lifecycle-play-advisor

name	lifecycle-play-advisor
argument-hint	[product that's fading, and what makes you think so]
description	Diagnose where a product sits in its lifecycle and which play fits — extend, replace, or retire. Use when a product is fading and you need the call, not just the worry.
intent	Guided triage for a product at the mature-to-decline inflection. Establishes the lifecycle stage from the transition questions, identifies what is actually driving the pressure, tests the extension play before conceding to replacement or retirement, and routes to the skill that executes the chosen play.
type	interactive
theme	product-lifecycle
best_for	["Settling an extend-versus-replace-versus-retire argument with a diagnosis instead of volume","Checking whether a product is really in decline or just badly distributed","Finding the cheapest play that actually addresses the pressure"]
scenarios	["Revenue's been flat for a year and half the team wants a rewrite and half wants to kill it","Leadership says this product is dying — is it, and what should we actually do about it?"]
estimated_time	15-25 min

Lifecycle Play Advisor

Purpose

Work out what to do with a product that has stopped growing. Three plays are available — extend, replace, retire — and this skill gets you to the right one through diagnosis rather than debate, then hands you to whichever skill executes it.

Most teams argue the play before establishing the stage. The argument is unwinnable that way, because nobody has agreed on what's actually happening to the product. Four questions fixes that.

This skill is deliberately willing to say "nothing yet." A mature product throwing off margin with manageable support cost doesn't need a play; it needs to be left alone and watched.

Input

Works best with: The product, and what makes you think something needs to change.

Also useful: Revenue trend and over how long, support load, what customers say, whether an internal driver (cost, capacity, strategy) is really behind the question, and what investment appetite exists.

Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The diagnosis runs on questions a PM can answer from what they already know — no report-pulling required. "I don't know" is a valid answer and becomes a labeled assumption in the recommendation.

Example invocations:

• Our reporting module has been flat six quarters and people want to rebuild it. Extend, replace, or retire?
• Leadership wants to kill our parts module. Walk me through whether that's right.

---

Key Concepts

The Three Plays

• Extend — add a variant or capability to the existing line. The product keeps running; you add alongside. Cheapest, lowest risk, most often skipped because it isn't exciting.
• Replace — ship a successor and phase the old one out. GTM and EOL run simultaneously, for two products that compete with each other. The expensive play.
• Retire — phase out with no successor of your own. Customers land elsewhere, possibly with a competitor. The goal becomes losing the product without losing the customer.

And the fourth answer that isn't a play: harvest — stop investing, keep running, set a review date.

Diagnosis Before Play

The seven transition questions establish stage; the pressure source discriminates the plays. Run both before recommending anything, and show your work — a recommendation the user can audit is one they can defend to someone else.