roadmap-generator
$
npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/roadmap-generatorGenerates phased implementation roadmaps with Epic/Story/Task breakdowns and effort estimates from architecture designs.
- Helps translate strategic goals into actionable execution plans with clear phases and milestones.
- Integrates with architecture designs to create structured roadmaps for technical projects.
- Uses a three-phase framework (MVP, Scale, Advanced) to organize and estimate project timelines.
- Presents results as hierarchical breakdowns with validation checkpoints and success criteria.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/roadmap-generatorView on GitHub ↗
--- name: roadmap-generator description: Generate phased implementation roadmaps with Epic/Story/Task breakdown, effort estimates, and validation checkpoints. Use when cto-architect needs to create actionable technical roadmaps from architecture designs. --- # Roadmap Generator Creates structured implementation roadmaps that transform architecture designs into actionable plans with clear phases, milestones, and validation gates. ## When to Use - After architecture design is complete - When translating strategic goals into execution plans - Creating project timelines with realistic effort estimates - Breaking down large initiatives into manageable phases ## Roadmap Structure ### Three-Phase Framework Every roadmap follows MVP → Scale → Advanced phases: ``` Phase 1: MVP (Foundation) ├── Goal: Prove core value proposition ├── Duration: Typically 6-12 weeks ├── Success Criteria: Core functionality working └── Exit Gate: User validation / metrics threshold Phase 2: Scale (Growth) ├── Goal: Handle production load, improve reliability ├── Duration: Typically 8-16 weeks ├── Success Criteria: Performance SLAs met └── Exit Gate: Load testing passed / uptime targets Phase 3: Advanced (Optimization) ├── Goal: Competitive features, optimization ├── Duration: Ongoing ├── Success Criteria: Feature parity / differentiation └── Exit Gate: Business metrics achieved ``` ## Epic/Story/Task Hierarchy ### Epic High-level capability that delivers business value. - **Duration**: 2-6 weeks - **Format**: "Enable [user] to [capability]" - **Example**: "Enable customers to receive real-time order notifications" ### Story User-facing functionality within an epic. - **Duration**: 2-5 days - **Format**: "As a [user], I want to [action] so that [benefit]" - **Example**: "As a customer, I want push notifications so I know when my order ships" ### Task Technical work to complete a story. - **Duration**: 2-8 hours - **Format**: "[Verb] [object] [context]" - **Example**: "Implement WebSocket connection handler for notification service" --- ## Effort Estimation Framework ### T-Shirt Sizing | Size | Story Points | Typical Duration | Characteristics | |------|-------------|------------------|-----------------| | XS | 1 | 2-4 hours | Trivial change, no unknowns | | S | 2 | 0.5-1 day | Simple, well-understood | | M | 3 | 1-2 days | Some complexity, minor unknowns | | L | 5 | 3-5 days | Complex, some research needed | | XL | 8 | 1-2 weeks | Very complex, significant unknowns | | XXL | 13+ | > 2 weeks | Should be broken down | ### Estimation Guidelines 1. **Include buffer**: Add 20-30% for unknowns 2. **Account for context switching**: Multiply by 1.3 for teams juggling priorities 3. **New technology penalty**: Add 50% for unfamiliar tech 4. **Integration tax**: Add 20% for each external system integration ### Team Velocity Calculation ``` Effective Capacity = Team Size × Working Days × Focus Factor × Skill Factor Focus Factor: - Dedicated team: 0.8 - 50% allocated: 0.4 - Ad-hoc: 0.2 Skill Factor: - Expert team: 1.0 - Experienced: 0.8 - Learning curve: 0.5 ``` --- ## Validation Checkpoints ### Phase Gate Reviews Each phase ends with a validation gate: ```markdown ## Phase 1 Exit Gate ### Go Criteria - [ ] Core features functional in staging - [ ] Unit test coverage > 70% - [ ] Integration tests passing - [ ] Performance baseline established - [ ] Security review completed ### No-Go Signals - Critical bugs unresolved - Core functionality missing - Team capacity insufficient for Phase 2 - Business requirements changed significantly ### Decision [ ] GO - Proceed to Phase 2 [ ] CONDITIONAL GO - Proceed with identified risks [ ] NO-GO - Address blockers first ``` ### Mid-Phase Checkpoints - **Week 2**: Architecture validation - **Week 4**: Integration milestone - **Week 6**: Feature complete checkpoint - **Weekly**: Sprint review and course correction --- ## Dependency Management ### Dependency Types | Type | Description | Mitigation | |------|-------------|------------| | **Technical** | Service A needs Service B | Start B early, use mocks | | **Team** | Need DevOps for deployment | Reserve capacity early | | **External** | Third-party API integration | Validate early, have fallback | | **Data** | Need production data for testing | Create synthetic data | ### Critical Path Identification 1. List all dependencies 2. Identify longest chain 3. Mark critical path items 4. Add buffer to critical path (25%) 5. Parallelize non-critical work --- ## Output Format ### Roadmap Document Structure ```markdown # Implementation Roadmap: [Project Name] **Created**: [Date] **Owner**: [Team/Person] **Architecture Reference**: [Link to architecture doc] ## Executive Summary [2-3 sentences on approach and timeline] ## Timeline Overview [Visual timeline or Gantt representation] ## Phase 1: MVP (Weeks 1-8) ### Phase Goals - [Goal 1] - [Goal 2] ### Epics #### Epic 1.1: [Name] **Duration**: [X weeks] **Dependencies**: [List] | Story | Points | Owner | Dependencies | |-------|--------|-------|--------------| | [Story 1] | M | [Team] | None | | [Story 2] | L | [Team] | Story 1 | **Tasks for Story 1**: - [ ] [Task 1] (S) - [ ] [Task 2] (M) ### Phase 1 Exit Criteria - [ ] [Criterion 1] - [ ] [Criterion 2] ### Phase 1 Risks | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |------|-------------|--------|------------| | [Risk] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Action] | --- ## Phase 2: Scale (Weeks 9-16) [Same structure as Phase 1] --- ## Phase 3: Advanced (Weeks 17+) [Same structure as Phase 1] --- ## Resource Requirements ### Team Composition | Role | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | |------|---------|---------|---------| | Backend | 2 FTE | 3 FTE | 2 FTE | | Frontend | 1 FTE | 2 FTE | 1 FTE | | DevOps | 0.5 FTE | 1 FTE | 0.5 FTE | ### Infrastructure Costs | Phase | Monthly Cost | Notes | |-------|-------------|-------| | Phase 1 | $X | Development environment | | Phase 2 | $Y | Staging + production | | Phase 3 | $Z | Full scale | --- ## Success Metrics | Metric | Phase 1 Target | Phase 2 Target | Phase 3 Target | |--------|---------------|----------------|----------------| | [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | | [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | --- ## Appendix ### Assumptions - [Assumption 1] - [Assumption 2] ### Open Questions - [Question 1] - [Question 2] ``` --- ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid ### The Big Bang Planning everything in detail upfront without iteration. **Fix**: Plan Phase 1 in detail, Phase 2 at epic level, Phase 3 at theme level. ### The Feature Factory Listing features without connecting to business outcomes. **Fix**: Every epic must connect to a measurable business goal. ### The Happy Path No buffer, no risk mitigation, assumes everything goes perfectly. **Fix**: Add 25-30% buffer, identify top 5 risks with mitigations. ### The Kitchen Sink Including every possible feature in MVP. **Fix**: Ruthlessly cut to core value proposition only. --- ## Python Utilities This skill includes Python utilities for roadmap generation: - `generator.py` - Core roadmap generation logic - `templates/` - Output templates (markdown, JSON) See [generator.py](generator.py) for programmatic roadmap generation. --- ## References - [Roadmap Templates](templates/) - Standard output formats - [Estimation Guide](estimation-guide.md) - Detailed estimation techniques
More from alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team
- antipattern-detectorDetect common technical and organizational anti-patterns in proposals, architectures, and plans. Use when strategic-cto-mentor needs to identify red flags before they become problems.
- architecture-pattern-selectorRecommend architecture patterns (monolith, microservices, serverless, modular monolith) based on scale, team size, and constraints. Use when cto-architect needs to select the right architectural approach for a new system or migration.
- assumption-challengerIdentify and challenge implicit assumptions in plans, proposals, and technical decisions. Use when strategic-cto-mentor needs to surface hidden assumptions and wishful thinking before they become costly mistakes.
- clarification-protocolGenerate targeted clarifying questions (2-3 max) that challenge vague requirements and extract missing context. Use after request-analyzer identifies clarification needs, before routing to specialist agents. Helps cto-orchestrator avoid delegating unclear requirements.
- cost-estimatorInfrastructure and development cost estimation for technical projects. Use when planning budgets, evaluating build vs buy decisions, or projecting TCO for architecture choices.
- delegation-prompt-crafterTransform clarified user requests into structured delegation prompts optimized for specialist agents (cto-architect, strategic-cto-mentor, cv-ml-architect). Use after clarification is complete, before routing to specialist agents. Ensures agents receive complete context for effective work.
- ml-cv-specialistDeep expertise in ML/CV model selection, training pipelines, and inference architecture. Use when designing machine learning systems, computer vision pipelines, or AI-powered features.
- request-analyzerAnalyze incoming user requests to detect intent, request type (design/validate/debug/document), complexity level, and identify vague requirements or buzzwords that need clarification. Use when cto-orchestrator receives new requests that need classification before routing to specialist agents.
- scalability-advisorGuidance for scaling systems from startup to enterprise scale. Use when planning for growth, diagnosing bottlenecks, or designing systems that need to handle 10x-1000x current load.
- tech-stack-recommenderRecommend technology stacks based on project requirements, team expertise, and constraints. Use when selecting frameworks, languages, databases, and infrastructure for new projects.