Initial commit

skills/kill-criteria-exit-ramps/resources/evaluators/rubric_kill_criteria_exit_ramps.json

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "kill-criteria-exit-ramps",
+  "version": "1.0",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "name": "Upfront Definition",
+      "description": "Kill criteria defined before launch, not after emotional/financial investment",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "No kill criteria defined, or defined after project started",
+        "3": "Kill criteria defined at launch but not formally documented or signed",
+        "5": "Kill criteria defined in PRD before launch, signed by stakeholders, formally documented"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Objectivity",
+      "description": "Criteria use quantifiable metrics and thresholds, not subjective judgment",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "Subjective criteria (e.g., 'team feels it's not working', 'low adoption')",
+        "3": "Mix of quantitative and qualitative criteria, some ambiguity",
+        "5": "Fully objective criteria with specific numbers (e.g., '<10% conversion after 6 months', 'CAC >$200 for 3 months')"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Decision Rights",
+      "description": "Clear assignment of who makes kill decision, with escalation path",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "No clear decision-maker, 'team decides' or unclear ownership",
+        "3": "Decision-maker named but no escalation path or override process",
+        "5": "Specific person named as decision authority, clear escalation path, override process with limits"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No Goalpost Moving",
+      "description": "Kill criteria remain fixed; changes require formal justification and re-approval",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "Criteria change informally when approached, goalposts move frequently",
+        "3": "Criteria mostly stable but some informal adjustments without documentation",
+        "5": "Criteria fixed at launch, changes require written justification + senior approval + new document"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Sunk Cost Avoidance",
+      "description": "Decision based on future value, not past investment; uses pre-mortem inversion",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "Heavy focus on sunk costs ('invested too much to quit'), no counterfactual analysis",
+        "3": "Acknowledges sunk costs but also considers future, limited use of inversion techniques",
+        "5": "Explicitly uses pre-mortem inversion ('would we start this today?'), focuses only on future value"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Execution Speed",
+      "description": "Kill decision executed quickly (wind-down within 1 month), avoiding zombie projects",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "Projects linger for 3+ months after kill decision, zombie projects exist",
+        "3": "Wind-down takes 1-2 months, some delays but eventual completion",
+        "5": "Wind-down plan executed within 1 month: team reallocated, resources freed, postmortem completed"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Opportunity Cost Consideration",
+      "description": "Evaluates best alternative use of resources, quantifies opportunity cost",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "No consideration of alternatives, 'finish what we started' mentality",
+        "3": "Mentions alternatives informally but no quantification or comparison",
+        "5": "Explicitly compares current project to top 3 alternatives, quantifies EV/Cost ratio for each"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Portfolio Thinking",
+      "description": "Projects ranked and managed as portfolio, bottom performers killed to free resources",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "Projects evaluated individually, no portfolio ranking or rebalancing",
+        "3": "Informal portfolio view but no systematic ranking or kill threshold",
+        "5": "Quarterly portfolio ranking with explicit methodology, kill threshold (e.g., bottom 30%), active rebalancing"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Postmortem Culture",
+      "description": "Blameless postmortems conducted within 2 weeks, learnings shared, killing normalized",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "No postmortems, or blame-focused, killed projects hidden or stigmatized",
+        "3": "Postmortems occur but sometimes delayed, limited sharing, some stigma remains",
+        "5": "Blameless postmortems within 2 weeks, documented and shared widely, killing celebrated as discipline"
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Wind-Down Planning",
+      "description": "Detailed wind-down plan prepared upfront, includes communication, reallocation, customer transition",
+      "ratings": {
+        "1": "No wind-down plan, ad-hoc execution when kill triggered, customers/team surprised",
+        "3": "Basic wind-down plan exists but incomplete (missing communication or customer transition)",
+        "5": "Comprehensive wind-down plan with communication timeline, team reallocation, customer transition, postmortem schedule"
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "guidance_by_type": [
+    {
+      "type": "New Product Launch",
+      "focus_areas": ["Upfront Definition", "Objectivity", "Decision Rights", "Wind-Down Planning"],
+      "target_score": "≥4.0",
+      "rationale": "New products carry high uncertainty. Strong upfront kill criteria and wind-down planning prevent prolonged resource drain if product-market fit not achieved."
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "Feature Development",
+      "focus_areas": ["Objectivity", "Execution Speed", "Opportunity Cost Consideration"],
+      "target_score": "≥3.5",
+      "rationale": "Features compete for engineering resources. Clear metrics, fast kill decisions, and opportunity cost analysis ensure resources flow to highest-impact features."
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "R&D / Experiments",
+      "focus_areas": ["Upfront Definition", "Sunk Cost Avoidance", "Postmortem Culture"],
+      "target_score": "≥4.0",
+      "rationale": "Experiments should have clear success/failure criteria upfront. Avoid sunk cost trap for failed experiments; learn systematically via postmortems."
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "Portfolio Management",
+      "focus_areas": ["Portfolio Thinking", "Opportunity Cost Consideration", "No Goalpost Moving"],
+      "target_score": "≥4.5",
+      "rationale": "Managing multiple projects requires disciplined ranking, rebalancing, and adherence to kill criteria. Portfolio optimization depends on killing bottom performers."
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "Organizational Change",
+      "focus_areas": ["Postmortem Culture", "Decision Rights", "Wind-Down Planning"],
+      "target_score": "≥3.5",
+      "rationale": "Building culture around disciplined stopping requires clear governance, blameless learning, and smooth wind-downs that preserve team morale."
+    }
+  ],
+  "guidance_by_complexity": [
+    {
+      "complexity": "Simple (single feature/experiment)",
+      "target_score": "≥3.5",
+      "priority_criteria": ["Objectivity", "Upfront Definition", "Execution Speed"],
+      "notes": "Focus on clear metrics defined upfront and fast execution. Complexity is low enough that informal decision rights acceptable."
+    },
+    {
+      "complexity": "Moderate (product/initiative with team of 3-10)",
+      "target_score": "≥4.0",
+      "priority_criteria": ["Upfront Definition", "Decision Rights", "Sunk Cost Avoidance", "Wind-Down Planning"],
+      "notes": "Requires formal kill criteria document, named decision-maker, and detailed wind-down plan. Team size creates reallocation complexity."
+    },
+    {
+      "complexity": "Complex (portfolio of 5+ projects, or multi-year initiatives)",
+      "target_score": "≥4.5",
+      "priority_criteria": ["Portfolio Thinking", "No Goalpost Moving", "Opportunity Cost Consideration", "Postmortem Culture"],
+      "notes": "Demands systematic portfolio management with quarterly rebalancing, strict adherence to criteria, opportunity cost analysis, and strong learning culture."
+    }
+  ],
+  "common_failure_modes": [
+    {
+      "name": "Moving Goalposts",
+      "symptom": "When kill criteria approached, team extends timeline or lowers bar ('let's give it another 3 months')",
+      "detection": "Compare current criteria to original PRD; check for informal changes without re-approval",
+      "fix": "Lock criteria at launch with sign-off; require written justification + senior approval for any changes"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Sunk Cost Justification",
+      "symptom": "'We've invested $2M/18 months, can't quit now' even though future prospects poor",
+      "detection": "Listen for past-focused language ('invested', 'spent', 'too far to stop'); absence of opportunity cost analysis",
+      "fix": "Apply pre-mortem inversion: 'If starting today with $0, would we do this?' Focus only on future value."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Subjective Criteria",
+      "symptom": "Debates over whether 'low engagement' or 'poor adoption' triggers kill, no clear threshold",
+      "detection": "Two people evaluating same data reach different conclusions; criteria use qualitative terms",
+      "fix": "Quantify all criteria with specific numbers and dates (e.g., '<10% weekly active after 6 months')"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Committee Decision-Making",
+      "symptom": "'Team decides' or 'we'll discuss' leads to paralysis, no one willing to make tough call",
+      "detection": "Kill decision delayed for weeks/months despite criteria met; multiple meetings with no resolution",
+      "fix": "Assign single decision-maker by name in kill criteria doc; decision-maker accountable for timely call"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Zombie Projects",
+      "symptom": "Projects linger in 'wind-down' for 3+ months, still consuming resources (time, attention, budget)",
+      "detection": "Check wind-down duration; team members still partially allocated; infrastructure still running",
+      "fix": "Set hard deadline for wind-down (1 month max); track completion; reallocate team immediately"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Portfolio Inertia",
+      "symptom": "Same projects continue year over year without reevaluation; no projects killed despite poor performance",
+      "detection": "Portfolio composition unchanged for 2+ quarters; no active rebalancing or kill decisions",
+      "fix": "Implement quarterly portfolio ranking; define kill threshold (bottom 20-30%); actively rebalance"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No Postmortem",
+      "symptom": "Killed projects immediately forgotten; no documentation of learnings; repeat same mistakes",
+      "detection": "No postmortem docs; team can't articulate what went wrong; same failure patterns in new projects",
+      "fix": "Require postmortem within 2 weeks of kill; document and share learnings; track pattern across projects"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Stigma Around Killing",
+      "symptom": "Teams reluctant to propose kill; PMs hide struggles; 'failure' language used; career concerns",
+      "detection": "Projects linger past kill criteria; escalations delayed; teams defensive in reviews",
+      "fix": "Leadership celebrates disciplined stopping; share kill decisions transparently; reward early recognition"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "After-the-Fact Criteria",
+      "symptom": "Kill criteria defined after project launched; criteria adjusted to match current performance",
+      "detection": "No kill criteria in original PRD; criteria added months into project; retroactive documentation",
+      "fix": "Make kill criteria mandatory in PRD template; gate project approval on criteria definition; sign-off required"
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Ignoring Opportunity Cost",
+      "symptom": "Continue project because 'almost done' even though resources could create more value elsewhere",
+      "detection": "'80% complete' or 'just need to finish' justifications; no comparison to alternative uses",
+      "fix": "Quantify opportunity cost; rank portfolio by EV/Cost ratio; kill if better alternatives exist regardless of completion"
+    }
+  ],
+  "overall_guidance": {
+    "excellent": "Score ≥4.5: Exemplary discipline around stopping. Clear upfront criteria, objective metrics, decisive execution, portfolio thinking, strong learning culture. Organization skilled at capital allocation through disciplined killing.",
+    "good": "Score 3.5-4.4: Solid kill criteria and execution. Some areas for improvement (portfolio thinking, speed, or culture) but core discipline exists. Most projects have clear criteria and timely decisions.",
+    "needs_improvement": "Score <3.5: Significant gaps. Likely suffering from sunk cost fallacy, zombie projects, moved goalposts, or stigma around killing. Risk of prolonged resource drain on underperformers.",
+    "key_principle": "The hardest and most valuable skill is knowing when to quit. Organizations that kill projects decisively outperform those that let them linger. Sunk costs are irrelevant; only future value and opportunity cost matter."
+  }
+}

skills/kill-criteria-exit-ramps/resources/methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,363 @@
+# Kill Criteria & Exit Ramps: Methodology
+
+Advanced techniques for setting kill criteria, avoiding behavioral biases, managing portfolios, and building organizational culture around disciplined stopping.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Sunk Cost Psychology and Behavioral Economics
+
+### Understanding Sunk Cost Fallacy
+
+**Definition**: Tendency to continue project based on past investment rather than future value
+
+**Cognitive mechanisms**:
+- **Loss aversion**: Losses feel 2× more painful than equivalent gains (Kahneman & Tversky)
+- **Escalation of commitment**: Justifying past decisions by doubling down
+- **Status quo bias**: Preference for current state over change
+- **Endowment effect**: Overvaluing what we already own/built
+
+**Common rationalizations**:
+- "We've invested $2M, can't quit now" (ignoring opportunity cost)
+- "Just need a little more time" (moving goalposts)
+- "Too close to finishing to stop" (completion bias)
+- "Team morale will suffer if we quit" (social pressure)
+
+### Behavioral Interventions
+
+**Pre-commitment devices**:
+1. **Signed kill criteria document** before launch (removes discretion)
+2. **Third-party decision maker** without sunk cost attachment
+3. **Time-locked gates** with automatic NO-GO if criteria not met
+4. **Financial caps** ("Will not invest more than $X total")
+
+**Framing techniques**:
+1. **Pre-mortem inversion**: "If starting today with $0, would we do this?"
+2. **Opportunity cost framing**: "What else could these resources achieve?"
+3. **Reverse trial**: "To CONTINUE, we need to prove X" (default = kill)
+4. **Outside view**: "What would we advise another company to do?"
+
+**Example**: Company spent $5M on enterprise sales, 3 customers in 2 years (need 50 for viability)
+- **Sunk cost framing**: "We've invested $5M, can't stop now"
+- **Opportunity cost framing**: "Next $5M could yield 200 SMB customers based on pilot data"
+- **Pre-mortem inversion**: "If starting today, would we choose enterprise over SMB?" → No
+- **Decision**: Kill enterprise sales, reallocate to SMB
+
+### Quantifying Opportunity Cost
+
+**Formula**: Opportunity Cost = Value of Best Alternative − Value of Current Project
+
+**Process**:
+1. Identify top 3 alternatives for resources (team, budget)
+2. Estimate expected value for each: EV = Σ (Probability × Payoff)
+3. Rank by EV / Resource Cost ratio
+4. If current project ranks below alternatives → Kill signal
+
+**Example**: SaaS with 3 options
+- **Current project** (mobile app): EV = $2M, Cost = 5 engineers × 6 months = 30 eng-months, Ratio = $67k/eng-month
+- **Alternative 1** (API platform): EV = $8M, Cost = 30 eng-months, Ratio = $267k/eng-month
+- **Alternative 2** (integrations): EV = $5M, Cost = 20 eng-months, Ratio = $250k/eng-month
+- **Decision**: Kill mobile app (lowest ratio), reallocate to API platform (highest ratio)
+
+---
+
+## 2. Portfolio Management Frameworks
+
+### Portfolio Ranking Methodologies
+
+**Method 1: Expected Value / Resource Cost**
+
+Formula: `Rank Score = (Revenue × Probability of Success) / (Engineer-Months × Avg Cost)`
+
+**Steps**:
+1. Estimate revenue potential for each project (pessimistic, baseline, optimistic)
+2. Assign probability of success (use reference class forecasting for calibration)
+3. Calculate expected value: EV = Σ (Probability × Revenue)
+4. Estimate resource cost (engineer-months, budget, opportunity cost)
+5. Rank by EV/Cost ratio
+6. Define kill threshold (e.g., bottom 30% of portfolio)
+
+**Method 2: Weighted Scoring Model**
+
+Formula: `Score = Σ (Weight_i × Rating_i)`
+
+**Dimensions** (weights sum to 100%):
+- Strategic fit (30%): Alignment with company vision
+- Revenue potential (25%): Market size × conversion × pricing
+- Probability of success (20%): Team capability, market readiness, technical risk
+- Resource efficiency (15%): ROI, payback period, opportunity cost
+- Competitive urgency (10%): Time-to-market importance
+
+**Ratings**: 1-5 scale for each dimension
+
+**Example**:
+- **Project A**: Strategic fit (4), Revenue (5), Probability (3), Efficiency (4), Urgency (5) → Score = 0.30×4 + 0.25×5 + 0.20×3 + 0.15×4 + 0.10×5 = 4.05
+- **Project B**: Strategic fit (3), Revenue (3), Probability (4), Efficiency (2), Urgency (2) → Score = 0.30×3 + 0.25×3 + 0.20×4 + 0.15×2 + 0.10×2 = 3.05
+- **Ranking**: A > B
+
+**Method 3: Real Options Analysis**
+
+Treat projects as options (right but not obligation to continue)
+
+**Value of option**:
+- **Upside**: High if market/tech uncertainty resolves favorably
+- **Downside**: Limited to incremental investment at each gate
+- **Flexibility value**: Ability to pivot, expand, or abandon based on new info
+
+**Decision rule**: Continue if `Option Value > Immediate Kill Value`
+
+**Example**: R&D project with 3 gates
+- Gate 1 ($50k): Learn if technology feasible (60% chance) → Continue if yes
+- Gate 2 ($200k): Learn if market demand exists (40% chance) → Continue if yes
+- Gate 3 ($1M): Full launch if both tech + market validated
+- **Option value**: Flexibility to kill early if tech/market fails (limits downside)
+- **Immediate kill value**: $0 but foregoes learning
+
+**Decision**: Continue through gates (option value > kill value)
+
+### Portfolio Rebalancing Cadence
+
+**Quarterly portfolio review**:
+1. Re-rank all projects using latest data
+2. Identify projects below threshold (bottom 20-30%)
+3. Evaluate kill vs. pivot for bottom performers
+4. Reallocate resources from killed projects to top performers
+5. Document decisions and communicate transparently
+
+**Trigger-based review** (between quarterly reviews):
+- Major market change (competitor launch, regulation, economic shift)
+- Significant underperformance vs. projections (>30% variance)
+- Resource constraints (hiring freeze, budget cut, key person departure)
+- Strategic pivot (new company direction)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Decision Rights Frameworks
+
+### RACI Matrix for Kill Decisions
+
+**Roles**:
+- **Responsible (R)**: Gathers data, monitors metrics, presents to decision-maker
+- **Accountable (A)**: Makes final kill decision (single person, not committee)
+- **Consulted (C)**: Provides input before decision (team, stakeholders)
+- **Informed (I)**: Notified after decision (broader org, customers)
+
+**Example**:
+- **Kill Criteria Met → Kill Decision**:
+  - Responsible: Product Manager (gathers data)
+  - Accountable: Product VP (makes decision)
+  - Consulted: Engineering Lead, Finance, CEO (input)
+  - Informed: Team, customers, company (notification)
+
+**Anti-pattern**: "Team decides" (everyone has sunk cost, leads to paralysis)
+
+### Escalation Paths
+
+**Standard path**:
+1. **Metrics tracked** → Alert if approaching kill threshold
+2. **Project owner evaluates** → Presents data + recommendation to decision authority
+3. **Decision authority decides** → GO, NO-GO, or PIVOT
+4. **Execute decision** → If kill, wind down within 1 month
+
+**Override path** (use sparingly):
+- **Override condition**: Decision authority wants to continue despite kill criteria met
+- **Override process**: Written justification, senior approval (e.g., CEO), new kill criteria with shorter timeline
+- **Override limit**: Max 1 override per project (prevents repeated goal-post moving)
+
+**Example**: Product VP wants to override kill criteria for feature with 8% adoption (threshold: 10%)
+- **Justification**: "Enterprise pilot starting next month, expect 15% adoption within 60 days"
+- **New criteria**: "If <12% adoption after 60 days, kill immediately (no further overrides)"
+- **CEO approval**: Required for override
+
+### Governance Mechanisms
+
+**Pre-launch approval**:
+- Kill criteria document signed by project owner, decision authority, executive sponsor
+- Changes to criteria require re-approval by all signatories
+
+**Monitoring dashboard**:
+- Real-time metrics vs. kill thresholds
+- Traffic light system: Green (>20% above threshold), Yellow (within 20%), Red (below threshold)
+- Automated alerts when entering Yellow or Red zones
+
+**Postmortem requirement**:
+- All killed projects require postmortem within 2 weeks
+- Focus: learning, not blame
+- Shared with broader org to normalize killing projects
+
+---
+
+## 4. Postmortem Processes and Learning Culture
+
+### Postmortem Structure
+
+**Timing**: Within 2 weeks of kill decision (while context fresh)
+
+**Participants**: Project team + key stakeholders (5-10 people)
+
+**Facilitator**: Neutral person (not project owner, avoids defensiveness)
+
+**Duration**: 60-90 minutes
+
+**Agenda**:
+1. **Project recap** (5 min): Goals, kill criteria, timeline, outcome
+2. **What went well?** (15 min): Successes, positive learnings
+3. **What went wrong?** (20 min): Root causes of failure (not blame)
+4. **What did we learn?** (20 min): Insights, surprises, assumptions invalidated
+5. **What would we do differently?** (15 min): Specific changes for future projects
+6. **Action items** (10 min): How to apply learnings (process changes, skill gaps, hiring needs)
+
+**Output**: Written doc (2-3 pages) shared with broader team
+
+### Blameless Postmortem Techniques
+
+**Goal**: Learn from failure without blame culture
+
+**Techniques**:
+1. **Focus on systems, not individuals**: "Why did our process allow this?" not "Who screwed up?"
+2. **Assume good intent**: Team made best decisions with info available at the time
+3. **Prime Directive**: "Everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew, their skills, the resources available, and the situation at hand"
+4. **"How might we" framing**: Forward-looking, solutions-focused
+
+**Red flags** (blame culture):
+- Finger-pointing ("PM should have known...")
+- Defensiveness ("It wasn't my fault...")
+- Punishment mindset ("Someone should be held accountable...")
+- Learning avoidance ("Let's just move on...")
+
+**Example**:
+- **Blame framing**: "Why didn't PM validate market demand before building?"
+- **Blameless framing**: "How might we improve our discovery process to validate demand earlier with less investment?"
+
+### Normalizing Killing Projects
+
+**Cultural shift**: Killing projects = good (disciplined capital allocation), not bad (failure)
+
+**Messaging**:
+- **Positive framing**: "We killed 3 projects this quarter, freeing resources for winners"
+- **Celebrate discipline**: Acknowledge teams for recognizing kill criteria and executing quickly
+- **Success metrics**: % of portfolio actively managed (killed or pivoted) each quarter (target: 20-30%)
+
+**Leadership behaviors**:
+- CEO/VPs publicly discuss projects they killed and why
+- Reward PMs who kill projects early (before major resource drain)
+- Promote "disciplined stopping" as core competency in performance reviews
+
+**Anti-patterns**:
+- Hiding killed projects (creates stigma)
+- Only discussing successes (survivorship bias)
+- Punishing teams for "failed" projects (discourages risk-taking)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Advanced Topics
+
+### Real Options Theory
+
+**Concept**: Treat uncertain projects as financial options
+
+**Option types**:
+1. **Option to defer**: Delay investment until uncertainty resolves
+2. **Option to expand**: Scale up if initial results positive
+3. **Option to contract**: Scale down if results negative
+4. **Option to abandon**: Kill if results very negative
+5. **Option to switch**: Pivot to alternative use
+
+**Valuation**: Black-Scholes model adapted for projects
+- **Underlying asset**: NPV of project
+- **Strike price**: Investment required
+- **Volatility**: Uncertainty in outcomes
+- **Time to expiration**: Decision window
+
+**Application**: Continue projects with high option value (high upside, limited downside, flexibility)
+
+### Stage-Gate Process Design
+
+**Optimal gate structure**:
+- **3-5 gates** for major initiatives
+- **Investment increases** by 3-5× at each gate (e.g., $10k → $50k → $200k → $1M)
+- **Success criteria tighten** at each gate (higher bar as investment grows)
+
+**Gate design**:
+- **Gate 0 (Concept)**: $0-10k, 1-2 weeks, validate problem exists
+- **Gate 1 (Discovery)**: $10-50k, 4-8 weeks, validate solution direction
+- **Gate 2 (MVP)**: $50-200k, 2-3 months, validate product-market fit
+- **Gate 3 (Scale)**: $200k-1M, 6-12 months, validate unit economics
+- **Gate 4 (Growth)**: $1M+, ongoing, optimize and scale
+
+**Kill rates by gate** (typical):
+- Gate 0 → 1: Kill 50% (cheap to kill, many bad ideas)
+- Gate 1 → 2: Kill 30% (learning reveals issues)
+- Gate 2 → 3: Kill 20% (product-market fit hard)
+- Gate 3 → 4: Kill 10% (unit economics don't work)
+
+### Bayesian Updating for Kill Criteria
+
+**Process**: Update kill probability as new data arrives
+
+**Steps**:
+1. **Prior probability** of kill: P(Kill) = initial estimate (e.g., 40% based on historical kill rate)
+2. **Likelihood** of data given kill: P(Data | Kill) = how likely is this data if project should be killed?
+3. **Likelihood** of data given success: P(Data | Success) = how likely is this data if project will succeed?
+4. **Posterior probability** using Bayes theorem: P(Kill | Data) = P(Data | Kill) × P(Kill) / P(Data)
+
+**Example**: SaaS feature with 10% adoption target (kill if <10% after 6 months)
+- **Month 3 data**: 7% adoption
+- **Prior**: P(Kill) = 40% (4 in 10 similar features killed historically)
+- **Likelihood**: P(7% at month 3 | Kill) = 70% (projects that get killed typically have ~7% at halfway point)
+- **Likelihood**: P(7% at month 3 | Success) = 30% (successful projects typically have ~12% at halfway point)
+- **Posterior**: P(Kill | 7% adoption) = (0.70 × 0.40) / [(0.70 × 0.40) + (0.30 × 0.60)] = 0.28 / 0.46 = 61%
+- **Interpretation**: 61% chance this project should be killed (up from 40% prior)
+- **Action**: Evaluate closely, prepare pivot/kill plan
+
+### Stopping Rules in Scientific Research
+
+**Clinical trial stopping rules** (adapted for product development):
+
+1. **Futility stopping**: Stop early if interim data shows unlikely to reach success criteria
+   - **Rule**: If <10% chance of reaching target at current trajectory → Stop
+   - **Application**: Monitor weekly, project trajectory, stop if trajectory misses by >30%
+
+2. **Efficacy stopping**: Stop early if interim data shows clear success (reallocate resources)
+   - **Rule**: If >95% confident success criteria will be met → Graduate early
+   - **Application**: Feature with 25% adoption at month 3 (target: 15% at month 6) → Graduate to core product
+
+3. **Safety stopping**: Stop if harmful unintended consequences detected
+   - **Rule**: If churn increases >20% or NPS drops >10 points → Stop immediately
+   - **Application**: New feature causing user confusion, support ticket spike → Kill
+
+**Example**: Mobile app experiment
+- **Target**: 20% weekly active users at month 6
+- **Month 2 data**: 5% weekly active
+- **Trajectory**: Projecting 10% at month 6 (50% below target)
+- **Futility analysis**: 95% confidence interval for month 6: 8-12% (entirely below 20% target)
+- **Decision**: Invoke futility stopping, kill experiment at month 2 (save 4 months)
+
+---
+
+## Key Principles Summary
+
+1. **Set kill criteria before launch** (remove emotion, politics, sunk cost bias)
+2. **Make criteria objective** (numbers, dates, not feelings)
+3. **Assign clear decision rights** (single decision-maker, not committee)
+4. **Don't move goalposts** (criteria are fixed; changes require formal process)
+5. **Sunk costs are irrelevant** (only future value matters)
+6. **Kill quickly** (wind down within 1 month, avoid zombie projects)
+7. **Opportunity cost > sunk cost** (kill even if "almost done" if better options exist)
+8. **Normalize killing** (celebrate discipline, share learnings, remove stigma)
+9. **Portfolio thinking** (rank all projects, kill bottom 20-30% regularly)
+10. **Learn from kills** (blameless postmortems, apply insights to future projects)
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes and Solutions
+
+| Mistake | Symptom | Solution |
+|---------|---------|----------|
+| **Setting criteria after launch** | Goalposts move when results disappoint | Document criteria in PRD before launch, get sign-off |
+| **Subjective criteria** | Debate over "low engagement" | Quantify: "<10% weekly active", not "poor adoption" |
+| **Team consensus for kill** | Paralysis, no one wants to kill | Single decision-maker with clear authority |
+| **Sunk cost justification** | "Invested $2M, can't quit" | Pre-mortem inversion: "Would we start this today?" |
+| **Zombie projects** | Lingering for 6+ months | Wind down within 1 month of kill decision |
+| **Stigma around killing** | Teams hide struggles, delay kill | Celebrate kills, share postmortems, normalize stopping |
+| **Portfolio inertia** | Same projects year over year | Quarterly ranking + kill bottom 20-30% |
+| **No postmortem** | Repeat same mistakes | Require postmortem within 2 weeks, share learnings |

skills/kill-criteria-exit-ramps/resources/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,373 @@
+# Kill Criteria & Exit Ramps Templates
+
+Quick-start templates for defining kill criteria, go/no-go gates, pivot/kill decisions, and wind-down plans.
+
+---
+
+## Template 1: Kill Criteria Document (Pre-Launch)
+
+**When to use**: Before starting new project, feature, or product
+
+### Kill Criteria Document Template
+
+**Project Name**: [Project name]
+
+**Project Owner**: [Name, role]
+
+**Start Date**: [Date]
+
+**Kill Decision Authority**: [Specific person who makes kill decision, e.g., "Product VP"]
+
+**Escalation Path**: [Who can override, e.g., "CEO can override with written justification"]
+
+---
+
+### Success Metrics
+
+**Primary Success Metric**: [Quantifiable metric, e.g., "20% conversion rate"]
+
+**Secondary Success Metrics** (if applicable):
+- [Metric 2, e.g., "NPS >40"]
+- [Metric 3, e.g., "CAC <$100"]
+
+**Time Horizon**: [Evaluation period, e.g., "6 months post-launch"]
+
+---
+
+### Kill Criteria
+
+**Kill Criterion 1** (Primary):
+- **Metric**: [What to measure, e.g., "Conversion rate"]
+- **Threshold**: [Trigger value, e.g., "<10%"]
+- **Time**: [When to evaluate, e.g., "6 months post-launch"]
+- **Action**: If threshold met → Kill project
+
+**Kill Criterion 2** (Secondary, if applicable):
+- **Metric**: [e.g., "CAC"]
+- **Threshold**: [e.g., ">$200"]
+- **Time**: [e.g., "3 months post-launch"]
+- **Action**: If threshold met → Evaluate pivot or kill
+
+**Kill Criterion 3** (Time-based):
+- **Metric**: [e.g., "Profitability"]
+- **Threshold**: [e.g., "Not profitable"]
+- **Time**: [e.g., "By Month 18"]
+- **Action**: If threshold met → Kill project
+
+---
+
+### Pivot Criteria (Optional)
+
+**Pivot Criterion 1**:
+- **Metric**: [e.g., "Conversion rate"]
+- **Threshold**: [e.g., "10-15% (between kill and success)"]
+- **Time**: [e.g., "6 months post-launch"]
+- **Action**: If threshold met → Evaluate pivot options
+
+**Pivot Options to Consider** (if pivot triggered):
+- [ ] Option 1: [e.g., "Target different customer segment"]
+- [ ] Option 2: [e.g., "Change pricing model"]
+- [ ] Option 3: [e.g., "Shift go-to-market strategy"]
+
+---
+
+### Monitoring Plan
+
+**Tracking Frequency**: [How often to review metrics, e.g., "Weekly dashboard, monthly review"]
+
+**Dashboard Owner**: [Who maintains dashboard, e.g., "Product Analyst"]
+
+**Review Meetings**: [When to formally review, e.g., "Monthly project review"]
+
+**Alert Thresholds**: [When to notify decision-maker, e.g., "Alert if conversion <12% (approaching kill threshold)"]
+
+---
+
+### Wind-Down Plan (If Kill Triggered)
+
+See **Template 5: Wind-Down Plan** for detailed execution checklist.
+
+---
+
+### Signatures (Pre-Launch Approval)
+
+- **Project Owner**: ________________ Date: ______
+- **Decision Authority**: ________________ Date: ______
+
+**Note**: Changes to kill criteria after launch require re-approval.
+
+---
+
+## Template 2: Go/No-Go Gate Assessment
+
+**When to use**: At milestone gates during multi-stage project
+
+### Go/No-Go Gate Template
+
+**Project Name**: [Project name]
+
+**Gate Number**: [e.g., "Gate 2: MVP"]
+
+**Gate Date**: [Date]
+
+**Decision Authority**: [Who makes go/no-go decision]
+
+---
+
+### Gate Success Criteria (Defined at Previous Gate)
+
+1. **Criterion 1**: [e.g., "40% weekly active users among 50 beta users"]
+   - **Target**: 40%
+   - **Actual Result**: [X]%
+   - **Met?**: ☐ Yes ☐ No
+
+2. **Criterion 2**: [e.g., "NPS >30"]
+   - **Target**: >30
+   - **Actual Result**: [X]
+   - **Met?**: ☐ Yes ☐ No
+
+3. **Criterion 3**: [e.g., "CAC <$150"]
+   - **Target**: <$150
+   - **Actual Result**: $[X]
+   - **Met?**: ☐ Yes ☐ No
+
+---
+
+### Overall Gate Assessment
+
+**Criteria Met**: [X] out of [Y] criteria met
+
+**Business Case Review**:
+- **Original Business Case**: [Revenue projection, strategic rationale]
+- **Current Business Case**: [Has it changed? Still valid?]
+- **Changes**: [Any significant changes in market, competition, resources?]
+
+**Alternative Opportunities**:
+- **Alternative 1**: [Other project/opportunity] — Expected value: [X]
+- **Alternative 2**: [Other project/opportunity] — Expected value: [X]
+- **This Project**: Expected value: [X]
+- **Ranking**: [Is this project still best use of resources?]
+
+---
+
+### Gate Decision
+
+**Decision**: ☐ **GO** (Continue to next stage) ☐ **NO-GO** (Kill project) ☐ **PIVOT** (Change approach)
+
+**Rationale**: [1-2 paragraph explanation of decision]
+
+**Next Stage Investment** (if GO):
+- **Budget**: $[X]
+- **Timeline**: [X months]
+- **Team Size**: [X people]
+- **Next Gate**: [Date and success criteria for next gate]
+
+**Kill Actions** (if NO-GO):
+- [ ] Wind down within [timeframe]
+- [ ] Reallocate team to [project]
+- [ ] Postmortem scheduled for [date]
+
+**Pivot Plan** (if PIVOT):
+- **Pivot Direction**: [What changes?]
+- **Hypothesis**: [What are we testing?]
+- **Timeline**: [How long to test pivot?]
+- **Success Criteria**: [What success looks like for pivot]
+
+**Decision Authority**: ________________ Date: ______
+
+---
+
+## Template 3: Pivot vs. Kill Decision Framework
+
+**When to use**: Project not meeting targets, deciding whether to pivot or kill
+
+### Pivot vs. Kill Assessment
+
+**Project Name**: [Project name]
+
+**Assessment Date**: [Date]
+
+**Current Status**: [Brief summary of current state]
+
+---
+
+### Assessment Factors
+
+| Factor | Pivot Score (1-5) | Kill Score (1-5) | Notes |
+|--------|-------------------|------------------|-------|
+| **Customer Pain** | ☐ Real pain, wrong solution (5) | ☐ No pain, nice-to-have (1) | [Evidence] |
+| **Market Size** | ☐ Large enough (5) | ☐ Too small (1) | [TAM estimate] |
+| **Learning Rate** | ☐ High insights (5) | ☐ Low, stuck (1) | [Discoveries per week] |
+| **Burn Rate** | ☐ Sustainable (5) | ☐ Too high (1) | [Monthly burn vs. runway] |
+| **Team Belief** | ☐ Believes in vision (5) | ☐ Doesn't believe (1) | [Team sentiment] |
+| **Opportunity Cost** | ☐ Still best option (5) | ☐ Better options exist (1) | [Alternatives] |
+| **Execution vs. Hypothesis** | ☐ Hypothesis valid, execution wrong (5) | ☐ Hypothesis invalid (1) | [Root cause analysis] |
+
+**Total Pivot Score**: [Sum] / 35
+
+**Total Kill Score**: [Sum] / 35
+
+---
+
+### Pre-Mortem Inversion Test
+
+**Question**: "If we were starting today with $0 invested and zero sunk cost, would we start this project?"
+
+☐ **Yes, exactly as-is** → **CONTINUE** (no pivot needed)
+
+☐ **Yes, but differently** → **PIVOT** (describe how:_____________________)
+
+☐ **No** → **KILL** (reallocate resources)
+
+---
+
+### Decision
+
+**Decision**: ☐ **CONTINUE** ☐ **PIVOT** ☐ **KILL**
+
+**Rationale**: [Explanation based on factors above]
+
+**If PIVOT**:
+- **Pivot Hypothesis**: [What changes and why]
+- **Pivot Timeline**: [How long to test]
+- **Pivot Success Criteria**: [What success looks like]
+- **Pivot Kill Criteria**: [If pivot doesn't work, when to kill]
+
+**If KILL**:
+- **Wind-Down Timeline**: [X weeks/months]
+- **Resource Reallocation**: [Where team/budget goes]
+- **Postmortem Date**: [When to conduct postmortem]
+
+**Decision Authority**: ________________ Date: ______
+
+---
+
+## Template 4: Portfolio Kill Criteria
+
+**When to use**: Managing multiple projects, need to kill some to focus
+
+### Portfolio Ranking & Kill Decision
+
+**Portfolio Review Date**: [Date]
+
+**Decision Authority**: [Who makes portfolio decisions]
+
+**Capacity**: [How many projects can we support? e.g., "5 projects"]
+
+---
+
+### Project Ranking
+
+| Rank | Project | Expected Value (EV) | Resource Cost (RC) | EV/RC Ratio | Status |
+|------|---------|---------------------|-------------------|-------------|--------|
+| 1 | [Project A] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✓ Keep |
+| 2 | [Project B] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✓ Keep |
+| 3 | [Project C] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✓ Keep |
+| 4 | [Project D] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✓ Keep |
+| 5 | [Project E] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✓ Keep |
+| **6** | **[Project F]** | **$[X]M** | **[Y] FTEs** | **[X/Y]** | **← Kill line** |
+| 7 | [Project G] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✗ Kill |
+| 8 | [Project H] | $[X]M | [Y] FTEs | [X/Y] | ✗ Kill |
+
+**Ranking Methodology**: [How EV calculated, e.g., "(Revenue × Probability) / Resource Cost"]
+
+**Kill Threshold**: Projects ranked below [X] get killed
+
+---
+
+### Projects to Kill (Example)
+
+**[Project Name]**:
+- **Status**: [e.g., "80% complete"] | **Sunk Cost**: $[X] | **Expected Value**: $[Z]
+- **Why Kill**: [Rationale, e.g., "Opportunity cost — reallocating to Project A yields 2× more value"]
+- **Wind-Down**: [Timeline] | **Team Reallocation**: [X FTEs] → [Projects]
+
+**Decision Authority**: ________________ Date: ______
+
+---
+
+## Template 5: Wind-Down Plan
+
+**When to use**: Kill decision made, need to execute wind-down
+
+### Project Wind-Down Checklist
+
+**Project Name**: [Project name]
+
+**Kill Decision Date**: [Date]
+
+**Wind-Down Owner**: [Person responsible for executing wind-down]
+
+**Target Wind-Down Completion**: [Date, ideally <1 month]
+
+---
+
+### Communication (Week 1)
+
+- [ ] **Team**: Notify within 1 week ([Decision authority + owner], focus on learning not blame)
+- [ ] **Stakeholders**: Notify exec team, adjacent teams ([Project owner])
+- [ ] **Customers** (if applicable): Migration plan, support timeline, refund policy ([Customer success])
+
+---
+
+### Team & Technical Transition (Weeks 2-4)
+
+- [ ] **1-on-1s**: Discuss next roles, reallocation plan (Week 2, [Manager])
+- [ ] **Knowledge Transfer**: Document learnings, tech docs, research insights (Week 2-3, [Team])
+- [ ] **Code Archive**: Archive repository at [Location] (Week 3, [Tech lead])
+- [ ] **Infrastructure**: Shutdown servers, cancel services, save $[X]/month (Week 4, [DevOps])
+- [ ] **Data**: Backup critical data, ensure GDPR compliance (Week 3, [Tech lead])
+
+---
+
+### Customer Transition (if applicable)
+
+- [ ] **Migration**: [X months timeline] to [Alternative product], support until [date]
+- [ ] **Refunds**: Pro-rated refunds for annual customers within [X weeks]
+- [ ] **Sunset**: Support ends [date], then [full deprecation]
+
+---
+
+### Postmortem (Week 3-4)
+
+- [ ] **Schedule**: Within 2 weeks ([Date], [Team + stakeholders], [Neutral facilitator])
+- [ ] **Agenda**: What worked? What didn't? Learnings? Apply to future?
+- [ ] **Document**: Write postmortem doc ([Facilitator]), share with team (learning focus)
+- [ ] **Celebrate**: Acknowledge disciplined stopping frees resources for winners
+
+---
+
+### Budget & Metrics
+
+**Sunk Cost**: $[Total spent]
+
+**Remaining Budget Saved**: $[Budget that would have been spent if continued]
+
+**Resources Freed**: [X FTEs, $Y budget]
+
+**Reallocated To**: [List projects receiving resources]
+
+**Time to Wind-Down**: [Actual weeks from decision to completion]
+
+---
+
+### Completion Checklist
+
+- [ ] Team reallocated | [ ] Infrastructure shutdown | [ ] Customers transitioned
+- [ ] Postmortem shared | [ ] Budget reallocated | [ ] Project marked "Killed"
+
+---
+
+**Wind-Down Owner Signature**: ________________ Date: ______
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: When to Use Each Template
+
+| Template | Use Case | Timing |
+|----------|----------|--------|
+| **Kill Criteria Document** | New project starting | Before launch |
+| **Go/No-Go Gate Assessment** | Milestone decision point | At each gate |
+| **Pivot vs. Kill Decision** | Project not meeting targets | When struggling |
+| **Portfolio Kill Criteria** | Managing multiple projects | Quarterly or as needed |
+| **Wind-Down Plan** | Kill decision made | After kill decision |