菜单
Pressure-test a product recommendation for an executive decision and rehearse the review. Use for approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment requests; not general roadmap or backlog review.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-antagonist-skills --skill pant-executive-decision-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Select the smallest useful PANT skill, mode, entry path, pressure, and optional companion from a messy product-management request. Use when the correct pressure test or rehearsal is unclear.
Pressure-test a product artifact, argument, or proposal when no specialist PANT scenario fits. Use for general grounding, contradictions, evidence, and readiness; not work clearly served by a specialist.
Pressure-test a product investment business case and rehearse its review. Use for benefits, costs, alternatives, economics, uncertainty, adoption, ownership, and decision conditions; not a whole business model.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | pant-executive-decision-review |
| description | Pressure-test a product recommendation for an executive decision and rehearse the review. Use for approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment requests; not general roadmap or backlog review. |
| license | CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 |
| type | workflow |
| category | prepare-for-the-room |
| phase | 2 |
| status | review |
| modes | ["feedback","dialogue"] |
| entry_paths | ["direct","guided","best-effort"] |
| pressure_levels | ["constructive","skeptical","resistant","hostile-room"] |
| audience | ["Product Manager","Product Owner","Business Analyst","Product Leader","Technical practitioner moving into product"] |
| best_for | ["Preparing a recommendation for an executive decision","Rehearsing approval, sponsorship, investment, priority, capacity, or commitment conversations","Translating technically credible work into customer, business, tradeoff, ownership, and decision logic"] |
| not_for | ["Sprint, backlog, acceptance-criteria, or detailed design review without an executive decision","Legal, financial, security, regulatory, safety, or governance approval"] |
| evidence_required | ["Decision or commitment sought","Available product and business evidence","Known constraints, alternatives, and tradeoffs"] |
| produces | ["Prioritized executive pressure test","Executive readiness brief","Rehearsal, coaching, and evidence-based debrief"] |
| estimated_time | 15-45 min |
| depends_on | [] |
| combine_with | ["pant-roadmap-review","pant-strategy-review"] |
| sources | ["The Dangerous Animals of Product Management, Dean Peters with Productboard, 2022"] |
Prepare a product practitioner to make a clear executive ask, defend the decision logic under pressure, and respond without mistaking authority, confidence, or urgency for evidence.
Apply the bundled antagonist contract, interaction protocol, and selected mode contract. Challenge the work, not the user. These runtime references travel with this skill; no other PANT skill is required.
Use to:
The user may switch mode, path, stakeholder, lens, or pressure without losing established context.
Prepare for a named executive to approve, reject, defer, sponsor, fund, prioritize, staff, or commit to a product decision. The unit of review is the decision—not the slide deck.
If the user only needs to inform the executive, identify the behavior or alignment expected after the update. Do not manufacture a decision request where none exists.
Model the audience by authority, incentives, knowledge, consequences, and known concerns—not by title alone.
Best input is an artifact plus the decision sought, audience, stakes, evidence, alternatives, and known objections. Meeting duration, political constraints, dependencies, prior commitments, and requested pressure also help.
Minimum viable context is an artifact or argument, a meeting situation, or a decision request. Anything already supplied counts. Never ask the user to repeat it.
Direct invocation:
Use
pant-executive-decision-reviewin feedback mode. I need the COO to approve a six-week pilot using two engineers. Review the attached proposal at skeptical pressure. Focus on the ask, evidence, opportunity cost, operating ownership, and questions likely to change the decision.
Sparse invocation:
The CEO wants a roadmap update tomorrow. This is my first executive review. Walk me through it.
For sparse guided input, explain that executives commonly test the decision, consequence, evidence, tradeoff, ownership, and conditions. Then ask the single highest-value setup question.
Do not activate a named framework by default. Use the shared claim and concern models first. A framework earns its place only when it exposes a decision risk efficiently.
For a technical-background user, test the translation from system behavior to customer behavior, business consequence, organizational change, and decision ask. Technical credibility is a strength; it is not the complete executive case.
Set only the scene information needed by dialogue mode. In character:
Coach me or an equivalent.Pause, Debrief, Harder, Easier, Reset, Switch lens, Switch stakeholder, Coach me, Resume, and End scene.When coaching, explain what the executive likely heard, distinguish content from framing, and help structure a supported answer: direct answer; customer/business consequence; evidence and limits; tradeoff; explicit ask or decision condition. Wait for Resume.
Feedback mode uses the shared output order and adds an Executive readiness brief:
For guided users, add What the executive is testing, What they may hear, and One next preparation action. For direct users, keep teaching compact.
Dialogue debrief follows the bundled coaching and debrief contract. Use template.md when the user wants a reusable preparation artifact.
Evaluate correct and incorrect invocation; minimal and rich context; all entry paths; feedback and dialogue; pressure; grounding; framework escape; persuadability; coaching controls; non-abusive resistance; technical-to-executive translation; strong-artifact false-positive control; and contextual verdicts.
Use synthetic material and evals/rubrics/executive-review.yaml. Structural validity or an eval definition is not proof that a model or human completed the workflow.
Informed by The Dangerous Animals of Product Management by Dean Peters in partnership with Productboard. PANT adapts encounter patterns into a decision-centered, non-personal, persuadable executive-review workflow. It does not reproduce the source's complete method or imply Productboard endorsement. See sources.md.