Evaluate feature investments using revenue impact, cost structure, ROI, and strategic value.
Works with
Guides product managers through a structured 4-step assessment: revenue connection (direct monetization, retention, conversion, expansion), cost structure (dev + COGS + OpEx), constraint evaluation, and ROI calculation
Delivers one of four recommendation patterns: build now (strong ROI), build for strategic reasons (marginal ROI but competitive/platform value), don't build (poor ROI), or build l
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionfeature-investment-advisorExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches feature-investment-advisor from deanpeters/product-manager-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate feature-investment-advisor. Access via /feature-investment-advisor in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
3.1K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
3.1K
stars
Guide product managers through evaluating whether to build a feature based on financial impact analysis. Use this to make data-driven prioritization decisions by assessing revenue connection (direct or indirect), cost structure (dev + COGS + OpEx), ROI calculation, and strategic value—then deliver actionable build/don't build recommendations with supporting math.
This is not a generic prioritization framework—it's a financial lens for feature decisions that complements other prioritization methods (RICE, value vs. effort, user research). Use when financial impact is a key decision factor.
A systematic approach to evaluate features financially:
Revenue Connection — How does this feature impact revenue?
Cost Structure — What does it cost to build and run?
ROI Calculation — Is the return worth the investment?
Strategic Value — Non-financial value that might override pure ROI
Use this when:
Don't use this when:
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
Other (specify) when useful)This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
This interactive skill asks up to 4 adaptive questions, offering 3-5 enumerated options at decision points.
Agent asks:
"Let's evaluate the financial impact of this feature investment. Please provide:
Feature description:
Current business context:
Constraints:
You can provide estimates if you don't have exact numbers."
Agent asks:
"How does this feature impact revenue? Choose the option that best describes the revenue connection:
Choose a number, or describe a custom revenue connection."
Based on selection, agent adapts:
If 1 (Direct monetization):
Potential Monthly Revenue = Customer Base × Adoption Rate × PriceIf 2 (Retention improvement):
LTV Impact = Increase in Customer Lifetime × Customer Base × ARPU × MarginIf 3 (Conversion improvement):
Additional MRR = Trial Users × Conversion Lift × ARPUIf 4 (Expansion enabler):
Expansion MRR = Customer Base × Expansion Rate × ARPU IncreaseIf 5 (No direct revenue impact):
Agent asks:
"What's the cost structure for this feature?
Development cost (one-time):
Ongoing costs (if any):
If no ongoing costs, enter $0."
Agent calculates:
(Revenue - COGS) / RevenueAgent flags:
Agent asks:
"What constraints or timing considerations apply?
Choose a number, or describe your constraints."
Based on selection:
If 1 (Competitive threat):
If 2 (Limited capacity):
If 3 (Dependencies):
If 4 (No constraints):
Agent synthesizes:
Agent offers 3-4 recommendations:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build now — Strong financial case
Revenue Impact:
Cost:
ROI:
Why this makes sense: [Specific reasoning based on numbers]
Next steps:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build for strategic reasons (financial case is marginal)
Financial Reality:
Strategic Value:
Recommendation: Build, but monitor closely:
Risk: Opportunity cost—other features may have better ROI"
When:
Recommendation:
"Don't build — Financial case doesn't support investment
Why:
Alternative approaches:
What would need to change:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build later — Validate assumptions first
Current uncertainty:
What to validate:
Decision criteria:
Timeline:
Agent offers:
"Do you want to:
Or, ask any follow-up questions."
Agent can:
See examples/ folder for sample conversation flows. Mini examples below:
User: "We're considering building time tracking as a paid add-on."
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
Agent recommends:
"Build now — Positive ROI with fast payback
Revenue Impact: $240K/year (conservative 20% adoption) ROI: 1.92:1 in year 1, 3.8:1 in year 2 Payback: 5 months
Why this works:
Next steps:
User: "We're losing customers because they can't export their data easily. Should we build a comprehensive export feature?"
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
If feature reduces this by 50%:
Agent calculates ROI:
Agent recommends:
"Build immediately — Exceptional ROI on retention
Impact:
Why this is a no-brainer:
Next steps:
User: "Users are requesting dark mode. Should we prioritize it?"
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent asks: "What evidence do you have that dark mode will reduce churn?"
User: "Feature requests from 50 users. No data on churn impact."
Agent calculates:
ROI: $360K / $80K = 4.5:1 (looks okay, but based on weak assumptions)
Agent recommends:
"Build later — Weak evidence for ROI
Current case:
Problem:
Alternative approach:
Better features to consider:
Decision criteria to build:
Symptom: "This feature will generate $1M in revenue!" (ignoring $800K COGS)
Consequence: $1M revenue at 20% margin is worth $200K profit, not $1M. Feature looks great until you factor in costs.
Fix: Always calculate contribution margin. Use Revenue × Margin %, not just revenue.
Symptom: "ROI is 5:1, let's build!" (but payback is 36 months and customers churn at 24 months)
Consequence: You never recover the investment because customers leave before payback.
Fix: Check payback period. Must be shorter than average customer lifetime.
Symptom: "100% of customers will use this paid add-on!"
Consequence: Real adoption is 10-20%. Revenue projections are 5-10x too high.
Fix: Use conservative adoption estimates (10-20% for add-ons). Validate with willingness-to-pay research.
Symptom: "We think this will reduce churn" (no customer interviews)
Consequence: You build a feature that doesn't address real churn reasons. Churn stays flat.
Fix: Interview churned customers first. Validate that this feature addresses top 3 churn reasons.
Symptom: "This feature has 2:1 ROI, let's build!" (other features have 10:1 ROI)
Consequence: You build a mediocre feature while better options sit in the backlog.
Fix: Compare ROI across features. Build highest-ROI features first (unless strategic value overrides).
Symptom: "ROI is terrible but it's strategic!" (no clear strategy)
Consequence: "Strategic" becomes a catch-all for building low-value features.
Fix: Define what "strategic" means (competitive moat, platform enabler, compliance). If it doesn't fit, it's not strategic.
Symptom: "This feature adds $500K revenue!" (but COGS is $400K)
Consequence: Your gross margin drops from 80% to 60%. Feature destroys unit economics.
Fix: Calculate contribution margin. If margin is <50%, reconsider or charge a premium.
Symptom: "This feature will increase engagement!" (but not revenue or retention)
Consequence: You build features that feel good but don't impact business outcomes.
Fix:
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
pproenca/dot-skills
We added feature-investment-advisor from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
feature-investment-advisor has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
feature-investment-advisor fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
Useful defaults in feature-investment-advisor — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
We added feature-investment-advisor from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: feature-investment-advisor is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
Registry listing for feature-investment-advisor matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Registry listing for feature-investment-advisor matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
feature-investment-advisor reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: feature-investment-advisor is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 75