foundation-okr-writer
关于
This Claude Skill drafts, reviews, and coaches teams in creating proper outcome-based OKR sets, supporting five entry modes like Guided or One-Shot. It reframes feature-delivery into outcome-based key results and refuses to fabricate baselines or link OKRs to compensation. Developers should use it when planning quarterly OKRs, translating strategy into team outcomes, or reviewing draft OKRs for quality.
快速安装
Claude Code
推荐npx skills add product-on-purpose/pm-skills -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skillsgit clone https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/foundation-okr-writer在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能
技能文档
OKR Writer
An OKR (Objectives and Key Results) set is a quarterly artifact that translates strategy into measurable outcomes a team commits to drive. OKRs are a focus and learning system, not a project plan, KPI dashboard, performance review device, or roadmap wrapper. Done well, they make priorities explicit, force tradeoffs, enable cross-team alignment, and create visible evidence of progress. Done poorly, they generate roadmap theater, compensation gaming, and false precision.
This skill is a coach, not a template filler. It drafts, reviews, rewrites, and audits OKR sets against the empirical consensus drawn from Doerr (Measure What Matters), Wodtke (Radical Focus), Cagan (SVPG team objectives), Castro (outcome-vs-output), Grove (High Output Management), Torres (continuous discovery), and Gothelf and Seiden (Outcomes Over Output).
Supported Modes
Five entry modes support different engagement levels. Mode is detected from user phrasing; default to Guided when ambiguous. State the detected mode at the start of the response.
Guided(default, moderate engagement) . brief diagnostic, draft, score against rubric, surface issues, ask user to confirm. Selected by phrasing like "help me write OKRs for X."One-Shot(low engagement) . produces a complete OKR set in one pass with all assumptions labeled. Selected by--oneshotflag or phrasing like "just draft OKRs from this context."Sustained Coach(high engagement) . iterative loop, one component at a time, re-scored each turn until quality threshold met. Selected by "coach me through OKRs for X."Audit Only. user pastes existing OKRs, skill scores and critiques, no new drafts unless user asks. Selected by "review these OKRs."Rewrite. convert flawed OKRs, feature lists, or roadmap items into outcome-shaped OKRs. Selected by "fix these OKRs" or "convert this roadmap to OKRs."
When to Use
- Planning OKRs at company, department, product, product-area, team, or initiative scope
- Translating parent OKRs or strategy into team OKRs
- Reviewing a draft OKR set for quality (Audit Only mode)
- Reframing feature, roadmap, or initiative lists into outcome-based OKRs (Rewrite mode)
- Preparing OKRs for stakeholder review
- Identifying whether KRs are measurable and evidence-backed
When NOT to Use
- You only need a dashboard spec . use
/dashboard-requirements - You only need event tracking . use
/instrumentation-spec - You only need an experiment . use
/experiment-design - You only need a hypothesis . use
/hypothesis - The cycle has ended and you need formal scoring with evidence and learning synthesis . use
/okr-grader - The team is purely business-as-usual and needs steady-state KPIs, not stretch outcomes . OKRs are the wrong artifact
Instructions
When asked to write or review OKRs, follow these steps:
-
Detect mode Read the user's phrasing and classify into Guided, One-Shot, Sustained Coach, Audit Only, or Rewrite. Look for explicit signals (
--oneshot, "review these," "fix these," "coach me"). Default to Guided when ambiguous. State the detected mode at the start of the response. -
Run the empowered-team diagnostic (skip in Audit Only when no new drafting is happening) Ask briefly:
- Are features, projects, or dates already committed for this cycle?
- Can the team change initiatives mid-cycle if KRs are not moving?
- Who decides what gets built, this team or someone else?
Capture the answer as
empowerment_signal: empowered | feature-team | mixed | unknown. This affects output framing in later steps. Do NOT refuse to proceed when feature-team signals are present; instead, plan to add a Disclosure section to the artifact. -
Determine if OKRs are the right artifact If the request is really a project plan, KPI dashboard, launch checklist, hypothesis, experiment, or status update, redirect to the appropriate pm-skill or chain. Do not force OKR shape onto non-OKR work.
-
Classify operating context Capture scope (company | department | product | product-area | team | initiative), cycle (quarter | half | annual | launch window | custom), level, and OKR type (committed | aspirational | learning | operational_health | compliance_or_safety). Default cycle is quarterly when context is missing.
-
Extract or infer strategic intent Identify the parent objective, strategy pillar, customer problem, or business pressure that motivates this OKR set. If none is supplied, ask once before drafting.
-
Separate outcomes from work Move features, tasks, projects, launches, hiring counts, and activity counts into Initiatives. The OKR is what changes in the world; Initiatives are bets on how to make that change happen. Apply Castro's litmus test: "if it can go in your backlog, it is not an outcome."
-
Draft or improve the Objective The Objective is qualitative, specific, directional, and cycle-appropriate. It describes a desired state change, not a project. It connects to strategy. It avoids embedded metrics (numbers belong in KRs). It avoids empty adjectives unless the artifact defines what they mean.
-
Draft or improve Key Results For each KR include: metric definition, baseline (or
recommended-to-measureif missing), target, deadline, evidence source, owner where appropriate, indicator class (leading | lagging | guardrail | health | evidence_generation), and confidence (high | medium | low | unknown). Include a guardrail KR for any optimization that could harm a paired metric (engagement vs quality, growth vs retention, speed vs reliability).Apply the constraint rules in the next section.
-
Map initiatives as bets Each initiative names which KR(s) it is expected to move and the assumption underlying that expectation. Initiatives are hypotheses, not commitments. Do not list initiatives as KRs.
-
Run the OKR Quality Audit Score the draft against the rubric below. Surface issues inline rather than burying them in an appendix. For each
riskorfailrating, include a specific recommendation. -
Apply the empowered-team Disclosure (when needed) If
empowerment_signal == feature-teamormixed, add a Disclosure section: "This OKR set frames pre-committed work as outcome bets. If the metrics do not move when the work ships, that is a learning, not a delivery failure. The team's lever this cycle is to keep shipping; the OKR's lever is to update next-cycle planning." Omit this section entirely when the signal isempowered. -
Surface open questions Capture any decisions the user must make that the skill cannot resolve from context. Examples: KR measurement window extending past cycle close, initiative phasing decisions, cohort definition boundaries.
-
Note the source of truth The artifact is a planning input, not the canonical OKR system. Include a
source_of_truthfield pointing to the user's actual OKR tracker (company OKR doc, Confluence page, dashboard, dedicated platform, spreadsheet, or wherever the live status lives). -
Finalize for direct use Remove all skill instruction commentary from the final artifact. The final output should be reader-facing.
Constraint Rules (MUST / MUST NOT)
These rules are non-negotiable. The skill enforces them in every mode.
- MUST measure outcomes (customer behavior change, business KPI delta, operational health change), not features, tasks, milestones, or activity counts.
- MUST NOT silently fabricate baselines, targets, current values, or benchmarks. Mark missing values explicitly as
assumption,placeholder,recommended-to-measure, ornot-enough-evidence. - MUST NOT use OKR scores as individual performance ratings or compensation inputs. If the user requests this, refuse and explain.
- MUST include at least one guardrail or counter-metric KR for any KR that incentivizes growth, speed, or volume.
- MUST treat the 0.6 to 0.7 sweet spot as applying ONLY to aspirational OKRs. Committed, compliance, safety, reliability, and contractual KRs target 1.0.
- MUST default to team-level OKRs. Warn when individual OKRs are requested; explain the sandbagging and false-precision risks.
- MUST NOT become the canonical source of truth. Always include a
source_of_truthpointer to the user's actual OKR tracker. - MUST apply the empowered-team Disclosure when feature-team signals are present. Do NOT refuse the user; adjust the framing.
Quality Audit Rubric
The skill applies this rubric to every OKR set it drafts or reviews. Each criterion gets pass, risk, or fail with a one-line rationale.
- Strategic fit: clear link to strategy, parent OKR, or customer problem
- Objective quality: specific, qualitative, tradeoff-guiding (not a slogan, task, metric bundle, or project name)
- KR outcome quality: measures outcome or behavior change (not tasks, features, or milestones)
- Measurement quality: baseline, target, deadline, evidence source present (or marked placeholder)
- Product influence: team can plausibly influence the outcome
- Focus: 1 to 3 objectives, 2 to 4 KRs each
- Guardrails: quality, reliability, or risk considered for any optimization KR
- Alignment: parent, peer, dependency relationships clear
- Operating rhythm: cycle, check-ins, review points explicit
- Integrity: no compensation coupling, no fabricated data
- Empowered-team Disclosure: included when feature-team signal present, omitted when empowered
Anti-Patterns the Skill Detects
The skill scans for these and either refuses, reframes, or surfaces them with a fail audit rating:
- Feature-delivery KR ("Launch X" instead of "Increase Y from A to B") . reframe into outcome KR; move feature to Initiatives
- Task-count KR ("Complete 10 interviews" without a learning outcome) . reframe or move to evidence-generation type
- Vanity metric KR (metric improves without customer or business value) . flag and propose alternative
- Activity objective (objective describes work, not change) . reframe
- Metric-stuffed objective (objective is just KPIs glued together) . reframe
- Too many OKRs (more than 3 objectives, more than 4 KRs per objective) . force ranking
- Cascading theater (parent KR copied locally without ownership logic) . rewrite as networked alignment
- Roadmap wrapper (OKRs reformat the roadmap) . full Rewrite mode
- Missing baseline (target uninterpretable) . mark
recommended-to-measure - Missing evidence source (no one knows where the score will come from) . mark
not-enough-evidence - Lag-only product OKR (team owns revenue without product outcome) . add a leading product-outcome KR
- No guardrail (optimization may damage quality, trust, retention) . add guardrail KR
- Compensation coupling (people will sandbag or hide learning) . refuse and explain
- Individual OKR default . default to team OKRs; warn if individual OKRs are requested
- Unsupported benchmark (universal target without evidence) . flag and ask for source
- Pre-PMF over-metricization (false quantitative precision when learning is the real objective) . reframe as learning OKR
Output Contract (v1.0.0)
- All required sections present in canonical order: Context, Objective, Key Results, Initiatives as Bets, Guardrails and Health Checks, Alignment Notes, Quality Audit, Open Questions, Suggested Next Step
- Disclosure section is present when
empowerment_signal == feature-team | mixed, omitted whenempowered - Every KR includes metric definition, baseline (or marked placeholder), target, deadline, evidence source, indicator class, and confidence
- Initiatives are listed separately from KRs and explicitly tied to which KR(s) they aim to move
- At least one guardrail KR exists for any optimization-style primary KR
- Source-of-truth note is present and points to a non-skill location
- Quality Audit covers all rubric criteria with explicit pass / risk / fail ratings
- Markdown only output. No JSON.
- Foundation classification: no
phase:field in frontmatter; usesclassification: foundation
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
- Mode detected and stated at the start of the response
- Empowered-team diagnostic run when drafting; signal captured
- All required sections present in canonical order
- Disclosure section included when feature-team signal present
- Every KR has metric, baseline (or placeholder), target, deadline, evidence source, indicator class, confidence
- At least one guardrail KR for any optimization primary KR
- Source-of-truth note present
- No fabricated baselines or targets . missing values explicitly marked
- No compensation-coupled framing
- Quality Audit applied with explicit pass / risk / fail ratings
- Anti-pattern catalog scanned . detected anti-patterns flagged or reframed
- OKR type classified (committed | aspirational | learning | operational_health | compliance_or_safety)
- Skill instruction commentary removed from final artifact
- Markdown only . no JSON output
Examples
See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed OKR set in the storevine sample thread (Campaigns team, Q3 2026), demonstrating Guided mode on an empowered-team product context with a real cross-team alignment dependency. The companion measure-okr-grader skill handles end-of-cycle scoring; together they cover the full quarterly arc.
GitHub 仓库
相关推荐技能
executing-plans
设计该Skill用于当开发者提供完整实施计划时,以受控批次方式执行代码实现。它会先审阅计划并提出疑问,然后分批次执行任务(默认每批3个任务),并在批次间暂停等待审查。关键特性包括分批次执行、内置检查点和架构师审查机制,确保复杂系统实现的可控性。
requesting-code-review
设计该Skill可在完成任务、实现主要功能或合并代码前自动调度代码审查子代理,确保实现符合需求和计划。它支持通过指定git SHA范围进行精准的代码变更审查,帮助开发者在关键节点及时发现潜在问题。核心原则是"早审查、勤审查",适用于开发流程的各个关键阶段。
connect-mcp-server
设计这个Skill指导开发者如何将MCP服务器连接到Claude Code,支持HTTP、stdio和SSE三种传输协议。它涵盖了从安装配置到认证安全的完整流程,适用于集成GitHub、Notion、数据库等外部服务。当开发者需要添加集成、配置外部工具或提及MCP相关功能时,这个Skill能提供实用的操作指南。
web-cli-teleport
设计该Skill帮助开发者根据任务特性选择Claude Code的Web或CLI界面,并指导如何在两种环境间无缝迁移会话。它能分析任务复杂度、迭代需求等要素,推荐最优工作界面和工作流。关键特性包括会话状态管理、环境切换指导和上下文优化建议。
