Opportunity tree alignment

Connect an opportunity tree to revenue levers and the value proposition, producing an aligned outcome -> opportunity -> lever -> feature-hypothesis path and flagging orphan bets.

Canonical skill profile. This page is generated from the repository contract. The linked SKILL.md remains the source of authority.

Jump to

• Overview
• When to use
• When not to use
• Core moves
• Expected output
• Verification
• Handoff signals
• Pairs well with
• Anti-patterns

View the canonical contract on GitHub.

Overview

Use this skill to reorganize an opportunity tree by economic value and evidence, not by enthusiasm. It draws the explicit path outcome → opportunity → lever → feature hypothesis and flags features that serve no live opportunity (orphans) and opportunities that pull no lever. It carries no proprietary framework; the value lens comes from the strategic_framework slot when available.

When to Use

• A backlog has competing bets and unclear links to outcomes.
• An opportunity tree exists but does not connect to revenue/value levers.
• You need to decide sequencing across opportunities by value and evidence.

When NOT to Use

• There is a single, obvious bet with a clear outcome.
• No outcomes or opportunities have been framed yet.
• The lever for one feature is the only question (use revenue-lever-mapping).

Core Moves

1. Frame and resolve knowledge. State the outcome(s) under discussion. Resolve strategic_framework / operating_model if present; else generic and mark it.
2. List the opportunities claimed under each outcome.
3. Attach a lever to each opportunity (delegating to revenue-lever-mapping when the claim is contested).
4. Place candidate features under the opportunity they serve.
5. Flag orphans — features with no opportunity, opportunities with no lever, outcomes with no opportunity.
6. Reorder by value × evidence and state the sequencing rationale.

Optional Modules

• Evidence weighting — Rank opportunities by strength of evidence, separating strong signal from wishful framing.
• Lever balance — Check whether the tree over-indexes on one lever (e.g. all acquisition, no retention).
• Pruning pass — Recommend opportunities or features to drop, with the reason recorded.

Activation Triggers

• Always declare and attempt to resolve strategic_framework; treat operating_model as relevant when the question is sequencing/prioritization.
• Use evidence weighting when bets compete for the same capacity.
• Use the lever balance check when the tree looks one-dimensional.

Inputs (minimum)

• Outcome(s), opportunities, candidate features.

Outputs (minimum)

• A tree reorganized by economic value and evidence, with orphans flagged. Feeds the opportunity_tree_node and revenue_lever fields of the Feature Value Governance Contract.

Expected Output

opportunity_alignment:
  mode: generic | knowledge_aware
  strategic_framework_ref: <pack_id@version | generic>
  tree:
    - outcome: <outcome>
      opportunities:
        - opportunity: <opportunity>
          lever: <primary lever>
          evidence: strong | moderate | weak | assumption
          features:
            - hypothesis: <feature hypothesis>
              serves_opportunity: <bool>
  orphans:
    features_without_opportunity: [ ... ]
    opportunities_without_lever: [ ... ]
  sequencing_rationale: <why this order>

Verification

• Every candidate feature is either placed under an opportunity or flagged as an orphan.
• Every opportunity has a lever or is flagged.
• Sequencing is justified by value and evidence, not by who asked.

Handoff Signals

• A single bet’s lever is contested → revenue-lever-mapping.
• A placed feature now needs a cost read → feature-complexity-audit.
• A worth-doing verdict is needed → feature-value-governance.

Pairs Well With

• revenue-lever-mapping
• feature-value-governance
• business-design

Anti-patterns

• Keeping orphan features because someone is attached to them.
• Trees that branch endlessly with no lever at the leaves.
• Sequencing by political weight instead of value × evidence.