Foundation Okr Writer

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

OKR Writer

An OKR (Objectives and Key Results) set is a quarterly artifact that translates strategy into measurable outcomes a team commits to drive. OKRs are a focus and learning system, not a project plan, KPI dashboard, performance review device, or roadmap wrapper. Done well, they make priorities explicit, force tradeoffs, enable cross-team alignment, and create visible evidence of progress. Done poorly, they generate roadmap theater, compensation gaming, and false precision.

This skill is a coach, not a template filler. It drafts, reviews, rewrites, and audits OKR sets against the empirical consensus drawn from Doerr (Measure What Matters), Wodtke (Radical Focus), Cagan (SVPG team objectives), Castro (outcome-vs-output), Grove (High Output Management), Torres (continuous discovery), and Gothelf and Seiden (Outcomes Over Output).

Supported Modes

Five entry modes support different engagement levels. Mode is detected from user phrasing; default to Guided when ambiguous. State the detected mode at the start of the response.

• Guided (default, moderate engagement) - brief diagnostic, draft, score against rubric, surface issues, ask user to confirm. Selected by phrasing like "help me write OKRs for X."
• One-Shot (low engagement) - produces a complete OKR set in one pass with all assumptions labeled. Selected by --oneshot flag or phrasing like "just draft OKRs from this context."
• Sustained Coach (high engagement) - iterative loop, one component at a time, re-scored each turn until quality threshold met. Selected by "coach me through OKRs for X."
• Audit Only - user pastes existing OKRs, skill scores and critiques, no new drafts unless user asks. Selected by "review these OKRs."
• Rewrite - convert flawed OKRs, feature lists, or roadmap items into outcome-shaped OKRs. Selected by "fix these OKRs" or "convert this roadmap to OKRs."

When to Use

• Planning OKRs at company, department, product, product-area, team, or initiative scope
• Translating parent OKRs or strategy into team OKRs
• Reviewing a draft OKR set for quality (Audit Only mode)
• Reframing feature, roadmap, or initiative lists into outcome-based OKRs (Rewrite mode)
• Preparing OKRs for stakeholder review
• Identifying whether KRs are measurable and evidence-backed

When NOT to Use

• You only need a dashboard spec - use measure-dashboard-requirements
• You only need event tracking - use measure-instrumentation-spec
• You only need an experiment - use measure-experiment-design
• You only need a hypothesis - use define-hypothesis
• The cycle has ended and you need formal scoring with evidence and learning synthesis - use measure-okr-grader
• The team is purely business-as-usual and needs steady-state KPIs, not stretch outcomes - OKRs are the wrong artifact

Instructions

When asked to write or review OKRs, follow these steps:

1. Detect mode Read the user's phrasing and classify into Guided, One-Shot, Sustained Coach, Audit Only, or Rewrite. Look for explicit signals (--oneshot, "review these," "fix these," "coach me"). Default to Guided when ambiguous. State the detected mode at the start of the response.

2. Run the empowered-team diagnostic (skip in Audit Only when no new drafting is happening) Ask briefly:

• Are features, projects, or dates already committed for this cycle?
• Can the team change initiatives mid-cycle if KRs are not moving?
• Who decides what gets built, this team or someone else?

Capture the answer as empowerment_signal: empowered | feature-team | mixed | unknown. This affects output framing in later steps. Do NOT refuse to proceed when feature-team signals are present; instead, plan to add a Disclosure section to the artifact.

3. Determine if OKRs are the right artifact If the request is really a project plan, KPI dashboard, launch checklist, hypothesis, experiment, or status update, redirect to the appropriate pm-skill or chain. Do not force OKR shape onto non-OKR work.

4. Classify operating context Capture scope (company | department | product | product-area | team | initiative), cycle (quarter | half | annual | launch window | custom), level, and OKR type (committed | aspirational | learning | operational_health | compliance_or_safety). Default cycle is quarterly when context is missing.

5. Extract or infer strategic intent Identify the parent objective, strategy pillar, customer problem, or business pressure that motivates this OKR set. If none is supplied, ask once before drafting.

6. Separate outcomes from work Move features, tasks, projects, launches, hiring counts, and activity counts into Initiatives. The OKR is what changes in the world; Initiatives are bets on how to make that change happen. Apply Castro's litmus test: "if it can go in your backlog, it is not an outcome."

7. Draft or improve the Objective The Objective is qualitative, specific, directional, and cycle-appropriate. It describes a desired state change, not a project. It connects to strategy. It avoids embedded metrics (numbers belong in KRs). It avoids empty adjectives unless the artifact defines what they mean.

8. Draft or improve Key Results For each KR include: metric definition, baseline (or recommended-to-measure if missing), target, deadline, evidence source, owner where appropriate, indicator class (leading | lagging | guardrail | health | evidence_generation), and confidence (high | medium | low | unknown). Include a guardrail KR for any optimization that could harm a paired metric (engagement vs quality, growth vs retention, speed vs reliability).

Apply the constraint rules in the next section.

9. Map initiatives as bets Each initiative names which KR(s) it is expected to move and the assumption underlying that expectation. Initiatives are hypotheses, not commitments. Do not list initiatives as KRs.

10. Run the OKR Quality Audit Score the draft against the rubric below. Surface issues inline rather than burying them in an appendix. For each risk or fail rating, include a specific recommendation.

11. Apply the empowered-team Disclosure (when needed) If empowerment_signal == feature-team or mixed, add a Disclosure section: "This OKR set frames pre-committed work as outcome bets. If the metrics do not move when the work ships, that is a learning, not a delivery failure. The team's lever this cycle is to keep shipping; the OKR's lever is to update next-cycle planning." Omit this section entirely when the signal is empowered.

12. Surface open questions Capture any decisions the user must make that the skill cannot resolve from context. Examples: KR measurement window extending past cycle close, initiative phasing decisions, cohort definition boundaries.

13. Note the source of truth The artifact is a planning input, not the canonical OKR system. Include a source_of_truth field pointing to the user's actual OKR tracker (company OKR doc, Confluence page, dashboard, dedicated platform, spreadsheet, or wherever the live status lives).

14. Finalize for direct use Remove all skill instruction commentary from the final artifact. The final output should be reader-facing.

Constraint Rules (MUST / MUST NOT)

These rules are non-negotiable. The skill enforces them in every mode.

• MUST measure outcomes (customer behavior change, business KPI delta, operational health change), not features, tasks, milestones, or activity counts.
• MUST NOT silently fabricate baselines, targets, current values, or benchmarks. Mark missing values explicitly as assumption, placeholder, recommended-to-measure, or not-enough-evidence.
• MUST NOT use OKR scores as individual performance ratings or compensation inputs. If the user requests this, refuse and explain.
• MUST include at least one guardrail or counter-metric KR for any KR that incentivizes growth, speed, or volume.
• MUST treat the 0.6 to 0.7 sweet spot as applying ONLY to aspirational OKRs. Committed, compliance, safety, reliability, and contractual KRs target 1.0.
• MUST default to team-level OKRs. Warn when individual OKRs are requested; explain the sandbagging and false-precision risks.
• MUST NOT become the canonical source of truth. Always include a source_of_truth pointer to the user's actual OKR tracker.
• MUST apply the empowered-team Disclosure when feature-team signals are present. Do NOT refuse the user; adjust the framing.

Quality Audit Rubric

The skill applies this rubric to every OKR set it drafts or reviews. Each criterion gets pass, risk, or fail with a one-line rationale.

• Strategic fit: clear link to strategy, parent OKR, or customer problem
• Objective quality: specific, qualitative, tradeoff-guiding (not a slogan, task, metric bundle, or project name)
• KR outcome quality: measures outcome or behavior change (not tasks, features, or milestones)
• Measurement quality: baseline, target, deadline, evidence source present (or marked placeholder)
• Product influence: team can plausibly influence the outcome
• Focus: 1 to 3 objectives, 2 to 4 KRs each
• Guardrails: quality, reliability, or risk considered for any optimization KR
• Alignment: parent, peer, dependency relationships clear
• Operating rhythm: cycle, check-ins, review points explicit
• Integrity: no compensation coupling, no fabricated data
• Empowered-team Disclosure: included when feature-team signal present, omitted when empowered

Anti-Patterns the Skill Detects

The skill scans for these and either refuses, reframes, or surfaces them with a fail audit rating:

• Feature-delivery KR ("Launch X" instead of "Increase Y from A to B") - reframe into outcome KR; move feature to Initiatives
• Task-count KR ("Complete 10 interviews" without a learning outcome) - reframe or move to evidence-generation type
• Vanity metric KR (metric improves without customer or business value) - flag and propose alternative
• Activity objective (objective describes work, not change) - reframe
• Metric-stuffed objective (objective is just KPIs glued together) - reframe
• Too many OKRs (more than 3 objectives, more than 4 KRs per objective) - force ranking
• Cascading theater (parent KR copied locally without ownership logic) - rewrite as networked alignment
• Roadmap wrapper (OKRs reformat the roadmap) - full Rewrite mode
• Missing baseline (target uninterpretable) - mark recommended-to-measure
• Missing evidence source (no one knows where the score will come from) - mark not-enough-evidence
• Lag-only product OKR (team owns revenue without product outcome) - add a leading product-outcome KR
• No guardrail (optimization may damage quality, trust, retention) - add guardrail KR
• Compensation coupling (people will sandbag or hide learning) - refuse and explain
• Individual OKR default - default to team OKRs; warn if individual OKRs are requested
• Unsupported benchmark (universal target without evidence) - flag and ask for source
• Pre-PMF over-metricization (false quantitative precision when learning is the real objective) - reframe as learning OKR

Output Contract (v1.0.0)

• All required sections present in canonical order: Context, Objective, Key Results, Initiatives as Bets, Guardrails and Health Checks, Alignment Notes, Quality Audit, Open Questions, Suggested Next Step
• Disclosure section is present when empowerment_signal == feature-team | mixed, omitted when empowered
• Every KR includes metric definition, baseline (or marked placeholder), target, deadline, evidence source, indicator class, and confidence
• Initiatives are listed separately from KRs and explicitly tied to which KR(s) they aim to move
• At least one guardrail KR exists for any optimization-style primary KR
• Source-of-truth note is present and points to a non-skill location
• Quality Audit covers all rubric criteria with explicit pass / risk / fail ratings
• Markdown only output. No JSON.
• Foundation classification: no phase: field in frontmatter; uses classification: foundation

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• [ ] Mode detected and stated at the start of the response
• [ ] Empowered-team diagnostic run when drafting; signal captured
• [ ] All required sections present in canonical order
• [ ] Disclosure section included when feature-team signal present
• [ ] Every KR has metric, baseline (or placeholder), target, deadline, evidence source, indicator class, confidence
• [ ] At least one guardrail KR for any optimization primary KR
• [ ] Source-of-truth note present
• [ ] No fabricated baselines or targets - missing values explicitly marked
• [ ] No compensation-coupled framing
• [ ] Quality Audit applied with explicit pass / risk / fail ratings
• [ ] Anti-pattern catalog scanned - detected anti-patterns flagged or reframed
• [ ] OKR type classified (committed | aspirational | learning | operational_health | compliance_or_safety)
• [ ] Skill instruction commentary removed from final artifact
• [ ] Markdown only - no JSON output

Examples

See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed OKR set in the storevine sample thread (Campaigns team, Q3 2026), demonstrating Guided mode on an empowered-team product context with a real cross-team alignment dependency. The companion measure-okr-grader skill handles end-of-cycle scoring; together they cover the full quarterly arc.

Scenario: quarterly OKRs for the Activation team

This is the INPUT brief for an output-quality eval. The skill arm and the control arm each receive everything below (and nothing else about how to do the work) and produce an OKR-set artifact for it. Judges never see this header. The input is deliberately raw and partly feature-shaped, the way a real planning prompt arrives.

Planning context

Team: the Activation squad at a B2B SaaS company (an analytics product). The squad owns the new-user experience from signup through first value.

Strategy pillar this cycle: "More signups become active, paying teams." Leadership wants activation to stop being the leak in the funnel before the company spends more on acquisition.

What the team is already planning to ship (their draft list, as given):

• "Launch a redesigned onboarding checklist."
• "Ship 3 new integration connectors (Salesforce, HubSpot, Segment)."
• "Run 10 customer onboarding interviews."
• "Get the activation rate up."
• "Improve time-to-first-dashboard."

Numbers the team could find on short notice:

• Current signup-to-activation rate: roughly 22% (definition of "activated" is fuzzy; some say

"created a dashboard," some say "invited a teammate").

• Median time from signup to first dashboard: not currently instrumented.
• Free-to-paid conversion within 30 days: about 6%.
• Support load from confused new users is high but not quantified.

Constraints the team raised:

• They are a feature team in practice: this quarter's roadmap (the checklist redesign and the three

connectors) is already committed by leadership and cannot be dropped mid-cycle.

• There is pressure to "move fast on activation," which historically led them to ship onboarding

changes that lifted a vanity metric (checklist completion) without lifting paid conversion.

Audience for the artifact: the squad and their group PM, for a quarterly planning review.

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

Sample: foundation-okr-writer. Storevine Campaigns Q3 2026 OKR Set

Scenario

Storevine's Campaigns team shipped the guided first-campaign flow in May 2026 and validated it via the 60-day A/B test that ran through late June (see the measure-experiment-results storevine sample). First-send rate moved from 13.4% to 31.7% [fictional] in the treatment, and the secondary metric (90-day second-campaign rate) reached 22.8% [fictional]. The guided flow is now the default for new merchants.

For Q3 2026, the Campaigns growth-pm needs to set OKRs that move from "we activated more merchants" to "merchants use Campaigns as a sustained marketing channel." The forcing function is a company-level OKR to reduce 12-month merchant churn from 18% to 14% [fictional] by year-end. Engagement with Campaigns is one of the strongest leading indicators for merchant retention.

The growth-pm runs foundation-okr-writer in Guided mode (default).

Source Notes:

• Storevine is fictional
• All metrics [fictional]
• Continuation of the storevine Campaigns thread established in the measure-experiment-results sample
• The Cagan empowered-team test, the Wodtke 1-objective rhythm, and the Castro outcome-vs-output litmus are the writer's underlying critique heuristics

Prompt

foundation-okr-writer

Scope: Campaigns team, Storevine
Cycle: Q3 2026 (July 1 to September 30)
Level: team
OKR type: aspirational

Strategic context:
- Company objective: reduce 12-month merchant churn from 18% to 14% [fictional]
  by year-end 2026.
- Campaigns team owns email marketing for Storevine merchants.
- Guided first-campaign flow shipped May 2026; validated June 27 with strong
  results.

Empowerment signal: empowered team. Leadership picks problems, team picks
bets and KRs.

Draft objective: "Make Campaigns the email tool merchants use weekly."

Candidate KRs (rough):
- More merchants sending recurring campaigns
- Higher campaign engagement (CTR or conversion)
- Don't break merchant satisfaction

Constraints:
- Engineering capacity: 4 engineers, 1 designer
- No new platform dependencies
- Cannot influence pricing or top-of-funnel acquisition (other teams)

Source of truth: company OKR doc in Confluence at
go/okrs-q3-2026-campaigns

Output

# OKR Set: Storevine Campaigns Team, Q3 2026

(Mode: Guided. Empowered-team signal: empowered. Disclosure section omitted.)

## Context

- Scope: Campaigns team
- Cycle: 2026-Q3 (July 1 to September 30, 2026)
- Level: team
- OKR type: aspirational
- Empowered-team signal: empowered (leadership assigns problem; team picks
  KRs and bets). No Disclosure section needed.
- Source of truth: go/okrs-q3-2026-campaigns (Confluence). This artifact is
  a planning input, not the live tracker.
- Strategic input: Company OKR to reduce 12-month merchant churn from 18%
  to 14% [fictional] by year-end. Campaigns engagement is a known leading
  indicator for merchant retention (correlation observed in 2026-H1
  retention analysis [fictional]).
- Assumptions:
  - Campaigns engagement causally improves retention, not just correlates.
    Treated as working hypothesis; KR2 design lets us update the belief.
  - Q3 has no major Storevine platform launches that compete for merchant
    attention.
  - Lifecycle email triggers are technically feasible within current
    Campaigns infra.

## Objective

Make Campaigns the marketing tool merchants reach for every week.

(One qualitative, directional statement. Replaces the draft phrasing
"tool merchants use weekly" with language that signals desired merchant
behavior, not just usage frequency.)

## Key Results

- KR1: Increase weekly active senders from 14% to 28% [fictional] of
  Campaigns-activated merchants by 2026-09-30.
  - Metric: percentage of activated merchants who send at least one
    campaign in any 7-day window, averaged over the trailing 4 weeks.
  - Baseline: 14% [fictional] (June 2026 trailing-4-week average).
  - Target: 28% [fictional] by 2026-09-30.
  - Evidence source: Amplitude `campaign_sent` event, segmented by
    activated-merchant cohort.
  - Owner: growth-pm.
  - Indicator class: leading.
  - Confidence: medium. The 14 to 28 jump is roughly 2x and assumes
    lifecycle triggers plus templates v2 deliver.

- KR2: Increase 90-day campaign retention from 22.8% to 38% [fictional]
  for merchants who send their first campaign in Q3.
  - Metric: percentage of first-time senders in Q3 who send at least 3
    campaigns within 90 days of first send.
  - Baseline: 22.8% [fictional] (Q2 2026 cohort, per the May A/B test
    secondary metric).
  - Target: 38% [fictional] by end of cohort 90-day window (extends into
    Q4 measurement; Q3 grade is forward-looking projection on cohort
    progress at 60 days).
  - Evidence source: Amplitude cohort dashboard
    `campaigns-90d-retention-q3-2026`.
  - Owner: growth-pm.
  - Indicator class: outcome (lagging at 90 days, trackable interim at
    30 and 60 days).
  - Confidence: low. This KR depends on cohorts that started before Q3
    and a measurement window that extends past cycle close. Surfacing
    as Open Question 1.

- KR3 (guardrail): Hold median campaign click-through rate at or above
  3.4% [fictional] across all Q3 sends.
  - Metric: median CTR across all campaigns sent in Q3.
  - Baseline: 3.4% [fictional] (Q2 2026 average).
  - Target: maintain or improve.
  - Evidence source: Amplitude `campaign_click` event over
    `campaign_delivered`.
  - Owner: growth-pm.
  - Indicator class: guardrail.
  - Confidence: high. Protects against the failure mode where lifecycle
    triggers boost send volume but tank engagement quality.

## Initiatives as Bets

- Initiative 1: Lifecycle email triggers (mid-July ship target).
  - Expected KR impact: KR1 primarily, KR2 secondarily.
  - Hypothesis: merchants who receive contextual nudges (post-send recap,
    audience re-engagement reminder, seasonal prompt) will send 30%
    [fictional] more campaigns over a 30-day window than control.
  - Dependency: Storevine notifications platform team for delivery
    infrastructure (already scoped, no blocker).

- Initiative 2: Templates v2 (seasonal and event-driven templates).
  - Expected KR impact: KR1 and KR2.
  - Hypothesis: merchants who use a seasonal template for their first
    repeat send have higher second-send rates than merchants who start
    from a generic template.
  - Dependency: Design lead authoring 12 [fictional] new templates over
    August.

- Initiative 3: Campaign performance feedback loop (in-app).
  - Expected KR impact: KR2 primarily.
  - Hypothesis: merchants who see clear post-send performance data
    (open rate, click rate, top-clicked items) are more likely to send
    again.
  - Dependency: Campaigns analytics dashboard team. Coordination cost
    medium; named in Alignment Notes below.

## Guardrails and Health Checks

- Guardrail 1: Email unsubscribe rate stays below 0.95% [fictional]
  threshold (Q2 baseline 0.72% [fictional]).
  - Why: lifecycle triggers risk increasing send volume. Unsub rate is
    the canonical signal of merchant audience fatigue. If unsub spikes,
    we are damaging merchant relationships with their customers, which
    Storevine's brand depends on.

- Guardrail 2: Spam complaint rate stays below 0.1% [fictional]
  (Q2 baseline 0.04% [fictional]).
  - Why: regulatory and deliverability risk. A spam-rate breach affects
    all Storevine merchants via shared sending reputation.

## Alignment Notes

- Parent or strategy link: Company OKR "Reduce 12-month merchant churn
  from 18% to 14% [fictional] by year-end." This Campaigns OKR is one of
  three known retention levers (the others are Inventory team and
  Onboarding team).
- Peer dependencies:
  - Campaigns Analytics team owns Initiative 3 dashboard work. Confirmed
    capacity in 2026-06 cross-team planning.
  - Storevine Notifications platform team owns infra for Initiative 1.
    No new asks from us this quarter.
- Known conflicts:
  - The Onboarding team's Q3 OKR includes "Increase Campaigns activation
    rate among new merchants from 35.8% to 50% [fictional]." If they
    succeed, our KR1 baseline shifts mid-cycle (more activated merchants
    means a different denominator for "weekly active senders").
    Mitigation: rebaseline KR1 in mid-cycle review using the
    activated-merchant cohort definition that exists at start of Q3,
    not the rolling cohort.
- Out of scope this cycle:
  - Pricing changes (no team owns; not Campaigns' lever).
  - Net-new merchant acquisition (Onboarding team).
  - International expansion of Campaigns (deferred to 2027).

## Quality Audit

- Strategic fit: pass. Clear link to company churn-reduction OKR via
  engagement-as-leading-indicator logic.
- Objective quality: pass. "Marketing tool merchants reach for every
  week" implies a behavior change, not a feature delivery.
- KR outcome quality: pass. All three KRs measure merchant behavior or
  send-quality outcomes; no "ship X" KRs.
- Measurement quality: pass with caveat. KR2 baseline comes from a
  specific Q2 cohort, not a steady-state measurement. Flagged in Open
  Questions.
- Product influence: pass. Team controls all three KRs' levers via
  Campaigns product surface.
- Focus: pass. One Objective, three KRs (within 2 to 4 range).
- Guardrails: pass. KR3 plus two health metrics protect against the
  predictable failure modes (engagement quality, audience fatigue,
  deliverability).
- Alignment: pass. Parent OKR named, peer dependencies named, conflict
  with Onboarding team flagged with mitigation.
- Operating rhythm: pass. Quarterly cycle; weekly Wodtke-style check-ins
  assumed (default for product team aspirational OKR).
- Integrity: pass. Team-level OKR, no compensation coupling, no
  fabricated data.
- Empowered-team Disclosure: not-applicable. Empowered signal; section
  omitted.

## Open Questions

1. KR2's 90-day retention metric extends past the cycle boundary
   (cohorts started in Q3 will not finish their 90-day window until Q4).
   Should KR2 be reframed as a 30-day or 60-day intermediate metric, or
   should the team accept that Q3 grading on KR2 is a projection rather
   than a final score? Recommend deciding before Q3 starts so the grader
   has unambiguous scoring rules.

2. The retention causality assumption (Campaigns engagement causes
   retention rather than correlates) is unverified. If KR1 hits but the
   company churn metric does not move, the Campaigns team's strategy
   should change next cycle. Worth instrumenting a cohort comparison
   that the grader can reference.

3. Should Initiative 2 (Templates v2) ship as one batch or as a phased
   release across August and September? Phasing affects when KR2's
   leading-indicator effect is visible. Recommend a 2-week design spike
   before locking the schedule.

## Suggested Next Step

Run `foundation-okr-writer` again in Audit Only mode with this set after the
cross-team Q3 planning workshop. Specifically check that the KR2 cohort
boundary question (Open Question 1) is resolved and that the Onboarding
team's KR confirmation does not invalidate KR1's denominator.

OKR Set: {team or scope name}, {cycle}

Output template for the foundation-okr-writer skill. Section order is canonical and enforced by the skill's Output Contract. Remove this guidance blockquote and all template comments before finalizing the artifact for the user.

Context

Capture scope, cycle, level, OKR type, empowerment signal, source of truth, strategic input, and assumptions. This block makes the OKR set's frame explicit so future readers understand what was being optimized for.

• Scope: {company | department | product | product-area | team | initiative}
• Cycle: {2026-Q3 | 2026-H2 | 2026 | launch window | custom}
• Level: {repeat of scope, or higher level made explicit}
• OKR type: {committed | aspirational | learning | operational_health | compliance_or_safety}
• Empowered-team signal: {empowered | feature-team | mixed | unknown}
• Source of truth: {URL or path to the live tracker; this artifact is a planning input}
• Strategic input: {parent OKR, strategy pillar, customer problem, business pressure}
• Assumptions: {list of working hypotheses behind this OKR set}

Objective

Qualitative, specific, directional statement of the desired state change. One sentence ideally. Never embed metrics here; numbers belong in KRs.

{Objective text}

Key Results

Each KR uses a stacked-bullet format, not a wide table. Every KR includes the seven required sub-fields. Missing values must be explicitly marked (assumption, placeholder, recommended-to-measure, not-enough-evidence); never fabricate.

• KR1: {one-line statement: metric verb-and-noun, baseline value to target value by deadline}
• Metric: {precise definition of the measured quantity}
• Baseline: {value, with as_of date; or recommended-to-measure if missing}
• Target: {value, with deadline}
• Evidence source: {dashboard, event, dataset, survey, support system}
• Owner: {person or team; team-level by default}
• Indicator class: {leading | lagging | guardrail | health | evidence_generation}
• Confidence: {high | medium | low | unknown}

• KR2: {as above}

• KR3: {as above}

Initiatives as Bets

Initiatives are the work the team will undertake to move the KRs. They are hypotheses, not commitments. Do NOT list initiatives as KRs. Each initiative names which KR(s) it is expected to move.

• Initiative 1: {name}
• Expected KR impact: {KR1, KR2, etc.}
• Hypothesis: {why this work is expected to move that KR}
• Dependency: {what must be in place; named team or platform if cross-functional}

• Initiative 2: {as above}

Guardrails and Health Checks

Counter-metrics that prevent the primary KRs from being achieved at the cost of something else. Required for any optimization-style KR (growth, speed, volume).

• Guardrail 1: {metric and threshold}
• Why: {what failure mode this prevents}

• Guardrail 2: {as above}

Alignment Notes

Make the OKR's relationships explicit so cross-team dependencies and conflicts are visible.

• Parent or strategy link: {parent OKR or strategy pillar}
• Peer dependencies: {teams whose work supports or conflicts with this OKR}
• Known conflicts: {KRs from peer teams that may pull against this set}
• Out of scope this cycle: {what this OKR does NOT cover, even if relevant}

Disclosure

OPTIONAL section. Include ONLY when empowerment_signal == feature-team | mixed. Omit entirely when empowered.

This OKR set frames pre-committed work as outcome bets. If the metrics do not move when the work ships, that is a learning, not a delivery failure. The team's lever this cycle is to keep shipping; the OKR's lever is to update next-cycle planning.

Quality Audit

Apply the rubric. Each criterion gets pass | risk | fail with a one-line rationale.

• Strategic fit: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Objective quality: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• KR outcome quality: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Measurement quality: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Product influence: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Focus: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Guardrails: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Alignment: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Operating rhythm: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Integrity: {pass | risk | fail} - {rationale}
• Empowered-team Disclosure: {pass | not-applicable} - {rationale}

Open Questions

Decisions the user must resolve before the OKR set is final. Numbered list. Each question should be specific and answerable.

1. {question} 2. {question}

Suggested Next Step

One concrete next action that moves this OKR set toward final form or toward execution.

{Action}