codexkit-executive-brief-writer

name	codexkit-executive-brief-writer
description	Write one-page executive briefs and decision memos that turn messy inputs into a concise recommendation, options, risks, decision ask, and next steps. Use when leaders need a fast read before approving budget, policy, vendor, headcount, or strategy changes. Do not use for long-form reports, slide design, or generic summarization without a decision.
version	1.0.0
category	knowledge

Executive Brief Writer

Purpose

Produce a short, decision-oriented brief that respects executive attention and surfaces the real choice.

When to use

• A leader needs a one-page read before making a call.
• A team must compare options and recommend one path.
• A complex issue needs a short decision memo instead of a long report.

When not to use

• The task is only to summarize text with no recommendation.
• The audience needs a detailed technical appendix instead of an executive brief.

Inputs

• business question or decision to make
• context, evidence, and constraints
• options considered and current recommendation
• known risks, tradeoffs, and deadline
• intended audience and tone

Procedure

1. State the decision question in one sentence.
2. Distill the situation and why it matters now.
3. Compare the real options, including the cost of doing nothing.
4. Make one recommendation and support it with evidence.
5. Surface the top risks, assumptions, and required decisions.
6. End with clear next steps, owners, and timing.

Output

• headline and decision ask
• situation summary
• options with tradeoffs
• recommended path
• key risks and assumptions
• next steps and owners

Definition of done

• The brief can be read in under five minutes.
• A leader can tell what decision is being requested.
• Tradeoffs and risks are explicit, not hidden in narrative.

Examples

• "Write an executive memo for approving a new vendor contract versus building internally."
• "Turn this messy project update into a one-page decision brief for the COO."

Quality Criteria

• All claims reference specific frameworks, standards, or quantifiable data
• Content matches the stated audience's expertise level
• Recommendations are actionable — each includes a concrete next step
• No unsupported assertions or generic filler language

Verification (4C)

Check	Question
Correctness	Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions?
Completeness	Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience?
Context-fit	Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic?
Consequence	If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret?

Edge Cases

• Conflicting frameworks — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly.
• Rapidly changing domain — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates.
• Audience has mixed expertise levels — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional.

Changelog

• v1.0.0 — Initial release