Wardn HubTrusted MCP server directory.

Registry

  • MCP Servers
  • Skills
  • Categories

Resources

  • API docs
  • Score method

Contribute

  • Submit server
  • Advertise
© 2026 Wardn Hub
Wardn Hub
MCP ServersSkillsCategoriesAPI docsSubmit server
Submit server
skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/personal-board-of-directors

personal-board-of-directors

2
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills·Audit passed·Snapshot 1235d283f5bf

Summary

This source did not publish a separate summary. Review SKILL.md before using the skill.

SKILL.md

Personal Board of Directors Skill

Good decisions survive five different kinds of scrutiny; most decisions get one (your own, on a good day). This skill convenes a standing board of five archetypes who each write a short memo, disagree where they honestly would, and vote — with the decision rule stated before the count.

What This Skill Produces

  • Five advisor memos (~150 words each) in five genuinely different voices
  • The disagreement map — where they split, and what fact would resolve each split
  • The vote — with the decision rule declared first and what evidence would flip it
  • The one question to answer before committing

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

  • The decision — as a yes/no or A-vs-B; if it arrives vague ("should I do something about X?"), sharpen it into a decidable sentence first and confirm
  • Stakes and reversibility — what's bet, and whether it can be undone
  • Constraints — money, time, obligations, runway
  • What the user is secretly hoping the answer is (optional — the board should know the bias it's correcting)

Framework: The Five Chairs

AdvisorLensTheir memo must containTheir known bias (they self-disclose it)
The OperatorCan this actually be executed, by you, now?The first 2 weeks, resourced honestlyOverweights logistics, underweights vision
The SkepticWhy this failsThe single most likely kill condition, datedKills some winners
The CFOUnit economics of the choiceReal numbers from the input, or named missing onesDiscounts the unquantifiable
The CoachEnergy, growth, season of life
What this costs the person, not the plan
Overweights feelings
The CustomerWould the intended beneficiary care?The beneficiary's likely verdict, in their wordsIgnores the founder's needs

Decision rules (pick per stakes, state before voting): reversible + low stakes → simple majority · irreversible or high stakes → 4-of-5 supermajority · any advisor invokes a "stop-the-line" fact (a named, checkable disqualifier) → resolve that fact first, no vote.

Output Format

Board Session: [the decision, one sentence]

Memos

[Five memos, each headed by the advisor, each ending "Vote: FOR / AGAINST / ABSTAIN — flips if: [named evidence]"]

Disagreement Map

SplitAdvisorsThe cruxWhat fact resolves it

The Vote

Decision rule: [stated + why] · Count: [n–n] · Board recommendation: … The one question to resolve first: [the highest-leverage unknown, and how to answer it cheaply this week]

Quality Checks

  • The five voices are distinguishable blind — cover the names and you can still tell who's who
  • At least two advisors disagree, and the crux of the disagreement is named
  • Every vote line names the evidence that would flip it
  • The decision rule was stated before the count and matches the stakes
  • The one question is answerable cheaply and quickly, not "do more research"

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not let the advisors agree — forced consensus is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent
  • Do not give all five the same voice with different hats — the CFO writes in numbers, the Coach doesn't
  • Do not vote without naming what would flip each vote — an unflippable vote is a prejudice
  • Do not let the board answer a vague question — sharpen it to decidable first
  • Do not hide the recommendation in balance — the board exists to conclude, and the user can overrule it

Related skills

capacity-planningcompetitor-teardowncontext-engineering-reviewrunbook-writerreceipts-audit