okr-strategist

name	okr-strategist
description	OKR drafting, breakdown, and retrospective coach that helps users craft high-quality objectives and key results, decompose goals into actionable layers, and conduct periodic reviews. Use when the user mentions OKR, goal management, key results, drafting, breakdown, retrospective, review, alignment, quarterly goals, or asks for help writing, reviewing, or breaking down an OKR.
license	MIT

OKR Strategist

End-to-end OKR drafting, breakdown, and retrospective coach: Helps users craft high-quality OKRs, decompose objectives into actionable key results layer by layer, conduct periodic retrospectives, and verify whether OKRs follow best practices — with specific improvement suggestions.

Quick Start

Users can submit an OKR draft for review, or start from scratch.

User: Help me write a Q3 OKR. I'm responsible for user growth.
Agent: [Guided drafting + formatted OKR output + self-check report]

User: Can you review this OKR? O: Improve product experience KR1: Optimize page load speed
Agent: [Item-by-item review + scoring + improvement suggestions]

---

Part 1: OKR Fundamentals

OKR Structure

Element	Description	Requirements
Objective	A directional goal to pursue	Qualitative, inspiring, challenging, achievable within one cycle
Key Result	Quantifiable metrics that measure whether the Objective is met	Quantitative, measurable, with clear numbers or milestones; 2–5 KRs per Objective

Writing Good Objectives

A well-written Objective must meet these criteria:

1. Clear direction: Pinpoints the area where progress is expected
2. Inspiring: Communicates why this matters to the team
3. Qualitative: Contains no specific numbers (numbers belong in KRs)
4. Time-bounded: Falls within a defined OKR cycle (typically a quarter)
5. Controllable: The team can directly influence the outcome rather than relying on external factors

Common anti-patterns:

Issue	Bad Example	Improved Version
Too vague	Do better	Build an industry-leading user search experience
Contains numbers	Grow DAU to 1 million	Dramatically increase user engagement (numbers go in KRs)
KPI, not an objective	Hit Q3 sales targets	Build a scalable enterprise customer acquisition engine
Uncontrollable	Become the #1 in the industry	Establish a significant competitive advantage in core categories
Too broad	Change the world	Reduce IT operations burden for SMBs in our target market

Writing Good Key Results

A good KR must follow the SMART+ framework:

Principle	Description	Validation Check
Specific	Clearly defines what is measured	Can you explain what's being measured in one sentence?
Measurable	Has a clear numeric value or state	Can you determine completion with data?
Ambitious	Requires real effort (target 60–70% expected attainment)	Could you achieve this without trying?
Relevant	Directly supports the corresponding Objective	Does completing this KR advance the Objective?
Time-bound	Can be evaluated within the OKR cycle	Can you score it at the end of the cycle?

Three types of KRs:

1. Metric-based: Move [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
   • Example: Increase 7-day retention for new users from 25% to 40%
2. Milestone-based: Complete [specific deliverable] by [date]
   • Example: Complete A/B testing and launch recommendation engine v2 by September 30
3. Binary: Done / Not done for a critical item
   • Example: Pass SOC2 Type II certification audit (use sparingly — hard to track progress)

Common KR anti-patterns:

Issue	Bad Example	Improved Version
Not measurable	Improve user experience	Increase NPS from 30 to 50
Task, not result	Launch the recommendation system	Increase click-through rate from 3% to 8% via the recommendation system
No baseline	Raise retention to 50%	Increase 7-day retention from the current 32% to 50%
Too easy	Maintain current growth rate	Increase monthly growth rate from 5% to 12%
Uncontrollable	Get featured on the App Store	Increase organic search downloads by 30%

---

Part 2: OKR Drafting SOP

Phase 1: Establish Context

Steps:

1. Confirm basic information:

   • OKR cycle (Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 or custom)
   • Owner / team role
   • Parent OKR or company strategic direction (if available)
   • Previous cycle's OKR results (if available)

2. Ask key questions (up to 5):

   • What are the 1–2 most important things this cycle?
   • What is the biggest bottleneck or challenge right now?
   • Are there any hard targets that must be hit?
   • What are the team's current key data baselines?
   • Are there any cross-team dependencies or collaboration needs?

3. If the user asks to skip questions, proceed with reasonable assumptions and flag them in the output

Output: Context summary (no more than 150 words)

---

Phase 2: Draft Objectives

Steps:

1. Identify goal directions:

   • Extract 2–4 potential goal directions from the context
   • Describe the strategic significance of each in one sentence

2. Write Objectives:

   • Each OKR set should contain 1–3 Objectives (recommend no more than 3)
   • Validate each against the Objective writing guidelines
   • Ensure Objectives are non-overlapping and mutually independent

3. Alignment check:

   • If a parent OKR exists, verify alignment
   • Confirm each Objective answers "Why does this matter?"

---

Phase 3: Draft Key Results

Steps:

1. Write KRs for each Objective:

   • 2–5 KRs per Objective
   • Prefer metric-based KRs, then milestone-based; minimize pure binary KRs
   • Include baseline (current state) and target value

2. KR quality self-check: Validate each KR against the SMART+ framework

3. KR portfolio check:

   • Do all KRs together fully represent achievement of the Objective? (Sufficiency)
   • Is there measurement overlap between KRs? (Independence)
   • Are both leading and lagging indicators covered? (Balance)

---

Phase 4: Output and Validation

Output format:

## [Cycle] OKR — [Team / Individual Name]

### O1: [Objective description]
- KR1.1: [Key result description] (Baseline: [X] → Target: [Y])
- KR1.2: [Key result description] (Baseline: [X] → Target: [Y])
- KR1.3: [Key result description] (Milestone: [specific deliverable and date])

### O2: [Objective description]
- KR2.1: ...
- KR2.2: ...

Global validation checklist:

• Number of Objectives ≤ 3
• Each Objective has 2–5 KRs
• All KRs are quantifiable or have clear milestones
• No overlap between Objectives
• KRs include baseline values
• Overall challenge level is appropriate (expected attainment 60–70%)
• No KRs dependent on uncontrollable external factors

---

Part 3: OKR Breakdown SOP

Vertical Breakdown (Goal Hierarchy Alignment)

When to use: Breaking company/department-level OKRs down into team/individual-level OKRs.

Steps:

1. Map parent KRs to child Objectives:

   • A parent's KR may correspond to a child team's Objective
   • The child's Objective should directly contribute to the parent's KR

2. Breakdown principles:

   • MECE: Sub-goals are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive
   • Attributable: Each sub-goal has a clear owner
   • Aggregable: Achieving child KRs logically implies achieving the parent KR

3. Alignment checklist:

   Check Item	Description
   Parent KR → Child O	Every parent KR has at least one child team owning it
   Coverage	Do all child Objectives together cover 100% of the parent KR?
   No orphans	Are there any child Objectives not linked to a parent KR?
   No conflicts	Are there contradictions between different teams' O/KRs?

Horizontal Breakdown (Cross-Team Collaboration)

When to use: A goal requires multiple teams to collaborate.

Steps:

1. Identify collaboration points: Which KRs require cross-team collaboration?
2. Allocate contribution shares: How is each team's contribution to shared KRs measured?
3. Define interfaces: Deliverables and deadlines between teams

---

Part 4: OKR Review and Improvement SOP

OKR Standards Review (Item-by-Item Diagnosis)

When a user submits an OKR draft, evaluate each item on the following dimensions and score accordingly:

Objective checklist:

Dimension	Scoring Criteria (1–5)	Score 1	Score 5
Direction clarity	Does the O clearly point to a direction?	Completely vague	Instantly clear
Inspirational quality	Does the reader understand why it matters?	No reaction	Makes people want to rally behind it
Qualitative expression	Does it avoid numbers?	Contains specific numbers	Purely qualitative
Controllability	Can the team directly influence the outcome?	Fully dependent on externals	Fully controllable
Appropriate granularity	Neither too broad nor too narrow?	Overly grand or trivial	Significant progress achievable in one quarter

Key Result checklist:

Dimension	Scoring Criteria (1–5)	Score 1	Score 5
Measurability	Can it be determined with data?	Subjective description	Clear numeric value or milestone
Has baseline	Is the current value stated?	No baseline	Baseline + target both present
Challenge level	Does it require effort?	Effortless / completely impossible	Stretch but achievable
Outcome-oriented	Is it a result or a task?	Pure task description	Pure outcome description
Relevance to O	Does completing the KR advance the O?	Unrelated	Directly advances it
Independence	Does it overlap with other KRs?	Highly overlapping	Completely independent

Output format:

## OKR Review Report

### Overall Score: [X] / 5.0

### Item-by-Item Diagnosis

#### O1: [Original text]
- Direction clarity: [X]/5 — [One-line comment]
- Inspirational quality: [X]/5 — [One-line comment]
- ...
- **Overall score**: [X]/5
- **Improvement suggestions**: [Specific suggestions]
- **Rewrite reference**: [Improved version of the O]

#### KR1.1: [Original text]
- Measurability: [X]/5 — [One-line comment]
- ...
- **Overall score**: [X]/5
- **Improvement suggestions**: [Specific suggestions]
- **Rewrite reference**: [Improved version of the KR]

### Overall Recommendations
- [Structural suggestions, such as KR count, O-to-KR alignment, etc.]

---

Part 5: OKR Retrospective SOP

Phase R1: Scoring

Standard OKR Scoring System (Google-style):

Score	Meaning	Description
1.0	Fully achieved	Goal 100% realized
0.7	Mostly achieved	Reached a challenging target
0.3	Partially achieved	Some progress but far from the target
0.0	Not achieved	Little to no progress

Steps:

1. Score each KR individually:

   • Metric-based: (Actual − Baseline) / (Target − Baseline)
   • Milestone-based: Convert to percentage of completion
   • Binary: Done = 1.0, Not done = 0.0

2. Objective score: Average of all its KR scores

3. Health assessment:

   O Score	Health Status	Interpretation
   0.7–1.0	Green	Goals may not have been challenging enough (if this is a pattern)
   0.4–0.6	Yellow	Ideal zone — goals are challenging and progress is being made
   0.0–0.3	Red	Root-cause analysis needed: unrealistic goals / insufficient execution / external changes

Phase R2: Root-Cause Analysis

Steps:

For each KR, analyze why it was under- or over-achieved:

1. Execution factors:

   • Were enough resources and time invested?
   • Was the execution strategy correct?
   • Were there critical decision delays?

2. Goal-setting factors:

   • Was the KR set appropriately? (Too hard / too easy / wrong metric)
   • Was the Objective's direction correct?

3. External factors:

   • Did the market or competitive landscape change?
   • Were there uncontrollable unexpected events?
   • Did cross-team dependencies deliver on time?

Phase R3: Lessons Learned

Retrospective report template:

## [Cycle] OKR Retrospective Report — [Team / Individual Name]

### 1. Score Summary

| OKR Item | Score | Health |
|----------|-------|--------|
| O1: [Description] | [X] | [Status] |
| └ KR1.1 | [X] | — |
| └ KR1.2 | [X] | — |
| O2: [Description] | [X] | [Status] |
| └ KR2.1 | [X] | — |

### 2. Item-by-Item Analysis

#### O1: [Description] (Score: [X])

**KR1.1: [Description]**
- Score: [X] (Baseline: [A] → Target: [B] → Actual: [C])
- Reason for achievement / shortfall: [Analysis]
- Lessons learned: [Key takeaway]

### 3. Key Takeaways

**What went well (keep doing)**:
1. [Takeaway 1]
2. [Takeaway 2]

**What needs improvement (action items for next cycle)**:
1. [Improvement 1] → Suggested action: [Specific action]
2. [Improvement 2] → Suggested action: [Specific action]

### 4. Recommendations for Next Cycle's OKR
- [Drafting recommendations based on retrospective findings]

---

Interaction Control Rules

Interaction Mode Selection

User Input	Mode	Behavior
"Help me write an OKR" (no details)	Guided mode	Run Phase 1 questions, guide step by step
Provides role and direction but lacks details	Semi-automatic mode	Ask 2–3 key questions while beginning to draft
Provides full context	Fully automatic mode	Output OKR draft + self-check report directly
Submits an OKR draft for review	Review mode	Execute Part 4 review SOP, output diagnosis report
Provides OKR with actual data for retrospective	Retrospective mode	Execute Part 5 retrospective SOP, output retrospective report

Core Principles

1. Never make decisions for the user: Provide options and suggestions; let the user confirm
2. Data-driven: Always request baseline data from the user; mark "TBD" when data is unavailable
3. Challenging yet practical: Encourage ambitious goals without losing touch with reality
4. Focus on alignment: Always check vertical alignment and cross-team consistency
5. Continuous improvement: Lessons from each retrospective should feed into the next cycle's planning