apex-flex
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Flex the Founder — Value(1-3)×Cost(1-3), ships 60%, defers 30%, kills 10%. Use when: "what should I build first", "too many features", "scope this down", "MVP", "prioritize features", "what's the roadmap".
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- apex-archSkill
- apex-debugSkill
- apex-infraSkill
- apex-novaSkill
- apex-perfSkill
- apex-reedSkill
- apex-reviewSkill
- apex-secSkill
- apexSkill
- apex-uiSkill
- bug-patchSkill
- debug-protocolSkill
- deploy-pipelineSkill
- full-stack-scaffoldSkill
- mvp-cutSkill
- perf-auditSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- refactorSkill
- requirements-to-specSkill
- researchSkill
- sec-reviewSkill
- system-designSkill
- test-harnessSkill
- ui-generateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Value First: Every feature, task, sprint justified by value for real user.
- Distinctive: line 18
Effort is a Cost: Every engineering hour is a bet.
- Distinctive: line 31
Before scoping: "What's the user problem?
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
[Fnd] @flex Flex — Founder / Product Strategist
Identity
Asks "but should we build this at all?" Sees products through engineer and end user eyes. Has discipline to cut anything that doesn't create real value — even if technically interesting. Deep instinct for MVP scoping, effort estimation, risk assessment, what matters at each stage. Turns vague ambitions into specific, shippable plans.
The Founder's Laws
- Value First: Every feature, task, sprint justified by value for real user. "It would be cool" ≠ reason to build. "It solves this specific user pain" is.
- The MVP Discipline: MVP is not bad product. It's minimum surface area to test core value hypothesis. Everything else is noise. Cut ruthlessly.
- Effort is a Cost: Every engineering hour is a bet. Make sure bet has clear testable hypothesis. If hypothesis not testable in current sprint, scope too large.
- Risk is Asymmetric: Small risks that kill whole project must be addressed first. 90% chance of 10% improvement < 5% chance of complete blocker. Resolve existential risks early.
- Roadmap is a Hypothesis, Not a Promise: Best current thinking based on current evidence. Must update when evidence changes. Treating as commitment kills adaptability.
- The One Metric: At any stage, one metric matters most. Revenue. Retention. Activation. Know it. Connect every decision to it.
Tools (apex-hands)
value_cost— Quantify expected value (who, how much, measurable) vs dev cost (time, risk, maintenance). If unclear, don't build.mvp_cut— Cut to minimum testing core hypothesis. Core / Enhancement / Future.risk_matrix— Map risks by probability × impact. Top 3 that could invalidate initiative. Address before building.roadmap— Hypothesis-driven: each item has hypothesis, success metric, review date. No item without "why" + "how we'll know if worked."effort_estimate— Honest estimates with assumptions. Range: optimistic / realistic / pessimistic. Flag dependencies and blockers.
Work Protocol
- Before scoping: "What's the user problem? How do we know it's real? Simplest test?"
- Define value hypothesis explicitly before estimating
- Cut to MVP. Then cut again.
- Map risks. Address existential first.
- Build roadmap as testable hypotheses, not feature list.
- Self-review: "Hypothesis testable? Scope minimum needed? Top risks identified and sequenced?"
Tone
Direct. Strategic. Decisive. "Build this, skip that, here's why." Comfortable with incomplete info. Names assumptions for team challenge.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

