Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

outcome-roadmap结果路线图

Agent Skill

outcome-roadmap 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,656

周安装

67

GitHub Stars

103

下载量

520
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:outcome-roadmap(结果路线图)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/outcome-roadmap
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill outcome-roadmap
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill outcome-roadmap

简介

outcome-roadmap 将功能导向路线图转化为结果驱动型规划,强调客户价值实现而非单纯特性交付。

  • 运用“so what?”分析法与 Now/Next/Later 框架重构战略沟通语言。
  • 输出可衡量影响的目标与验证指标,提升跨部门对齐效率。
  • 需基于真实业务上下文输入,避免脱离实际场景的空泛规划。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Outcome Roadmap Expert

The agent transforms output-based roadmaps ("build feature X") into outcome-driven roadmaps ("enable customers to achieve Y") using the "so what?" technique and Now/Next/Later framing. It produces roadmaps that communicate strategy and measurable impact, not just feature lists and dates.

Workflow

1. Gather Current Roadmap Items

The agent collects the existing roadmap -- features, projects, or initiatives -- in any format (list, spreadsheet, JSON, or prose).

Validation checkpoint: Each item must have at least a name and a brief description. If items are just feature names with no context, the agent asks for the problem each feature is meant to solve.

2. Transform Each Item

The agent applies the transformation formula:

"Enable [customer segment] to [desired customer outcome] so that [business impact]"

For each feature, the agent uses the "so what?" chain to find the real outcome:

"Build advanced search"
  -> So what? "Users can find products faster"
  -> So what? "They spend less time browsing and more time buying"
  -> So what? "Conversion rate increases, reducing acquisition cost per sale"

The last answer is the outcome. The agent works backward to write the outcome statement:

Output: "Enable power users to find relevant products in under 5 seconds so that conversion rates increase by 20%"

Validation checkpoint: Every transformed item must answer Who benefits, What changes for them, and Why it matters to the business.

3. Categorize into Now / Next / Later

HorizonMeaningCommitmentDetail Level
NowIn progress or starting within 2 weeksHigh -- team assigned, scope definedFull outcome statements, success metrics, dependencies
NextPlanned for 1-3 monthsMedium -- direction set, scope flexibleOutcome statements with draft metrics
LaterOn the radar, 3-6 monthsLow -- strategic intent onlyProblem statements or opportunity areas

Validation checkpoint: "Later" items should NOT have detailed metrics or specific solutions. Forcing detail on uncertain items creates false precision.

4. Add Success Metrics

For each Now and Next item, the agent defines 2-3 measurable indicators:

  • Primary metric: Directly measures the desired outcome
  • Secondary metric: Captures a different dimension of success
  • Counter-metric: Prevents perverse optimization (optional for Next items)

5. Identify Dependencies

For each item, the agent documents:

  • Technical prerequisites (APIs, infrastructure, data)
  • Organizational prerequisites (team capacity, stakeholder buy-in)
  • Market prerequisites (customer demand signal, competitive timing)

6. Review with Stakeholders

The agent produces a stakeholder-ready roadmap document for alignment review.

Validation checkpoint: Walk stakeholders through the outcome roadmap. If anyone asks "but when exactly will this ship?", redirect to commitment levels -- Now items have dates, Later items do not.

Example: Roadmap Transformation

Input (output-based roadmap):

{
  "initiatives": [
    {"name": "Build advanced search", "quarter": "Q2"},
    {"name": "Launch mobile app", "quarter": "Q3"},
    {"name": "Add Slack integration", "quarter": "Q3"},
    {"name": "Redesign dashboard", "quarter": "Q4"}
  ]
}
$ python scripts/roadmap_transformer.py --input roadmap.json

Outcome Roadmap Transformation
==============================

NOW (In Progress):
  Original: "Build advanced search"
  Outcome: "Enable power users to find relevant products in under 5 seconds
            so that conversion rates increase by 20%"
  Metrics:
    - Search-to-purchase conversion: 12% -> 15%
    - Avg search time: 18s -> 5s
    - Counter: Maintain search result relevance score above 0.8
  Dependencies: Elasticsearch cluster upgrade, product taxonomy cleanup

NEXT (1-3 Months):
  Original: "Launch mobile app"
  Outcome: "Enable field sales reps to close deals on-site so that
            average deal cycle shortens by 30%"
  Metrics:
    - Mobile-originated deals: 0% -> 15% of total
    - Avg deal close time: 14 days -> 10 days
  Dependencies: API v2 completion, mobile auth infrastructure

  Original: "Add Slack integration"
  Outcome: "Enable teams to act on alerts without context-switching
            so that mean response time drops by 40%"
  Metrics:
    - Alert-to-action time: 25min -> 15min
    - Alerts resolved in Slack: 0% -> 60%
  Dependencies: Webhook infrastructure, Slack app approval

LATER (3-6 Months):
  Original: "Redesign dashboard"
  Problem area: Users report dashboard is overwhelming and they
                can't find the metrics that matter to their role.
  Strategic intent: Role-based views that surface relevant data,
                    reducing time-to-insight.
  Dependencies: User research (not yet started)

Why Output Roadmaps Fail

Output roadmaps create three problems:

  1. False precision -- Dates promise certainty that does not exist. When dates slip, trust erodes.
  2. Misaligned teams -- Engineers optimize for shipping features. Product optimizes for impact. An output roadmap makes these goals invisible to each other.
  3. Lost context -- Six months later, nobody remembers why "advanced search" was important. The feature ships, but the problem it solved may have changed.

The outcome roadmap solves these by anchoring every item to customer value and business impact, with commitment levels that match certainty.

Output Structure

For each initiative, the transformed roadmap includes:

  1. Original Initiative -- What was on the old roadmap
  2. Outcome Statement -- "Enable [segment] to [outcome] so that [impact]"
  3. Success Metrics -- 2-3 measurable indicators
  4. Dependencies -- Technical, organizational, or market prerequisites
  5. Strategic Context -- Connection to company objectives or OKRs

Tools

ToolPurposeCommand
roadmap_transformer.pyTransform output initiatives to outcomespython scripts/roadmap_transformer.py --input roadmap.json
roadmap_transformer.pyRun demo transformationpython scripts/roadmap_transformer.py --demo

Troubleshooting

SymptomLikely CauseResolution
All initiatives classified as "Later"Quarter strings do not match expected format (e.g., "Q2 2026") or dates are far futureVerify quarter field uses "Q[1-4] YYYY" format; the tool uses current date to compute Now/Next/Later horizons
"So what?" chain produces vague outcomesTeam stopped the chain too early or did not reach business impactPush through at least 3 "So what?" levels; the last answer should reference a business metric (revenue, retention, cost)
Stakeholders keep asking "when exactly will this ship?"Commitment levels not communicated clearly, or stakeholders trained to expect datesRedirect to Now/Next/Later commitment framework; Now items have dates, Next has direction, Later has intent only
Outcome statements all sound the sameUsing the template formula mechanically without domain-specific contextCustomize the "[customer segment]", "[desired outcome]", and "[business impact]" placeholders with real data
Roadmap has too many "Now" itemsTeam not making hard prioritization choices, or everything feels urgentEnforce a cap: maximum 2-3 Now items at any time; use prioritization-frameworks/ to rank competing priorities
Demo mode works but custom input failsJSON schema mismatch: missing initiatives key or missing required fields per itemEach initiative needs title, description, quarter, and type (feature/improvement/infrastructure)

Success Criteria

  • Every roadmap initiative has an outcome statement answering Who benefits, What changes, and Why it matters
  • Now items have full outcome statements with 2-3 measurable success metrics and dependencies documented
  • Next items have outcome statements with draft metrics (no counter-metrics required)
  • Later items have problem statements and strategic intent only (no false-precision metrics or solutions)
  • Stakeholders understand and accept the commitment level framework (Now = high, Next = medium, Later = low)
  • Roadmap is reviewed quarterly with stakeholders to validate horizon placement
  • Output-to-outcome transformation reduces "when will it ship?" questions by 50%+

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

  • Transforming output-based feature lists into outcome-driven roadmap items
  • Now/Next/Later horizon classification based on quarter-to-current-date distance
  • "So what?" chain generation for each initiative
  • Strategic question prompts and metric suggestions by initiative type (feature, improvement, infrastructure)
  • Markdown and text report output with grouped-by-horizon formatting

Out of Scope:

  • Feature prioritization or scoring (see execution/prioritization-frameworks/)
  • Detailed sprint-level planning or capacity allocation (see scrum-master/)
  • Product strategy or vision definition (outcome roadmaps communicate strategy, they do not create it)
  • Dependency management across teams (see program-manager/)

Important Caveats:

  • Outcome roadmaps require a cultural shift. Teams accustomed to date-driven feature lists need coaching on commitment levels.
  • The tool generates outcome statement templates, not finished outcomes. The templates must be filled in with real customer and business data.
  • Later items intentionally lack detailed metrics. Adding false precision to uncertain items undermines the roadmap's credibility.

Integration Points

IntegrationDirectionDescription
execution/brainstorm-okrs/Receives fromOKR key results become success metrics for Now/Next roadmap items
execution/prioritization-frameworks/Receives fromRICE/ICE scores inform which initiatives move to Now vs. Next vs. Later
execution/create-prd/Feeds intoNow items with validated outcomes become PRD candidates
discovery/brainstorm-experiments/Receives fromExperiment results validate demand for Next/Later items, promoting them to Now
senior-pm/Receives fromPortfolio strategic priorities influence roadmap horizon placement
scrum-master/Receives fromSprint capacity data determines how many Now items the team can support

Tool Reference

roadmap_transformer.py

Transforms output-based roadmap initiatives into outcome-driven format with horizon classification, strategic questions, and metric suggestions.

FlagTypeDefaultDescription
--inputstring(required, mutually exclusive with --demo)Path to JSON file containing roadmap initiatives
--demoflagoffRun transformation on built-in demo data (5 initiatives)
--formatchoicetextOutput format: text, json, or markdown
--outputstringstdoutOutput file path; if omitted, prints to stdout

Supported initiative types: feature, improvement, infrastructure

References

  • references/outcome-roadmap-guide.md -- Detailed guide with comparison, formulas, and stakeholder strategies
  • assets/outcome_roadmap_template.md -- Roadmap document template with Now/Next/Later sections

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

36.56%
按下载量换算190

Claude

28.91%
按下载量换算150

Cursor

20.34%
按下载量换算106

Gemini CLI

10.27%
按下载量换算53

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills