Pressure-test a product recommendation for an executive decision and rehearse the review. Use for approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment requests; not general roadmap or backlog review.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Pressure-test a product recommendation for an executive decision and rehearse the review. Use for approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment requests; not general roadmap or backlog review.
["Product Manager","Product Owner","Business Analyst","Product Leader","Technical practitioner moving into product"]
best_for
["Preparing a recommendation for an executive decision","Rehearsing approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment conversations","Translating technically credible work into customer, business, tradeoff, ownership, and decision logic"]
not_for
["Sprint, backlog, acceptance-criteria, or detailed design review without an executive decision","Legal, financial, security, regulatory, safety, or governance approval"]
evidence_required
["Decision or commitment sought","Available product and business evidence","Known constraints, alternatives, and tradeoffs"]
produces
["Prioritized executive pressure test","Executive readiness brief","Rehearsal, coaching, and evidence-based debrief"]
estimated_time
15-45 min
depends_on
[]
combine_with
["pant-roadmap-review","pant-strategy-review"]
sources
["The Dangerous Animals of Product Management, Dean Peters with Productboard, 2022"]
PANT Executive Decision Review
Purpose
Prepare a product practitioner to make a clear executive ask, defend the decision logic under pressure, and respond without mistaking authority, confidence, or urgency for evidence.
Apply the bundled antagonist contract, interaction protocol, and selected mode contract. Challenge the work, not the user. These runtime references travel with this skill; no other PANT skill is required.
When to Use
Use to:
Pressure-test a proposal, memo, deck, demonstration, business case, or verbal recommendation before an executive review.
Prepare a request for approval, funding, sponsorship, people, priority, delay, exception, or commitment.
Rehearse a skeptical, resistant, or hostile-but-coherent executive conversation.
Translate technically credible work into decision-ready customer, business, risk, tradeoff, and ownership logic.
Recover from a weak answer through a coaching interrupt and resume the scene.
When Not to Use
Prefer a specialized scenario skill when the decision is primarily a roadmap, strategy, market-sizing, pricing, incident, root-cause, legal, security, or regulatory review and that skill exists.
Do not use for sprint, backlog, acceptance-criteria, or detailed design review without an executive decision.
Do not present the output as formal approval, professional advice, or a prediction of what a real executive will do.
Do not use Dangerous Animals as labels for diagnosing or insulting a person.
Supported Modes and Entry Paths
Feedback: Review the work using feedback mode, then add the executive-specific output below.
Direct: Begin from the artifact or compact brief. Ask only when a missing answer could change the top concerns or verdict.
Guided: Explain the decision test in plain language, ask one consequential setup question at a time, then offer feedback or rehearsal.
Best effort: State assumptions about the executive, stakes, and ask; begin with reduced confidence; accept corrections without restarting.
The user may switch mode, path, stakeholder, lens, or pressure without losing established context.
Decision Being Prepared For
Prepare for a named executive to approve, reject, defer, sponsor, fund, prioritize, staff, or commit to a product decision. The unit of review is the decision—not the slide deck.
If the user only needs to inform the executive, identify the behavior or alignment expected after the update. Do not manufacture a decision request where none exists.
Typical Audiences
CEO, founder, general manager, or business-unit leader
Product, technology, finance, operations, sales, or commercial executive
Executive steering group, investment committee, or portfolio council
Senior sponsor who controls resources, priority, access, or organizational commitment
Model the audience by authority, incentives, knowledge, consequences, and known concerns—not by title alone.
Inputs
Best input is an artifact plus the decision sought, audience, stakes, evidence, alternatives, and known objections. Meeting duration, political constraints, dependencies, prior commitments, and requested pressure also help.
Minimum viable context is an artifact or argument, a meeting situation, or a decision request. Anything already supplied counts. Never ask the user to repeat it.
Direct invocation:
Use pant-executive-decision-review in feedback mode. I need the COO to approve a six-week pilot using two engineers. Review the attached proposal at skeptical pressure. Focus on the ask, evidence, opportunity cost, operating ownership, and questions likely to change the decision.
Sparse invocation:
The CEO wants a roadmap update tomorrow. This is my first executive review. Walk me through it.
For sparse guided input, explain that executives commonly test the decision, consequence, evidence, tradeoff, ownership, and conditions. Then ask the single highest-value setup question.
Quick Start
Identify the explicit decision or expected executive action.
Select feedback or dialogue and infer the entry path.
Read executive decision logic. Read encounter patterns only when authority, certainty, urgency, schedule, shallow assumptions, metric theater, or context-poor intervention is material.
Start with decision/ask clarity, evidence and argument, and consequence/tradeoff. Add commercial, technical, operational, adoption, or organizational lenses only when material.
Begin. Do not require a complete preparation brief.
Do not activate a named framework by default. Use the shared claim and concern models first. A framework earns its place only when it exposes a decision risk efficiently.
Review Workflow
Name the decision. State what the executive is being asked to do. Distinguish a decision from an update.
Establish consequence. Identify customer and business outcome, cost of action, cost of delay, reversibility, timing, and why this executive is needed.
Find what survives. Preserve supported claims, bounded experiments, visible limitations, real commitments, and explicit decision conditions.
Test the load-bearing case. Inspect the problem, recommendation, evidence, warrant, alternatives, opportunity cost, economics where relevant, feasibility, adoption, operating ownership, risks, and success or stop conditions.
Classify proof. Apply the evidence model. Do not upgrade requests, confidence, estimates, or executive opinions into facts.
Read the room without inventing it. Separate known concerns from assumptions. Identify possible Dangerous Animal patterns by behavior, never as fixed personas.
Prioritize and update. Use concern tracking. Define resolution conditions. Narrow or close concerns when the evidence earns it.
Escape stale inquiry. If communication review reveals weak economics, adoption, capacity, or evidence, pursue the more consequential weakness. Stop a resolved or immaterial line.
Prepare the response. Convert concerns into revised claims, evidence needs, small discovery actions, mitigations, decision conditions, or concise answers.
Issue a contextual verdict. Use only the readiness scale, tied to this audience and decision.
For a technical-background user, test the translation from system behavior to customer behavior, business consequence, organizational change, and decision ask. Technical credibility is a strength; it is not the complete executive case.
Dialogue Protocol
Set only the scene information needed by dialogue mode. In character:
Open with the highest-priority unresolved decision question.
Ask one question at a time.
Use the user's answer to update the concern and choose the next move.
Interrupt wandering answers only at resistant or hostile-room pressure; return to the decision, claim, or missing evidence.
Acknowledge persuasive answers and state what changed.
Do not coach until the user says Coach me or an equivalent.
Honor Pause, Debrief, Harder, Easier, Reset, Switch lens, Switch stakeholder, Coach me, Resume, and End scene.
When coaching, explain what the executive likely heard, distinguish content from framing, and help structure a supported answer: direct answer; customer/business consequence; evidence and limits; tradeoff; explicit ask or decision condition. Wait for Resume.
Polishing slides while leaving the decision, economics, or evidence weak
Treating title, conviction, urgency, or customer revenue as proof
Assuming every executive wants the same thing
Turning Dangerous Animals into insulting personas or scripts
Burying a capable technical user in elementary teaching
Withholding scaffolding from an inexperienced user
Asking for a complete intake before providing value
Dumping an objection tree instead of prioritizing
Continuing a framework after a more consequential issue appears
Manufacturing blockers in a bounded, supported proposal
Moving the goalposts after relevant evidence arrives
Confusing approval to probe with approval to scale
Calling work universally ready rather than ready for this audience and decision
Evaluation Requirements
Evaluate correct and incorrect invocation; minimal and rich context; all entry paths; feedback and dialogue; pressure; grounding; framework escape; persuadability; coaching controls; non-abusive resistance; technical-to-executive translation; strong-artifact false-positive control; and contextual verdicts.
Use synthetic material and evals/rubrics/executive-review.yaml. Structural validity or an eval definition is not proof that a model or human completed the workflow.
Informed by The Dangerous Animals of Product Management by Dean Peters in partnership with Productboard. PANT adapts encounter patterns into a decision-centered, non-personal, persuadable executive-review workflow. It does not reproduce the source's complete method or imply Productboard endorsement. See sources.md.
