arena: what you compete on, who you serve, where you compete
• Tier competitors: Direct (full analysis), Adjacent (positioning only), Aspirational (strategy extraction), Emerging (watch list)
• Map the landscape before zooming in -- analyzing one competitor in isolation misses gaps

Gate: Arena defined. Competitors identified and tiered. At least 2 direct competitors mapped.

Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Extract actionable intelligence from behavior, not surface impressions.

• Focus on what they DO, not what they SAY (pricing, launches, cadence reveal strategy)
• Analyze for gaps, not imitation -- find what competitors miss or do poorly
• For each direct competitor: product/content analysis, audience analysis, strategy signals

Load references/competitive-mapping.md for landscape templates and references/market-positioning.md for positioning frameworks.

Gate: Direct competitors analyzed. Gaps and weaknesses identified.

Phase 3: POSITION -- Convert intelligence into defensible differentiation.

• Build a positioning map on two dimensions where you can differentiate
• Define: positioning statement, defensible advantages, vulnerable advantages, strategic gaps to exploit
• Set monitoring cadence: monthly (direct competitors), quarterly (full landscape), trigger-based (major moves)

Gate: Positioning map built. Differentiation strategy defined. Monitoring cadence set.

---

Mode: EVALUATION

Framework: SCOPE -> EVALUATE -> VERDICT

Phase 1: SCOPE -- Define the project and what success looks like.

• Define done before estimating effort ("build an app" is not a project)
• Separate the vision from the MVP -- evaluate the minimum viable version
• Name the binding constraint (time, money, skills, attention)
• Define success criteria, the problem it solves, who benefits, and why now

Gate: Project defined with measurable success criteria. MVP scope identified. Binding constraint named.

Phase 2: EVALUATE -- Assess feasibility, estimate effort, calculate ROI.

• Feasibility across three dimensions: Technical, Resource, Market (each High/Medium/Low confidence)
• Effort in ranges, not points ("2-5 weeks, most likely 3")
• Include hidden costs: learning curve, integration, testing, documentation (add 20-40%)
• ROI: direct value, indirect value, strategic value vs. build cost, ongoing cost, opportunity cost

Load references/feasibility-scoring.md for the three-dimension model and references/roi-frameworks.md for estimation templates.

Gate: Feasibility assessed. Effort estimated in ranges. ROI calculated with confidence level.

Phase 3: VERDICT -- Deliver a clear go/no-go recommendation.

• Verdict: GO, GO WITH CONDITIONS, DEFER, or NO-GO
• Include: summary, key factors, conditions (if conditional), what would change the verdict, recommended next step
• For multiple projects: rank using RICE scoring (Reach * Impact * Confidence / Effort)

Gate: Verdict stated with confidence. Conditions specified. Next step identified.

---

Error Handling

| Error | Cause | Solution | |-------|-------|----------| | Too many options | 5+ options creating paralysis | Eliminate obviously inferior options first. Get to 2-4 before running full framework. | | Not enough information | User cannot answer framing questions | Identify 2-3 critical unknowns. Recommend time-boxed research sprint before deciding. | | Analysis paralysis | Keeps adding criteria or second-guessing | Apply reversibility test. If reversible, recommend best current option with checkpoint. | | Emotional attachment | User has already decided, wants validation | Name the pattern directly. Ask: stress-test the choice, or genuinely evaluate all options? | | Comparing apples to oranges | Options at different abstraction levels | Normalize to the capability level. Compare what each option gives for the specific need. | | Vendor lock-in fear | Over-weights lock-in, under-weights time-to-value | Quantify actual switching cost. Compare concrete switching cost against concrete speed benefit. | | Build bias (NIH) | Team wants to build because it is more interesting | Apply core competency test: "If this disappeared, would customers notice?" | | Vanity metrics | Optimizes followers/likes instead of outcomes | Redirect to "one metric that matters" -- what action should the audience take? | | Scope creep during evaluation | Keeps adding features to project definition | Freeze scope at end of Phase 1. Additional features evaluate as v2. | | Optimism bias | Effort estimates too low | Apply reference class test. If no similar project, add 50% to pessimistic estimate. |

---

References

| Reference | When to Load | Content | |-----------|-------------|---------| | references/strategic-frameworks.md | STRATEGY mode: market entry, competitive dynamics, SWOT, OKR alignment | Porter's Five Forces, SWOT scoring, OKR alignment matrices | | references/decision-matrices.md | STRATEGY mode: structured scoring, comparison, pre-mortem | Weighted decision matrices, ICE/RICE scoring, pre-mortem templates | | references/tco-framework.md | TECHNOLOGY mode: TCO modeling, cost projections, build vs buy scorecard | TCO templates, hidden cost checklists, migration cost models | | references/vendor-evaluation.md | TECHNOLOGY mode: vendor comparison, RFP criteria, integration complexity | Vendor scorecards, RFP criteria, red flag detection, contract checklist | | references/audience-segmentation.md | GROWTH mode: audience analysis, ICP definition, persona development | ICP scoring matrix, persona templates, segmentation frameworks | | references/channel-evaluation.md | GROWTH mode: channel selection, CAC/LTV modeling, content funnel | Channel scoring matrices, CAC/LTV models, funnel stage mapping | | references/competitive-mapping.md | COMPETITIVE mode: landscape mapping, feature comparison, competitor profiling | Landscape map templates, feature matrices, activity tracker | | references/market-positioning.md | COMPETITIVE mode: positioning strategy, differentiation scoring | Positioning maps, differentiation scoring, win/loss frameworks | | references/feasibility-scoring.md | EVALUATION mode: feasibility assessment, risk evaluation, go/no-go | Three-dimension feasibility model, confidence calibration, decision tree | | references/roi-frameworks.md | EVALUATION mode: effort estimation, ROI calculation, project comparison | T-shirt sizing, three-point estimation, risk-adjusted NPV |