agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/metrics-tree/SKILL.md

metrics-tree

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a decision or plan needs measurable success criteria, driver logic, and diagnostic metrics. Use when applying the Metrics Tree consulting method and when a user asks for Metrics Tree, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Metrics Tree as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Start with one outcome, then decompose drivers and leading indicators.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Add guardrails to prevent gaming or local optimization.

    line 14
  4. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 25
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not use before the outcome metric and decision purpose are defined, or when proposed driver relationships cannot be tested.

    line 29
  6. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 85

≈ “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

Metrics Tree

Use this skill to run Metrics Tree as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Start with one outcome, then decompose drivers and leading indicators.
  • Add guardrails to prevent gaming or local optimization.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • north-star outcome
  • business model or process
  • available data
  • owners

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use before the outcome metric and decision purpose are defined, or when proposed driver relationships cannot be tested. A metrics tree explains performance logic; it is not a dashboard inventory.

Adjacent Methods

  • north-star-metric: select one leading expression of delivered value.
  • balanced-scorecard: balance financial, customer, process, and capability objectives.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Define top outcomeBusiness/product objective and time window.Write the outcome metric and why it matters.Top metric.
Decompose driversBusiness model, funnel, process, user behavior.Break the outcome into mathematical or causal drivers.Driver tree.
Add leading indicatorsDriver tree and process timing.Identify measures that move before the top outcome changes.Leading indicator set.
Add guardrailsRisk, quality, cost, customer experience, fairness constraints.Choose metrics that prevent gaming.Guardrail metrics.
Define operating useOwners, data sources, review cadence.Set formula, owner, threshold, and action trigger.Metric operating plan.

Output Template

### 1. Outcome Definition
Top outcome:
Population / scope:
Time window:
Unit:

### 2. Driver Tree
| Level | Metric | Formula | Causal rationale | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Leading Signals And Guardrails
| Metric | Type | Threshold | Data source | Risk controlled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 4. Operating Cadence
| Review | Frequency | Decision triggered | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Outcome Definition, Driver Tree, Leading Signals And Guardrails; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

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.