Complete transformation roadmap with phased execution, investment horizon, team ramp-up, risk-adjusted timeline, and estimation pivot points. Use when the user asks to "create a roadmap", "plan the transformation", "build an investment case", "team sizing", "risk-adjusted timeline", or mentions "Phase 4", "solution roadmap", "transformation plan", "phased execution", "PoC validation criteria", "kill criteria", "go/no-go gates". [EXPLICIT]
From jm-adknpx claudepluginhub javimontano/jm-adk-alfaThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
agents/guardian.mdagents/lead.mdagents/specialist.mdagents/support.mdevals/evals.jsonknowledge/body-of-knowledge.mdknowledge/knowledge-graph.mdprompts/meta.mdprompts/primary.mdprompts/variations/deep.mdprompts/variations/quick.mdreferences/domain-knowledge.mdtemplates/output.docx.mdtemplates/output.htmlSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Designs and optimizes AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, observation formats, error recovery, and context for higher task completion rates.
Defines the complete transformation plan AFTER scenario approval but BEFORE PoC validation. Covers transformation vision, phased execution (Foundation > Build > Integrate > Optimize > Scale), investment horizon with TCO/ROI, team ramp-up curve, estimation pivot points with PoC validation, risk management with cascade failure analysis, and governance framework. [EXPLICIT]
Un roadmap sin gates es un plan de esperanza. Un roadmap sin pivot points es un plan de fantasía. Este skill produce blueprints de transformación que sobreviven el contacto con la realidad: cada fase tiene criterios de go/no-go, cada estimación tiene pivot points con PoC de validación, y cada milestone tiene kill criteria. La diferencia entre un roadmap y una lista de deseos es la gobernanza.
$1 — Transformation duration target in months (default: 18-24)$2 — Budget range: under2m, 2m-5m, 5m-10m, over10m (default: 2m-5m)Parse from $ARGUMENTS. [EXPLICIT]
Parameters:
{MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
{FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual{VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — S1 vision + S2 phases + S3 investment) | técnica (full 7 sections, default)Market disruptions, regulatory changes mid-transformation, organizational restructuring, key person dependencies, exact talent availability for emerging technologies. [EXPLICIT]
IF transformation > 12 months:
-> Quarterly re-calibration gates
-> Steering committee approval for >5% scope/budget/timeline changes
IF team size (peak) > 20 people:
-> Add team topology planning (Inverse Conway's Law)
-> Budget 1 month in Phase 1 for org design
IF multi-region deployment required:
-> Add rollout wave planning per region
-> Sequence: low-risk to medium-risk to high-risk
IF budget not fully committed upfront:
-> Phased funding model with kill points:
Phase 1 gate: commit ~35% of 3-year TCO
Phase 2 gate: commit ~50%
Phase 3 gate: commit ~15%
IF PoC learnings invalidate >2 major assumptions:
-> Pause Phase 2 for 2-week re-planning sprint
-> Present re-scoped roadmap to steering committee
IF team resistance detected in Phase 1:
-> Extend Phase 1 by 1 month for change management
-> Require department head alignment before Phase 2
| Decision | Enables | Constrains | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incremental over big-bang | Lower catastrophic failure risk; each phase independently valuable | Higher upfront planning cost; longer total timeline | Default — always. Big-bang only if regulatory deadline forces it. |
| 70/30 internal/outsourced | Knowledge retention; sustainable velocity post-transformation | +40% labor cost vs full outsource; slower Phase 2 ramp | Default. Shift to 50/50 if skill gaps exceed 40% of team. |
| Build over buy | Full control; no vendor lock-in; custom fit | +2-3 months Phase 2; higher maintenance burden | When differentiating capability. Buy for commodity functions. |
| 60% stability / 40% innovation | Balanced risk; innovation without destabilizing core | Innovation capped; may lag competitors on bleeding edge | Default. Adjust at Phase 2 gate based on PoC learnings. |
| 18-month production vs 12-month MVP | Higher quality at launch; fewer post-launch fires | Longer time-to-market; higher upfront investment | When brand/reputation risk outweighs speed. MVP path for market validation. |
Business objective alignment with approved scenario. Success metrics table (baseline > 18-month target > 36-month target > owner). North star metric. Strategic capabilities unlocked per phase. [EXPLICIT]
| Phase | Name | Duration | Peak Team | Budget % | Key Gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foundation | 3-4 months | 10-12 | 20-25% | PoC validates target metrics |
| 2 | Build | 6-8 months | 24-28 | 45-55% | Core services in production |
| 3 | Integrate | 4-6 months | 28-32 | 25-35% | Full cutover, legacy decommissioned |
| 4 | Optimize | 4-6 months | 16-18 | 10-15% | Cost reduction targets met |
| 5 | Scale | 6-12 months | 20-24 | Varies | Multi-region, innovation velocity |
Each phase has explicit GO/NO-GO criteria. NO-GO halts downstream phases. [EXPLICIT]
Per phase: team composition and roles, key deliverables with acceptance criteria, dependency map, risk table with mitigations, gate criteria with measurable thresholds.
3-year TCO projection, year-by-year breakdown, cost categories (labor, infrastructure, licensing, training, contingency), phased funding release points, kill points, break-even timeline, ROI modeling, cost/timeline variance scenarios (optimistic/likely/pessimistic/severe). [EXPLICIT]
Month-by-month headcount, skill gap analysis (current to required), training roadmap (bootcamp to pair programming to autonomous), technology introduction sequence, knowledge transfer milestones, technical debt retirement schedule. [EXPLICIT]
5+ key assumptions that drive estimates. Per assumption: current estimate impact, why it matters, PoC validation criteria (specific measurable tests), pivot options if invalidated, decision gate timing. [EXPLICIT]
Pivot Decision Framework:
IF validation PASSES -> proceed with planned schedule
IF FAILS with minor issue (<4 weeks) -> evaluate Pivot A (<$150K, <4 weeks)
IF FAILS with major issue (>4 weeks) -> pause, 2-day re-plan, steering committee
IF showstopper (pivot cost >$500K) -> escalate to board for viability decision
Risk-adjusted timeline with Monte Carlo confidence intervals (P10/P50/P90) for key milestones. [EXPLICIT]
Risk timeline (when each risk peaks per phase), risk-by-phase breakdown tables, cascade failure chains (3+ documented), mitigation investment vs exposure analysis, early warning indicators (Green/Yellow/Red per metric per phase), kill criteria (hard stops and soft stops). [EXPLICIT]
Steering committee structure and cadence, technical architecture forum, phase gate review board, risk management committee, escalation hierarchy, RACI matrix, three-tier change control process (minor/significant/major), reporting dashboard (monthly/weekly/real-time). [EXPLICIT]
Primary: 06_Solution_Roadmap_{project}.md (o .html si {FORMATO}=html|dual) — Transformation vision, 5-phase execution plan with gates, investment horizon with TCO/ROI, team ramp-up, estimation pivot points, risk management, governance framework.
Diagramas incluidos:
| Format | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
markdown | ✅ | Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient. |
html | On demand | Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact. |
dual | On demand | Both formats. |
Default output is Markdown with embedded Mermaid diagrams. HTML generation requires explicit {FORMATO}=html parameter. [EXPLICIT]
Author: Javier Montaño | Last updated: 2026-03-18
Example invocations: