メニュー
Redesign the revenue engine — segments, coverage, quotas, comp, forecasting, and RevOps stack. Outputs coverage model, quota-capacity plan, forecast cadence, and pipeline hygiene guardrails.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/kalilurrahman/kr-claudiator-skills --skill cro-revenue-operating-modelコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | cro-revenue-operating-model |
| description | Redesign the revenue engine — segments, coverage, quotas, comp, forecasting, and RevOps stack. Outputs coverage model, quota-capacity plan, forecast cadence, and pipeline hygiene guardrails. |
| argument-hint | ["TAM","current pipeline","sales org","deal profile","forecast accuracy"] |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write |
| audience | CRO |
A decision-grade playbook for the CRO and executive peers. Use it to move from ambiguous business context to a clear, defensible narrative that a board, exec committee, or investment committee can act on within one working session.
The goal is not a long document — it is a short, sharp, source-cited artefact that survives challenge from a CFO, a CRO, a regulator, and a sceptical non-executive director in the same room.
Ask for these before drafting. If any are missing, state the assumption explicitly in the output — never fabricate a number.
Where the enterprise is today, where it needs to be, and the gap this decision closes. Reference the enterprise strategy explicitly.
| Option | Description | Value | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Status quo | £ | £ | Medium | Rejected — insufficient pace |
| B | Recommended | £ | £ | Medium | Selected |
| C | Alternative | £ | £ | High | Rejected — execution risk |
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Replace with |
|---|---|---|
| Activity metrics dressed as value | Board sees through it in minutes | Revenue, cost, risk, optionality |
| Single-point ROI with 3-decimal precision | Signals false confidence | Range with sensitivity |
| Hiding the risk that killed prior attempts | Erodes trust when discovered | Name it, own it, mitigate it |
| One-option paper | Reads as advocacy, not analysis | Show the alternatives you rejected |
| Endless appendix, thin summary | Executives read the summary only | 1-page summary carries the paper |
| Passive language ("it is recommended…") | Nobody owns the outcome | Active voice, named accountable exec |
| Boiling-the-ocean scope | Guarantees dilution and delay | Explicit in-scope / out-of-scope list |
| Missing kill-switch | Programmes zombie-walk for years | Pre-agreed exit criteria at each stage |
| No pre-wire with dissenters | Ambush in the room | Meet the sceptics 1:1 before the paper |
| Vendor slideware embedded verbatim | Reads as procurement, not strategy | Independent, source-cited analysis |
Context. A mid-cap enterprise where the CRO has been asked to bring a decision to the next board meeting on the topic described in the argument hint.
Recommendation. Proceed in three sequenced waves with a hard kill-switch at Wave 1 exit if unit economics miss target by more than 15%.
Value. Base case value in the tens of millions over 3-5 years, with an explicit range and two dominant assumptions.
Ask. Capital envelope, peak FTE, board decision date, first value milestone date.
Kill switch. If Wave 1 does not deliver the target leading indicators by month 9, the programme is paused and re-scoped before further capital is released.
Top risks. Talent scarcity, data-quality debt, change fatigue, regulatory drift, vendor concentration — each with named owner and mitigation.
Governance. Monthly steering chaired by the CRO, quarterly board update, independent assurance review at each wave exit.
