executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
cs-health-scorecardBuild a customer health scorecard for a specific account. Use when asked to score account health, assess renewal risk, build a health dashboard, or evaluate an account's likelihood to renew or expand. Produces a structured health scorecard with a RAG status, dimension scores, key risks, and recommended actions.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
Produce a structured, data-driven health scorecard for a customer account — giving the CSM and leadership a clear view of renewal risk, expansion potential, and the actions needed to move the account in the right direction.
If a professional-brain (brain/) exists, ground in it instead of re-asking for what you already know:
entities/ file, its stakeholders/ (champion, economic buyer, detractors), and knowledge/. Run python3 ../professional-brain/scripts/brain_query.py ./brain "<account name>" and carry each fact's provenance tag through.entities/ file, and a renewal-risk entry to decisions/ if a call is made, each provenance-tagged. Show them, get a yes, then write with ../professional-brain/scripts/brain_write.py … --commit (append-only, dry-run by default).Ask for these if not already provided:
Score each dimension 1–5. Weight as shown. Calculate weighted total out of 100.
| Dimension | Weight | What to Score |
|---|---|---|
| Product Adoption | 30% | DAU/MAU ratio, breadth of features used, power users identified |
| Engagement | 20% | QBR cadence, executive sponsor active, champion strength |
| Outcomes | 20% | Customer hitting their stated goals / success metrics |
| Support Health | 15% | Ticket volume trend, unresolved escalations, CSAT |
| Commercial | 15% | On-time payments, seats utilised, expansion signals |
Score → RAG conversion:
This skill ships with a stdlib-only Python script that applies the weights above and converts the weighted total to a RAG status — so the headline score is computed identically every time and weights always sum to 100%.
# Five scores 1-5 in order: adoption engagement outcomes support commercial
python3 scripts/health_score.py --scores 4 3 4 2 5 --account "Acme Corp"
# Or from JSON (lets you override the default weights per account/segment)
python3 scripts/health_score.py --input account.json
It returns the per-dimension weighted points, the total out of 100, and the RAG band (Green ≥80, Amber 60–79, Red <60) with a one-line next step. Run it to set the headline number, then write the dimension detail and actions below around it. Add --json for downstream tooling.
CSM: [Name] | Tier: [Enterprise / Mid-Market / SMB] ARR: £/$/€[X] | Renewal date: [Date] | Days to renewal: [N] Overall health: [Green / Amber / Red] — [Score]/100 Last updated: [Date]
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Weight | Weighted Score | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Adoption | [1–5] | 30% | [X] | ↑ / → / ↓ |
| Engagement | [1–5] | 20% | [X] | ↑ / → / ↓ |
| Outcomes | [1–5] | 20% | [X] | ↑ / → / ↓ |
| Support Health | [1–5] | 15% | [X] | ↑ / → / ↓ |
| Commercial | [1–5] | 15% | [X] | ↑ / → / ↓ |
| Total | — | 100% | [X]/100 |
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| [Risk description] | High / Medium / Low | [Specific action to mitigate] |
Immediate (this week):
This month:
Before renewal:
| Scenario | Probability | ARR at risk |
|---|---|---|
| Full renewal at current ARR | [X]% | £/$/€0 |
| Renewal with contraction | [X]% | £/$/€[X] |
| Churn | [X]% | £/$/€[full ARR] |
Recommended renewal play: [Expand / Hold / Save / Manage out]
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
references/leading-signals.md — Health Signals That Lead (Instead of Eulogise). Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.templates/account-scorecard.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Score integrity | Weighted total doesn't compute from the dimension scores and stated weights, or the RAG band contradicts the total | Arithmetic is correct but weights were adjusted silently, or the headline RAG smooths over a dimension that tells a different story | Total computes exactly (score × weight on the 1–5 scale, out of 100), RAG matches the 80/60 bands, and any dimension that contradicts the overall status is called out rather than averaged away |
| Evidence per dimension | Dimension scores asserted with no supporting data ("engagement feels weak") | Most dimensions cite data, but at least one score leans on gut feel or a stale data point presented as current | Every dimension score is anchored to named, dated evidence (usage figures, ticket counts, QBR dates, seat utilisation) and benchmarks are applied where the format provides them |
| Risk specificity | Risks are labels ("low engagement", "churn risk") with no people, dates, or dollar amounts | Risks are real but partially vague — severity assigned without a mitigation, or mitigations without owners | Every risk names the person/event/amount involved ("champion departs 25 July, no successor"), carries a severity, and has a mitigation someone could start this week |
| Renewal calibration | Forecast missing, probabilities don't sum to 100%, or the recommended play ignores the score | Forecast present and sums correctly, but ARR-at-risk figures don't reconcile to contract line items, or the play is generic | Probabilities sum to 100%, ARR at risk maps to actual contract components, the play (Expand/Hold/Save/Manage out) follows from the score and risks, and actions are owned, dated, and sequenced against the renewal date |