BD gr-product-dev-ops
🇺🇸 Your dev team ships features nobody asked for while user-reported bugs pile up for months. Operations blames engineering for ignoring users; engineering blames operations for not understanding technical constraints. This gives you the complete Product × Engineering × Operations alignment SOP — from unified backlog to 10-day sprint cadence to veto power rules. What's inside: • Dual-layer Kanban system (master backlog + sprint board with unified tagging) • 10-day sprint standard process (Day 1 dev → Day 6 testable build → Day 10 ship) • Issue template with reproducibility requirements (3x reported = auto-severe) • Tri-party alignment meetings (daily standup / sprint planning / sprint review) • Operations veto power on releases (P0 bug = block shipping) • User feedback → product iteration closed loop (beta testing + interview SOP) • Core metrics framework (acquisition → activation → retention → monetization → referral) • Technical debt management (20-30% sprint capacity reserved) • Ready-to-use templates: Bug Report, Sprint Planning, Responsibility Matrix Built from: Real product strategy meetings + beta testing frameworks. References Supabase sprint model, Manus/DeepSeek commercialization alignment. By @WeiYipei. 🇨🇳 你的研发团队在做没人要的新功能，用户反馈的 Bug 堆了三个月没人动。运营觉得研发不听用户，研发觉得运营不懂技术。这份 SOP 给你从统一看板到 10 天迭代节奏到一票否决权的完整产研运协同框架。 🇯🇵 開発チームは誰も求めていない機能を作り、ユーザーから報告されたバグは何ヶ月も放置。このSOPは、統一バックログから10日スプリント、リリース拒否権まで、プロダクト×エンジニアリング×オペレーションの完全な連携フレームワークを提供します。 🇰🇷 개발팀은 아무도 요청하지 않은 기능을 만들고, 사용자가 보고한 버그는 몇 달째 방치됩니다. 이 SOP는 통합 백로그부터 10일 스프린트, 릴리스 거부권까지 제품×개발×운영 완전 협업 프레임워크를 제공합니다. Triggers: "product ops" | "engineering operations" | "product development SOP" | "sprint planning" | "iteration management" | "cross-functional alignment" | "product engineering ops" | "dev ops collaboration" | "产研运协同" | "迭代管理" | "产品研发运营" | "プロダクト開発運営" | "제품개발운영"
As a process D 49/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Shorten the description to 1024 characters.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- error
description-longdescription is 1855 chars, limit 1024 - note
description-budgetdescription takes 1855 of the ~15000-char shared budget for all skills - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source"
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (gr-product-dev-ops) differs from the folder (product-dev-ops-playbook)
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2189 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 15 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 1854: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 11 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 38 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 57.