本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

estimating-and-contingency

Produces a cost or effort estimate someone can defend — decomposing the work, choosing between analogous, parametric and bottom-up methods, documenting the basis and its assumptions, expressing confidence as a range, and sizing contingency and management reserve separately. Use this to build an estimate, challenge one you have been handed, work out why estimates keep coming in low, or decide how much reserve a portfolio actually needs.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • references/sources.md1.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

Estimating and contingency

An estimate is a claim about an uncertain future. Most organizations treat it as a commitment made by whoever said the number, which is why estimates are padded, disbelieved, and padded again.

Decompose before you estimate

Estimate the work, not the project. Break it down until each piece is small enough that someone who would do it can picture doing it — usually a week or two of effort. Below that you are estimating noise; above it you are guessing.

Two decomposition failures are worth naming. Missing scope is the larger one: integration, data migration, environments, testing, documentation, training, and the coordination overhead of everyone involved routinely go unestimated because nobody owns them. Double-counted contingency is the other: padding inside every task, then adding a reserve on top of the padded total.

Pick the method that matches what you know

  • Analogous — scale from a comparable past effort. Fast, needs real history, and the comparison has to survive being stated out loud: what is genuinely similar and what is not.
  • Parametric — a rate applied to a count. Cost per endpoint, per interface, per square foot, per test case. Credible only when the rate comes from your own data and the count is knowable.
  • Bottom-up — estimate each decomposed piece and roll up. Most accurate, most expensive, and worth it once the work is understood well enough for the pieces to be real.

Use two methods and compare them where the number matters. When they disagree by more than a quarter, one of them is built on an assumption nobody has stated.

Write the basis down, because that is the durable part

The number is the least useful output. The basis of estimate is what lets someone re-estimate later instead of starting over: what is included, what is explicitly excluded, the rates and quantities used, the assumptions the number depends on, and who provided each input.

An estimate without a basis cannot be defended, cannot be updated, and cannot be learned from. When the project comes in at double, the basis is what tells you whether the estimate was wrong or the work changed — and those call for opposite responses.

Express it as a range, and say what the range means

A single number is a forecast disguised as a fact. Give a range, and state the confidence: "we would hit this eight times in ten" is a different commitment from "this is the best case."

Ranges narrow as work is understood, not as deadlines approach. Re-estimate at genuine information points — after discovery, after the first integration, after the first delivered increment — and publish the revision rather than quietly holding the old number.

Separate contingency from management reserve

  • Contingency covers the known unknowns inside the estimate: things that will vary, at a size you can bound. It belongs to the project and is drawn against as risks materialize.
  • Management reserve covers scope nobody has thought of yet. It belongs to whoever governs the portfolio, not to the project team, and it is released deliberately.

Collapsing the two produces the familiar pattern where contingency is spent early on ordinary variance and nothing remains for the thing that actually goes wrong.

Why estimates keep coming in low

Optimism is real but it is rarely the main driver. The larger ones are structural: the estimate was made before scope was understood and never revisited; the estimator knew the number that would be accepted; only the happy path was estimated; or the organization punishes revised estimates more than it punishes overruns, so nobody revises.

Fix the incentive before fixing the arithmetic. An organization that treats a re-estimate as a failure will get accurate estimates from no one.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Present a point estimate for work nobody has decomposed.
  • Add contingency to an estimate that already has padding inside every task.
  • Let an estimate stand as a commitment without recording what it assumed.
  • Cut an estimate to fit a budget and leave the scope unchanged. That is not an estimate, it is a decision to overrun, taken early and left unsaid.

レビュー

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an 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。

cbrock84/headcount2,0322026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する