agentleFS
poorvith-mppoorvith-mp/skills-business/skills/portfolio-ops/SKILL.md

portfolio-ops

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Allocate resources and sequence work across several projects competing for the same people. Use when orchestrating multiple business units, ventures, or shared ops.

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:

    Never assign a senior engineer to 3 different portfolio projects simultaneously (context-switching destroys 40% of cognitive productivity).

    line 27
  2. Distinctive:

    Every experimental venture receives capital in tranches tied to binary milestone achievements (e.g.

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    If a venture misses its milestone gate, ruthlessly kill it or archive it.

    line 45

≈ “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

portfolio-ops

Core Philosophy

Managing a multi-product portfolio, holding company, or studio of competing technical ventures is fundamentally different from running a single startup. Portfolio operations is capital and talent allocation across competing priorities. The primary failure mode of multi-project organizations is spreading key technical talent so thin across 6 initiatives that all 6 stall. High-leverage portfolio operations enforces strict capital tiering, clear kill criteria, and shared infrastructural platform services.


4-Step Multi-Venture Portfolio Operations Architecture

Step 1: Strategic Portfolio Segmentation & Capital Tiering

  1. The 3-Bucket Portfolio Allocation:
    • Core Engine (Cash Cows - 60% Resources): Profitable, proven product lines generating predictable cash flow. Focus on margin defense, retention, and operational efficiency.
    • Growth Bets (Scale-Ups - 30% Resources): High-conviction products with verified product-market fit scaling toward profitability. Focus on market capture and feature expansion.
    • Venture Labs / Spikes (Frontier R&D - 10% Resources): High-uncertainty experimental throwaway prototypes exploring novel capabilities. Time-boxed and budget-capped.

Step 2: Resource Contention & The Critical Path Method (CPM)

  1. The Zero-Fractional-Engineer Rule:
    • Never assign a senior engineer to 3 different portfolio projects simultaneously (context-switching destroys 40% of cognitive productivity).
    • Core engineers are assigned 100% dedicated to a single project per quarter.
  2. Critical Path Dependency Mapping:
    • Map shared infrastructural dependencies across the portfolio (e.g. Shared Auth, Payment rails, Compliance certifications). Prevent one project's delay from bottlenecking the entire portfolio.

Step 3: Centralized Shared Services (Platform Ops)

  1. Shared Platform Infrastructure:
    • Centralize operational overhead into high-leverage shared internal services:
      • Legal & Compliance (Corporate entity management, trademarking, customer contracts).
      • Finance & Accounting (Centralized payroll, billing engines, tax optimization).
      • Core Infrastructure & Cloud (Consolidated AWS enterprise discount agreements, centralized Datadog monitoring).
  2. Internal Service Level Agreements (SLAs):
    • Shared services must operate with clear internal SLAs to prevent becoming bureaucratic roadblocks for autonomous venture teams.

Step 4: Objective Kill Criteria & Milestone Governance

  1. The Capital Gate Milestone:
    • Every experimental venture receives capital in tranches tied to binary milestone achievements (e.g. "$100k allocated to reach 500 active weekly developers in 90 days").
  2. The Rational Cull:
    • If a venture misses its milestone gate, ruthlessly kill it or archive it. Reallocate engineering talent to the fastest-growing growth bet.

Deliverable Format: Portfolio Resource & Allocation Matrix (PORTFOLIO-OPS.md)

# Portfolio Operations & Capital Allocation Plan: [Holding Co / Studio Name]
*Review Period: Q3-Q4 | Portfolio Director: [Name, Title]*

## 1. Portfolio Asset Tiering & Resource Distribution
| Venture / Product Name | Tier Classification | Target ARR | Headcount Allocation | Quarterly Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Titan (Flagship)| Core Engine (Cash Cow)| $4,200,000 | 12 Dedicated FTEs | $450,000 |
| Project Pulse (Analytics)| Growth Bet | $850,000 | 6 Dedicated FTEs | $220,000 |
| Project Nova (AI Agent) | Frontier Lab Spike | $0 | 2 Dedicated FTEs | $60,000 (Capped) |

## 2. Milestone Gates & Kill Criteria
- **Project Nova (Lab Spike)**:
  - *Target Gate*: Acquire 1,000 active CLI installs and 20 paying beta accounts by [Date].
  - *Kill Criteria*: If paid accounts < 5 by [Date], project is terminated and code archived. Engineers return to Project Titan.

## 3. Shared Services SLA Matrix
- **Legal Review (Customer MSAs)**: Turnaround <= 48 hours for deals > $25k.
- **Cloud Infrastructure Provisioning**: Ephemeral staging environments deployed in <= 15 minutes.

Worked Example: Rescuing an Over-Extended Tech Studio

  • Problem: Studio was building 7 products simultaneously with 14 engineers. Every product missed delivery deadlines; zero products reached profitability.
  • Intervention: Killed 4 stagnant products immediately; consolidated all 14 engineers onto the top 2 products with proven customer traction.
  • Outcome: The flagship product reached $2M ARR within 9 months; overall studio turned cash-flow positive.

Verification Checklist

  • Portfolio segmented into Core Engines, Growth Bets, and Frontier Labs.
  • Core technical talent assigned 100% dedicated to a single venture (no fractional engineers).
  • Shared services (Legal, Cloud, Finance) operate under documented internal SLAs.
  • Every experimental venture has explicit, binary kill criteria and budget caps.
  • Quarterly portfolio review reallocates capital and talent from laggards to winners.

Anti-Patterns

  • The Zombie Portfolio: Continuing to fund 5 dead projects for years because "someone worked hard on it".
  • Fractional Staffing Chaos: Assigning 1 principal engineer to 4 projects, ensuring nothing ships on time.
  • Subsidy Traps: Forcing a profitable cash-cow product to subsidize poorly conceived pet projects indefinitely.

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.