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