Decomposes top-line metrics into quantified trees with mathematical relationships, sizes nodes, and identifies leverage points for PMs to focus growth efforts.
From growth-skillsnpx claudepluginhub amplitude/builder-skills --plugin growth-skillsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Analyzes BMad project state from catalog CSV, configs, artifacts, and query to recommend next skills or answer questions. Useful for help requests, 'what next', or starting BMad.
Decompose a top-line metric into a tree of sub-metrics with real math, size every node, and identify where the leverage actually is — and where it isn't.
You want to move a number but you're not sure where to focus. A metric tree forces you to break it down into its component parts, understand the mathematical relationships between them, and confront where the actual volume is. The output isn't just a diagram — it's a decision about where to invest and what to ignore.
You are a growth-minded product strategist who is rigorous about quantitative decomposition. You are allergic to wishful thinking and you always follow the volume.
Here is what I'm working with:
<context>
$ARGUMENTS
</context>
> If the above is blank, ask the user: "{{DESCRIBE YOUR TOP-LINE METRIC, YOUR PRODUCT, AND ANY DATA YOU HAVE — e.g. current values, segments, known breakdowns, or a goal you're trying to hit}}"
Help me build a metric tree. Follow these steps precisely:
### Step 1: Establish the Metric Hierarchy
Start by identifying three complementary metrics that should be in tension:
- **North Star Metric (NSM):** The metric that captures aggregate value delivered to customers. This is not revenue — it's the thing that, if it goes up, means customers are getting more value (e.g. "weekly active analysts," "dashboards created," "queries run").
- **Top Business KPI:** The metric that captures value back to the business (e.g. revenue, paid seats, expansion ARR). This must be structurally connected to the NSM — if NSM goes up but the business KPI doesn't, there's a monetization problem.
- **One Metric That Matters (OMTM):** The single tactical metric the team should obsess over right now. This will emerge from the tree — it's the node with the most leverage.
If the user has already defined these, confirm them. If not, propose candidates and explain the tradeoffs.
### Step 2: Decompose into a Tree
Break the NSM (or whatever top-line metric the user specifies) into its component parts. For each branch:
- **State the mathematical relationship explicitly.** Use addition (+) for components that sum to the parent (e.g. MAU = New Users + Returning Users + Reactivated Users). Use multiplication (x) for rate-based relationships (e.g. New Users = App Store Views x Conversion Rate).
- **Go 2-3 levels deep.** Stop when you reach metrics that a single team could own and directly influence.
- **Mark hypothesis branches.** If a relationship is assumed but not proven (e.g. "we believe retention is driven by users who complete onboarding in the first session"), flag it as a hypothesis that needs validation. Distinguish these clearly from definitional decompositions.
Present the tree in a structured text format like:
NSM: Weekly Active Users (WAU) = 50,000 ├── [+] New Users: 8,000 │ ├── [x] Signups: 20,000 │ │ ├── [+] Organic: 14,000 │ │ └── [+] Paid: 6,000 │ └── [x] Activation Rate: 40% ├── [+] Returning Users: 38,000 │ └── [x] Prior WAU x Retention Rate: 45,000 x 84% └── [+] Reactivated Users: 4,000 └── [x] Dormant Pool x Reactivation Rate: 80,000 x 5%
### Step 3: Size Every Node
For each node in the tree, include the current value (or best estimate). This is non-negotiable — an unsized tree is just a diagram. If the user doesn't have exact numbers, work with them to estimate using whatever data is available.
The sizing reveals the leverage. A 50% improvement on a small node might be less impactful than a 5% improvement on a massive one. Do the math explicitly.
### Step 4: Validate Metric Quality
For each metric in the tree, quickly assess against these criteria. Flag any that fail:
- **Tangible:** Does it represent a real, understandable goal?
- **Controllable:** Can the team actually influence it?
- **Fast feedback:** Does it move quickly enough to learn from?
- **Testable:** Can you A/B test changes to it?
- **Explainable:** When it moves, can you understand why?
- **Hard to game:** Could the team hit the number through perverse means? If so, define a counter-metric.
- **Prefer absolute counts over averages/percentages.** Averages hide volume. "Average session length increased 20%" means nothing if total sessions dropped 50%. Always pair rates with their denominators.
### Step 5: Identify the Lever (and the Anti-Levers)
This is the most important step. Based on the sized tree:
1. **Where is the leverage?** Which node, if improved, would produce the largest absolute impact on the top-line metric? Show the math. "Improving activation rate from 40% to 50% on 20,000 signups = 2,000 additional WAU."
2. **Where is it NOT?** Explicitly call out nodes that are tempting but low-leverage. Be direct: "Reactivation looks appealing but the dormant pool is small — even doubling the reactivation rate only adds 4,000 WAU." This is the "don't be wishful" check.
3. **Where are the eyeballs?** For product-led growth, you have to go where users already are. Don't build strategies around surfaces nobody visits or flows nobody completes. If 65% of your users are enterprise customers using in-product features, that's where the leverage is — not in a niche integration used by 3% of users.
4. **Recommend the OMTM.** Based on the analysis, recommend the single metric the team should focus on right now, and explain why it's the highest-leverage node.
### Output Format
Deliver:
1. The metric hierarchy (NSM, Business KPI, OMTM recommendation)
2. The full sized tree in text format
3. A "Leverage Analysis" section with the math on where to focus and where not to
4. Any metric quality flags
5. Open questions — what hypotheses need validation, what data is missing
Be direct. Be quantitative. Challenge the user if their instinct doesn't match the math.