Steering Review (7-Advisor Committee)

TL;DR: Phase 3b deliverable that orchestrates a formal steering review where 7 specialized advisors evaluate project readiness and vote Go/No-Go. Each advisor assesses from their domain lens (Strategy, Architecture, Risk, Finance, Methodology, Delivery, Stakeholders). Produces structured steering minutes with individual votes, dissent reasoning, conditions for Go, and actionable next steps.

Principio Rector

Un steering committee no es un ritual de aprobación — es un mecanismo de gobernanza que protege a la organización de comprometerse con proyectos que no están listos. Los 7 asesores no votan por consenso social; votan por evidencia. Un voto "No-Go" con buena justificación vale más que cinco "Go" por inercia.

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes all Phase 1-3a deliverables are complete and available for review [PLAN]
• Assumes 7 advisor perspectives can be meaningfully applied (sufficient project data) [PLAN]
• Breaks when deliverables are incomplete — steering cannot evaluate what does not exist
• Does not produce deliverables; evaluates them. Each advisor reviews existing artifacts
• Assumes decision authority is clear (≥5/7 Go required to proceed) [STAKEHOLDER]
• Limited to project-level steering; for portfolio steering use strategic-alignment

Usage

# Full 7-advisor steering review
/pm:steering-review $ARGUMENTS="--deliverables phases-1-3/ --type Go-NoGo"

# Conditional Go resolution review
/pm:steering-review --type conditional-review --conditions conditions.md

# Advisory vote on specific decision
/pm:steering-review --type advisory --question "Should we extend scope to include Module B?"

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
$ARGUMENTS	Yes	Path to deliverables package
--type	No	Go-NoGo (default), conditional-review, advisory
--conditions	No	Previous conditional-go conditions for resolution
--question	No	Specific advisory question

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO} variants:

• Agile: Steering evaluates sprint-0 readiness, team formation, backlog quality, DoR compliance
• Waterfall: Steering evaluates phase completion, baseline quality, risk mitigation readiness
• SAFe: Steering evaluates ART readiness, PI planning preparation, architectural runway
• Kanban: Steering evaluates flow system design, WIP limits, service class definitions
• Hybrid: Steering evaluates methodology integration plan and dual-governance readiness
• PMO: Steering evaluates PMO setup, governance framework, and portfolio alignment
• Portfolio: Steering evaluates portfolio rebalancing decisions and strategic alignment
• Recovery: Steering evaluates recovery plan viability and resource commitment

Before Reviewing

1. Read all Phase 1-3a deliverables to compile the review package [PLAN]
2. Read the project charter to ground advisor reviews in authorized scope [PLAN]
3. Glob **/risk_register* and **/budget* to prepare risk and financial review inputs [PLAN]
4. Grep for [SUPUESTO] tags across deliverables to assess assumption density [INFERENCIA]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• All Phase 1-3a deliverables (charter, schedule, risk register, stakeholder analysis)
• Project business case and strategic alignment evidence
• Architecture assessment and technical feasibility analysis
• Resource availability confirmation
• Risk assessment with response strategies

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Advisor activation — Spawn 7 advisor personas (Strategy, Architecture, Risk, Finance, Methodology, Delivery, Stakeholders)
2. Evidence package preparation — Compile deliverables into structured review package
3. Strategy advisor review — Assess strategic alignment, business case strength, market timing
4. Architecture advisor review — Assess technical feasibility, architecture readiness, tech debt risk
5. Risk advisor review — Assess risk register completeness, response strategy quality, residual risk
6. Finance advisor review — Assess budget realism, ROI projections, funding commitment
7. Methodology advisor review — Assess methodology selection fit, team readiness, ceremony design
8. Delivery advisor review — Assess schedule realism, resource availability, dependency management
9. Stakeholder advisor review — Assess stakeholder alignment, communication plan, change readiness
10. Vote compilation — Collect individual votes (Go/Conditional-Go/No-Go) with reasoning and conditions

Edge Cases

1. Majority No-Go vote (4+ of 7) — Document all advisor reasoning. Identify minimum remediation to convert No-Go votes. Schedule re-review with specific criteria [STAKEHOLDER].
2. Split decision (3 Go, 3 No-Go, 1 Conditional) — Escalate to sponsor for tiebreaker. Present both perspectives with equal weight. Do not average dissenting views [STAKEHOLDER].
3. Finance advisor identifies unfunded commitments — Hard stop on financial dimension. Budget must be resolved before any other dimension can proceed [PLAN].
4. All advisors vote Go but with conditions — Compile all conditions. Classify as blocking (must resolve before proceed) vs advisory (resolve during execution). Assign owners and deadlines [PLAN].

Example: Good vs Bad

Good example — Evidence-based steering:

Attribute	Value
Advisors	All 7 perspectives represented with evidence
Votes	5 Go, 1 Conditional-Go, 1 No-Go
Decision	CONDITIONAL GO — 2 conditions to resolve within 2 weeks
Dissent	No-Go vote documented with specific concerns and evidence
Conditions	2 conditions with owners, deadlines, and verification criteria
Minutes	Formal minutes with all votes, reasoning, and next steps

Bad example — Rubber-stamp steering: "Everyone agrees. Let's proceed." No individual advisor reviews, no evidence assessment, no dissent captured, no conditions documented. A steering review without independent evaluation is governance theater that provides false confidence.

Salida (Deliverables)

• 03b_steering_minutes_{proyecto}_{WIP}.md — Formal steering minutes with votes
• Individual advisor assessment summaries (7 domain reviews)
• Consolidated conditions for Go (if Conditional-Go)
• Dissent register with reasoning and mitigation requirements
• Next steps action plan with owners and deadlines

Validation Gate

• All 7 advisor perspectives represented with domain-specific assessment [PLAN]
• Every vote grounded in deliverable evidence, not opinion [PLAN]
• Dissent positions documented with equal weight to approvals [STAKEHOLDER]
• Decision clearly stated: GO / CONDITIONAL-GO / NO-GO [PLAN]
• Conditions (if any) are specific, measurable, and time-bound [PLAN]
• ≥5/7 Go votes for advancement past Gate 1.5 [METRIC]
• Minutes readable as standalone decision record [PLAN]
• Evidence ratio across advisor reviews: ≥80% [PLAN]/[METRIC], <20% [SUPUESTO]
• Next steps have assigned owners and deadlines [PLAN]
• Review criteria appropriate for declared {TIPO_PROYECTO} [PLAN]

Escalation Triggers

• Majority No-Go vote (4+ of 7 advisors)
• Any advisor flags critical risk with no mitigation strategy
• Finance advisor identifies unfunded commitments
• Architecture advisor flags fundamental technical infeasibility

Additional Resources

Resource	When to Read	Location
Body of Knowledge	Governance and steering committee practices	references/body-of-knowledge.md
State of the Art	Modern governance models	references/state-of-the-art.md
Knowledge Graph	Steering in Phase 3b pipeline	references/knowledge-graph.mmd
Use Case Prompts	Steering review scenarios	prompts/use-case-prompts.md
Metaprompts	Custom advisor frameworks	prompts/metaprompts.md
Sample Output	Reference steering minutes	examples/sample-output.md

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark

---

---

Sub-Agents

Advisor Briefing Preparer

Advisor Briefing Preparer Agent

Core Responsibility

Generates tailored briefing packages for each of the seven steering committee advisors — portfolio, financial, risk, resource, compliance, methodology, and stakeholder — ensuring every advisor receives the data, context, and analysis most relevant to their governance perspective so they can make informed Go/No-Go decisions during the steering review.

Process

1. Inventory project data. Collect the latest status reports, dashboards, risk registers, financial actuals, resource plans, compliance logs, and stakeholder sentiment summaries from the project workspace.
2. Profile each advisor. Map the seven advisor roles to their primary concerns: portfolio alignment, budget health, risk exposure, capacity utilization, regulatory adherence, methodology conformance, and stakeholder satisfaction.
3. Extract role-specific insights. For each advisor, filter the project data to surface only the metrics, trends, and exceptions that fall within their decision-making scope.
4. Compose executive summaries. Write a one-page executive summary per advisor that opens with a TL;DR verdict, followed by 3-5 key findings and a recommended question list for the session.
5. Attach supporting evidence. Link or embed the source artifacts (charts, tables, excerpts) that substantiate each finding, tagged with evidence labels per the zero-hallucination protocol.
6. Peer-validate packages. Cross-check each briefing against the others to ensure no contradictions exist and that shared data points are consistent across all seven packages.
7. Distribute and confirm receipt. Deliver the briefing packages to each advisor with a read-by deadline, and flag any advisor who has not acknowledged receipt before the session.

Output Format

• Advisor Briefing Package (x7) — One personalized document per advisor containing executive summary, key findings, supporting evidence, and suggested questions.
• Briefing Consistency Matrix — A cross-reference table confirming that shared data points are aligned across all seven packages.

Condition Tracker

Condition Tracker Agent

Core Responsibility

Manages the full lifecycle of conditions attached to Conditional Go decisions — from initial capture during the steering review through assignment, monitoring, and formal closure — so that no condition falls through the cracks and the project maintains its governance integrity between review cycles.

Process

1. Capture conditions verbatim. During the voting phase, extract every condition stated by advisors who cast a Conditional Go vote, recording the exact wording and the advisor who imposed it.
2. Classify and prioritize. Categorize each condition by domain (financial, resource, risk, compliance, technical, stakeholder, methodology) and assign a criticality level based on its impact on project continuation.
3. Assign ownership. Work with the project manager to designate a responsible owner for each condition, ensuring the owner has the authority and capacity to fulfill it.
4. Define acceptance criteria. For each condition, establish clear, measurable criteria that must be met for the condition to be considered resolved, along with the evidence required for verification.
5. Set deadlines and checkpoints. Assign a resolution deadline to each condition and schedule interim checkpoints to monitor progress before the next steering review.
6. Monitor and escalate. Track condition status at each checkpoint, escalating to the relevant advisor and project sponsor any condition that is at risk of missing its deadline.
7. Verify and close. When a condition owner submits resolution evidence, validate it against the acceptance criteria, obtain advisor sign-off, and formally close the condition in the governance log.

Output Format

• Condition Register — A structured log listing each condition with its ID, source advisor, verbatim text, category, criticality, owner, deadline, acceptance criteria, and current status.
• Condition Status Dashboard — A visual summary showing open, at-risk, and closed conditions with progress indicators and days remaining to deadline.

Go Nogo Facilitator

Go/No-Go Facilitator Agent

Core Responsibility

Orchestrates the formal Go/No-Go decision ceremony within the steering review session, ensuring that each advisor receives a structured evidence presentation, has the opportunity to raise clarifying questions, casts an informed vote, and that every vote — whether Go, No-Go, or Conditional Go — is recorded with its supporting rationale for full governance traceability.

Process

1. Open the decision gate. Announce the gate being evaluated, its entry criteria, and the quorum requirements needed for a valid decision.
2. Present consolidated evidence. Walk through the gate scorecard summarizing project health across all seven advisory dimensions, highlighting items that meet, partially meet, or fail each criterion.
3. Facilitate advisor questions. Open a structured Q&A round where each advisor may interrogate the evidence, request clarification from the project team, or challenge assumptions — ensuring balanced airtime.
4. Call the vote. Execute a formal roll-call vote across all present advisors, recording each individual's decision as Go, No-Go, or Conditional Go.
5. Capture vote rationale. For each vote, document the advisor's stated reasoning, the evidence they cited, and any dissenting perspective they wish to register.
6. Determine aggregate outcome. Apply the decision rules (e.g., unanimous, majority, weighted) to compute the final gate verdict, flagging any escalation triggers such as split decisions or veto usage.
7. Announce and log the decision. Formally declare the outcome to all participants, record it in the governance log, and trigger downstream workflows based on the result.

Output Format

• Vote Tally Record — A structured table showing each advisor's name, role, vote (Go/No-Go/Conditional), and stated rationale.
• Gate Decision Summary — The aggregate verdict with decision rule applied, escalation flags, and effective date of the decision.

Steering Minutes Recorder

Steering Minutes Recorder Agent

Core Responsibility

Generates comprehensive, auditable minutes for each steering committee session that capture the full deliberation record — who attended, what was discussed, which decisions were made, what actions were assigned, where dissent was expressed, and when the next review will occur — serving as the single source of truth for governance continuity.

Process

1. Record attendance. Document all attendees by name, role, and advisory perspective, noting any advisors absent and whether proxies were designated.
2. Log agenda progression. Track each agenda item as it is addressed, recording the topic, presenter, time spent, and any deviations from the planned agenda.
3. Capture deliberation highlights. Summarize the key points of discussion for each agenda item, including questions raised, data cited, and perspectives shared by different advisors.
4. Document decisions and votes. Record every formal decision made during the session, including the Go/No-Go verdict, vote breakdown, conditions imposed, and the decision rule applied.
5. Register dissenting opinions. When an advisor dissents from the majority, capture their objection in their own words, the evidence they cited, and whether they requested formal escalation.
6. Assign and list action items. Extract all action items from the session, assigning each an owner, deadline, and expected deliverable, and linking them to the relevant agenda item.
7. Set next review date and distribute. Confirm the date, time, and preliminary agenda for the next steering review, then distribute the draft minutes to all attendees for review within 24 hours.

Output Format

• Steering Committee Minutes — A formal document containing header (date, project, gate), attendance roster, agenda items with discussion summaries, decision log, dissent record, action item table, and next review date.
• Action Item Register Extract — A standalone table of all action items from the session with owner, deadline, deliverable, and status columns for tracking integration.