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".
From pmnpx claudepluginhub javimontano/mao-pm-apexThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
examples/README.mdexamples/sample-output.htmlexamples/sample-output.mdprompts/metaprompts.mdprompts/use-case-prompts.mdreferences/body-of-knowledge.mdreferences/knowledge-graph.mmdreferences/state-of-the-art.mdSearches 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.
Searches, 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.
Resolves freight exceptions including delays, damages, losses, and carrier disputes via classification workflows, escalation protocols, claims filing, and carrier-specific strategies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
| Caso | Estrategia de Manejo |
|---|---|
| Executive sponsor changes mid-transformation (Phase 2+) | Trigger a 2-week re-alignment sprint; present roadmap to new sponsor with original rationale; adjust governance cadence; document any scope/priority shifts as formal change requests |
| PoC invalidates a foundational assumption in Phase 1 | Activate pivot decision framework; if minor (<4 weeks fix), execute Pivot A; if major, pause Phase 2 and present re-scoped roadmap to steering committee within 5 business days |
| Client demands big-bang delivery despite phased recommendation | Document the risk differential (phased vs big-bang) with quantified failure probability; require steering committee sign-off on big-bang risk acceptance; add 30% contingency to timeline |
| Key technology vendor announces end-of-life during Phase 2 | Activate vendor risk mitigation plan from Section 6; assess alternative vendors against Phase 3-5 requirements; present impact assessment to steering committee within 1 week |
| Decision | Alternativa Descartada | Justificacion |
|---|---|---|
| 5-phase incremental structure (Foundation > Build > Integrate > Optimize > Scale) | Big-bang delivery with single release | Each phase is independently valuable; if the project stops at Phase 2, delivered value is preserved; big-bang creates all-or-nothing risk |
| Estimation ranges with P50/P80/P95 confidence intervals | Single-point estimates | Single-point estimates create false precision; the Cone of Uncertainty is a reality that ranges communicate honestly to stakeholders |
| Kill criteria explicit at every gate | Gates with approval-only (no kill option) | Without kill criteria, sunk-cost fallacy drives continued investment in failing initiatives; explicit kill conditions give the steering committee permission to stop |
| 70/30 internal/outsourced default team ratio | Full outsourcing for speed | Knowledge retention post-transformation requires internal capability; 70/30 ensures the client can sustain the solution after the engagement ends |
graph TD
subgraph Core["Solution Roadmap"]
A["Transformation Vision"] --> B["5-Phase Execution Plan"]
B --> C["Investment Horizon"]
B --> D["Team Ramp-Up"]
B --> E["Estimation Pivot Points"]
E --> F["Risk Management"]
F --> G["Governance Framework"]
end
subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
H["Approved Scenario"] --> A
I["Budget Range"] --> C
J["Duration Target"] --> B
end
subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
G --> K["Roadmap Document"]
C --> L["TCO/ROI Model"]
end
subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
M["scenario-analysis"] -.-> H
N["executive-pitch"] -.-> L
O["change-readiness-assessment"] -.-> D
end
06_Solution_Roadmap_{cliente}_{WIP}.md06_Solution_Roadmap_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx{fase}_solution_roadmap_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx{fase}_solution_roadmap_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx06_Solution_Roadmap_{cliente}_{WIP}.html| Dimension | Peso | Criterio |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | Descripcion activa triggers correctos sin falsos positivos |
| Completeness | 25% | Todos los entregables cubren el dominio sin huecos |
| Clarity | 20% | Instrucciones ejecutables sin ambiguedad |
| Robustness | 20% | Maneja edge cases y variantes de input |
| Efficiency | 10% | Proceso no tiene pasos redundantes |
| Value Density | 15% | Cada seccion aporta valor practico directo |
Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.
Autor: Javier Montaño | Ultima actualizacion: 15 de marzo de 2026