Assembles comprehensive board and investor update decks by pulling perspectives from all C-suite roles. Use when preparing board meetings, investor updates, quarterly business reviews, or fundraising narratives. Covers structure, narrative framework, bad news delivery, and common mistakes.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Build board decks that tell a story — not just show data. Every section has an owner, a narrative, and a "so what."
board deck, investor update, board meeting, board pack, investor relations, quarterly review, board presentation, fundraising deck, investor deck, board narrative, QBR, quarterly business review
Ask for a board deck in natural language, naming cadence and stage:
"Build a quarterly board deck — we're Series A." "Draft a fundraising board deck for a seed-stage company."
Provide available metrics. The builder fills gaps with explicit placeholders — never invents numbers.
Every section follows: Headline → Data → Narrative → Ask/Next
3 sentences. No more.
Bad: "We had a good quarter with lots of progress across all areas." Good: "We closed Q3 at $2.4M ARR (+22% QoQ), signed our largest enterprise contract, and enter Q4 with 14-month runway. The strategic shift to mid-market is working — ACV up 40% and sales cycle down 3 weeks. Q4 priority: close the $3M Series A and hit $2.8M ARR."
6-8 metrics max. Use a table.
| Metric | This Period | Last Period | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARR | $2.4M | $1.97M | $2.3M | ✅ |
| MoM growth | 8.1% | 7.2% | 7.5% | ✅ |
| Burn multiple | 1.8x | 2.1x | <2x | ✅ |
| NRR | 112% | 108% | >110% | ✅ |
| CAC payback | 11 months | 14 months | <12 months | ✅ |
| Headcount | 24 | 21 | 25 | 🟡 |
Pick metrics the board actually tracks. Swap out anything they've said they don't care about.
One sentence on each variance. Boards hate "revenue was below target" with no explanation. Say why.
The forecast must have a confidence level. "We expect $2.8M" is weak. "High confidence $2.6M, upside to $2.9M if two late-stage deals close" is useful.
No feature lists. Only features with evidence of user impact.
Keep this short unless there's a material issue. Boards don't need sprint details.
The "asks" slide is the most important. Be specific. "We'd like 3 warm introductions to CFOs at Series B companies" beats "any help would be appreciated."
Boards see 10+ decks per quarter. Yours needs a through-line.
The 4-Act Structure:
This works for good news AND bad news. It's credible because it acknowledges reality.
Opening frame: Start with the one thing that matters most — the board should know the key message by slide 3, not slide 30.
Never bury it. Boards find out eventually. Finding out late makes it worse.
Framework:
What NOT to do:
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Too many slides (>25) | Cut ruthlessly — if you can't explain it in the room, the slide is wrong |
| Metrics without targets | Every metric needs a target and a status |
| No narrative | Data without story forces boards to draw their own conclusions |
| Burying bad news | Lead with it, own it, fix it |
| Vague asks | Specific, actionable, person-assigned asks only |
| No variance explanation | Every gap from target needs one-sentence cause |
| Stale appendix | Appendix is only useful if it's current |
| Designing for the reader, not the room | Decks are presented — they must work spoken aloud |
Quarterly (standard): Full deck, all sections, 20-30 slides. Sent 48 hours in advance.
Monthly (for early-stage): Condensed — metrics dashboard, financials, pipeline, top risks. 8-12 slides.
Fundraising: Opens with market/vision, closes with ask. See references/deck-frameworks.md for Sequoia format.
references/deck-frameworks.md — SaaS board pack format, Sequoia structure, investor tailoringtemplates/board-deck-template.md — fill-in template for complete board decksまだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。