agentleFS
letscooktech-studioletscooktech-studio/ai-engineering-arsenal/skills/cto-operating-system/SKILL.md

cto-operating-system

Skill7 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Run an evidence-led CTO operating review across strategy, delivery, reliability, security, people, architecture, and spend. Use for quarterly planning, board preparation, engineering health reviews, scale-up transitions, or turnaround plans.

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Create weekly operating rhythm, monthly risk review, quarterly planning, and an escalation path.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not use velocity or uptime alone as health measures.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep WIP constrained and name what will not be done.

    line 35

≈ “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

CTO Operating System

Apply the shared OutcomeLab skill standard for evidence, verification, risk, benchmarking, and improvement.

Turn engineering signals into a focused operating plan and decision cadence.

Intake

Collect company stage, business goals, runway constraints, product commitments, team topology, incident/customer-impact history, delivery data, security posture, architecture constraints, spend allocation, and decision owners. Define metric windows and mark missing or incomparable data.

Workflow

  1. Establish business goals, product bets, operating constraints, and the scorecard linking engineering activity to outcomes.
  2. Review delivery, reliability, security, architecture, data, spend, talent, and customer-impact evidence. Identify leading indicators and missing telemetry.
  3. Convert conflicts into explicit trade-offs: speed vs. risk, feature work vs. platform work, centralization vs. autonomy, cost vs. latency.
  4. Select three to five objectives with accountable owners, measurable key results, dependencies, and decision deadlines.
  5. Create weekly operating rhythm, monthly risk review, quarterly planning, and an escalation path.

Output contract

Include a constraint map: bottleneck, owner, dependency, decision deadline, and cost of delay. For every priority record the metric baseline, target, review date, stop condition, and the decision that metric informs.

Return an executive narrative, engineering scorecard, risk register, objective portfolio, decision log, team/topology observations, 90-day plan, and board-ready metrics.

Quality gates

  • Do not use velocity or uptime alone as health measures.
  • Link every initiative to a business, risk, or customer outcome.
  • Surface unknowns and decisions requiring executive input.
  • Keep WIP constrained and name what will not be done.

Failure detection and improvement

Flag metrics without definitions, initiatives without owners, narrative claims without a time window, and portfolios that avoid hard trade-offs. Do not convert limited signals into individual performance judgments. At each monthly review, compare forecasts with actuals, close or rescope stalled objectives, and update the constraint map.

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.