Menü
Align stakeholders on priorities, scope, or direction when there's disagreement. Use when you need buy-in fast, not just a status update.
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.
Build a complete business case for a product investment — strategic rationale, financial model, risk assessment, and recommendation. Use when you need executive approval for a major initiative.
Run ROI, IRR, NPV, payback period, and cost-benefit analysis for product investments. Use when you need to quantify the financial case for building something.
Decompose a large problem, epic, or initiative into independently shippable slices. Use when work is too big to build in one sprint and you need to find the seams.
Deep dive into product analytics — investigate a question, surface insights, build a data narrative. Use when you need to go beyond dashboards to understand what's happening.
Define an epic with strategic context, feature breakdown, milestones, and success metrics. Use when scoping a large body of work for planning and tracking.
Write a detailed feature spec with requirements, edge cases, and technical constraints. Use when a feature needs formal documentation before engineering begins.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
| name | stakeholder-alignment |
| description | Align stakeholders on priorities, scope, or direction when there's disagreement. Use when you need buy-in fast, not just a status update. |
Get stakeholders aligned on a decision in hours, not weeks of back-channel meetings. This skill covers stakeholder mapping, decision-forcing documents, objection pre-emption, and structured alignment sessions — not just drafting updates.
Traditional alignment: Weeks of 1:1 meetings, hallway conversations, slide decks revised six times, alignment meetings that don't align.
AI-native alignment: 2-4 hours of preparation with Claude, then one structured session or async review that forces a decision.
| Step | Time | Claude Does | You Do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Map stakeholders | 20 min | Generate stakeholder map from context | Validate concerns, add political context |
| Build decision document | 1-2 hrs | Draft options with trade-offs, evidence, and recommendations | Add strategic framing and relationship context |
| Pre-empt objections | 30 min | Anticipate objections from each stakeholder's perspective | Validate and add objections Claude would miss |
| Run the alignment | 30-60 min | (Not present) | Facilitate the meeting or async review |
| Capture decisions | 15 min | Structure the decision memo | Confirm with stakeholders |
I need to align stakeholders on [decision/initiative]. Here's the context:
- [What needs to be decided]
- [Why it's contentious or complex]
- [Who's involved and what you know about their positions]
Generate a stakeholder map:
- For each stakeholder: their role, what they care about, likely position, and what would change their mind
- Identify who's a decision-maker vs. influencer vs. informed
- Flag potential alliances and conflicts between stakeholders
Add what Claude can't know: the relationship dynamics, political history, and unspoken concerns.
A decision-forcing document is not a recommendation deck — it's a structured presentation of options that makes it impossible to leave the room without a decision.
Draft a decision document for [decision]. Structure it as:
1. Context: What happened that requires a decision (2-3 sentences)
2. Decision needed: Exactly what we're deciding, in one sentence
3. Options (3 max):
- For each: what it is, what it costs, what it gets us, what we give up
- Evidence supporting each option
- Who benefits and who bears the cost
4. Recommendation: Which option and why
5. What happens if we don't decide: The cost of inaction
6. Decision deadline: When this needs to be resolved and why
Tailor the framing for these stakeholders: [stakeholder list with concerns].
For each stakeholder in our map, anticipate their top 2-3 objections to the
recommended option. For each objection:
- State it in their words (how they'd actually phrase it)
- Provide the evidence-based response
- Identify where they're right (concessions you can make)
- Flag any objections that would change the recommendation if valid
Review Claude's output. Add the objections that come from political context, history, or personality that Claude wouldn't know.
This is the human step. Two approaches:
Synchronous (meeting):
Asynchronous (for distributed teams):
Based on the alignment session, draft a decision memo:
- Decision made: [what was decided]
- Options considered: [brief summary]
- Rationale: [why this option]
- Dissent: [who disagreed and what was their concern]
- Next steps: [who does what by when]
- Review date: [when we revisit if needed]
Format for [audience — team Slack, email to leadership, Confluence page].