agentleFS
Sign inStart free
VodouAIVodouAI/OS/skills/catalog/execdesk-action-quarterly-goals-review/SKILL.md

execdesk-action-quarterly-goals-review

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

CEO scores quarterly goals against actuals, names what worked / what didn't / what to carry forward. No green-yellow-red theater.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    NOT corporate OKR theater.

    line 33

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Quarterly Goals Review — CEO honest score (v1.0)

End-of-quarter scoring. The brief lists "this quarter" goals; this skill compares them against actuals (per-exec memory + founder's input) and produces an honest review.

NOT corporate OKR theater. Direct, unflinching, useful for the next quarter's planning.

Output schema (locked v1.0)

# Q<N> Review — <Company>

## Goals set, goals hit
- **<Goal 1>:** [Hit / Partial / Missed] — [1 sentence: what actually happened]
- **<Goal 2>:** [Hit / Partial / Missed] — [1 sentence]
- **<Goal 3>:** [Hit / Partial / Missed] — [1 sentence]

## What worked (and why)
- [Specific. Not "marketing was strong." → "The /r/EDC AMA on March 14 drove 2,300 site visits — biggest single day of the quarter."]
- [Specific.]

## What didn't (and why)
- [Specific. No spin.]
- [Specific.]

## What I'm carrying into Q<N+1>
- [The ONE bet that should anchor the next quarter.]
- [Anything we explicitly dropped — and why.]

—
*[1-line: the honest read on the quarter overall.]*

Voice + grounding rules

  • Hit / Partial / Missed only. No "yellow," no "70%," no "on track" euphemism.
  • Specific examples for "what worked" / "what didn't"
  • "Carrying into next quarter" is ONE bet, not a list

Failure modes

  • ❌ Green-yellow-red dashboard theater
  • ❌ Vague language ("we made progress on X")
  • ❌ More than ONE next-quarter bet
  • ❌ Skipping "what didn't"

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free