company-os
$
npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/company-osDesign and implement a company operating system framework for C-suite alignment.
- Solves recurring operational issues and meeting inefficiencies in growing companies.
- Leverages established frameworks like EOS, Scaling Up, and OKR-native systems.
- Analyzes company size, culture, and goals to recommend the optimal operating system.
- Delivers structured plans for accountability charts, meeting rhythms, and issue resolution.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/company-osView on GitHub ↗
---
name: "company-os"
description: "The meta-framework for how a company runs — the connective tissue between all C-suite roles. Covers operating system selection (EOS, Scaling Up, OKR-native, hybrid), accountability charts, scorecards, meeting pulse, issue resolution, and 90-day rocks. Use when setting up company operations, selecting a management framework, designing meeting rhythms, building accountability systems, implementing OKRs, or when user mentions EOS, Scaling Up, operating system, L10 meetings, rocks, scorecard, accountability chart, or quarterly planning."
license: MIT
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
author: Alireza Rezvani
category: c-level
domain: company-operations
updated: 2026-03-05
frameworks: os-comparison, implementation-guide
---
# Company Operating System
The operating system is the collection of tools, rhythms, and agreements that determine how the company functions. Every company has one — most just don't know what it is. Making it explicit makes it improvable.
## Keywords
operating system, EOS, Entrepreneurial Operating System, Scaling Up, Rockefeller Habits, OKR, Holacracy, L10 meeting, rocks, scorecard, accountability chart, issues list, IDS, meeting pulse, quarterly planning, weekly scorecard, management framework, company rhythm, traction, Gino Wickman, Verne Harnish
## Why This Matters
Most operational dysfunction isn't a people problem — it's a system problem. When:
- The same issues recur every week: no issue resolution system
- Meetings feel pointless: no structured meeting pulse
- Nobody knows who owns what: no accountability chart
- Quarterly goals slip: rocks aren't real commitments
Fix the system. The people will operate better inside it.
## The Six Core Components
Every effective operating system has these six, regardless of which framework you choose:
### 1. Accountability Chart
Not an org chart. An accountability chart answers: "Who owns this outcome?"
**Key distinction:** One person owns each function. Multiple people may work in it. Ownership means the buck stops with one person.
**Structure:**
```
CEO
├── Sales (CRO/VP Sales)
│ ├── Inbound pipeline
│ └── Outbound pipeline
├── Product & Engineering (CTO/CPO)
│ ├── Product roadmap
│ └── Engineering delivery
├── Operations (COO)
│ ├── Customer success
│ └── Finance & Legal
└── People (CHRO/VP People)
├── Recruiting
└── People operations
```
**Rules:**
- No shared ownership. "Alice and Bob both own it" means nobody owns it.
- One person can own multiple seats at early stages. That's fine. Just be explicit.
- Revisit quarterly as you scale. Ownership shifts as the company grows.
**Build it in a workshop:**
1. List all functions the company performs
2. Assign one owner per function — no exceptions
3. Identify gaps (functions nobody owns) and overlaps (functions two people think they own)
4. Publish it. Update it when something changes.
### 2. Scorecard
Weekly metrics that tell you if the company is on track. Not monthly. Not quarterly. Weekly.
**Rules:**
- 5–15 metrics maximum. More than 15 and nothing gets attention.
- Each metric has an owner and a weekly target (not a range — a number).
- Red/yellow/green status. Not paragraphs.
- The scorecard is discussed at the leadership team weekly meeting. Only red metrics get discussion time.
**Example scorecard structure:**
| Metric | Owner | Target | This Week | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|-----------|--------|
| New MRR | CRO | €50K | €43K | 🔴 |
| Churn | CS Lead | < 1% | 0.8% | 🟢 |
| Active users | CPO | 2,000 | 2,150 | 🟢 |
| Deployments | CTO | 3/week | 3 | 🟢 |
| Open critical bugs | CTO | 0 | 2 | 🔴 |
| Runway | CFO | > 18mo | 16mo | 🟡 |
**Anti-pattern:** Measuring everything. If you track 40 KPIs, you're watching, not managing.
### 3. Meeting Pulse
The meeting rhythm that drives the company. Not optional — the pulse is what keeps the company alive.
**The full rhythm:**
| Meeting | Frequency | Duration | Who | Purpose |
|---------|-----------|----------|-----|---------|
| Daily standup | Daily | 15 min | Each team | Blockers only |
| L10 / Leadership sync | Weekly | 90 min | Leadership team | Scorecard + issues |
| Department review | Monthly | 60 min | Dept + leadership | OKR progress |
| Quarterly planning | Quarterly | 1–2 days | Leadership | Set rocks, review strategy |
| Annual planning | Annual | 2–3 days | Leadership | 1-year + 3-year vision |
**The L10 meeting (Weekly Leadership Sync):**
Named for the goal of each meeting being a 10/10. Fixed agenda:
1. Good news (5 min) — personal + business
2. Scorecard review (5 min) — flag red items only
3. Rock review (5 min) — on/off track for each rock
4. Customer/employee headlines (5 min)
5. Issues list (60 min) — IDS (see below)
6. To-dos review (5 min) — last week's commitments
7. Conclude (5 min) — rate the meeting 1–10, what would make it a 10 next time
### 4. Issue Resolution (IDS)
The core problem-solving loop. Maximum 15 minutes per issue.
**IDS: Identify, Discuss, Solve**
- **Identify:** What is the actual issue? (Not the symptom — the root cause) State it in one sentence.
- **Discuss:** Relevant facts + perspectives. Time-boxed. When discussion starts repeating, stop.
- **Solve:** One owner. One action. One due date. Written on the to-do list.
**Anti-patterns:**
- "Let's take this offline" — most things taken offline never get resolved
- Discussing without deciding — a great discussion with no action item is wasted time
- Revisiting decided issues — once solved, it leaves the list. Reopen only with new information.
**The Issues List:** A running, prioritized list of all unresolved issues. Owned by the leadership team. Reviewed and pruned weekly. If an issue has been on the list for 3+ meetings and hasn't been discussed, it's either not a real issue or it's too scary to address — both deserve attention.
### 5. Rocks (90-Day Priorities)
Rocks are the 3–7 most important things each person must accomplish in the next 90 days. They're not the job description — they're the things that move the company forward.
**Why 90 days?** Long enough for meaningful progress. Short enough to stay real.
**Rock rules:**
- Each person: 3–7 rocks maximum. More than 7 and none get done.
- Company-level rocks (shared priorities): 3–7 for the leadership team
- Each rock is binary: done or not done. No "60% complete."
- Set at the quarterly planning session. Reviewed weekly (on/off track).
**Bad rock:** "Improve our sales process"
**Good rock:** "Implement Salesforce CRM with full pipeline stages and weekly reporting by March 31"
**Rock vs. to-do:** A to-do takes one action. A rock takes 90 days of consistent work.
### 6. Communication Cadence
Who gets what information, when, and how.
| Audience | What | When | Format |
|----------|------|------|--------|
| All employees | Company update | Monthly | Written + Q&A |
| All employees | Quarterly results + next priorities | Quarterly | All-hands |
| Leadership team | Scorecard | Weekly | Dashboard |
| Board | Company performance | Monthly | Board memo |
| Investors | Key metrics + narrative | Monthly or quarterly | Investor update |
| Customers | Product updates | Per release | Release notes |
**Default rule:** If you're deciding whether to share something internally, share it. The cost of under-communication always exceeds the cost of over-communication inside a company.
---
## Operating System Selection
See `references/os-comparison.md` for full comparison. Quick guide:
| If you are... | Consider... |
|---------------|-------------|
| 10–250 person company, founder-led, operational chaos | EOS / Traction |
| Ambitious growth company, need rigorous strategy cascade | Scaling Up |
| Tech company, engineering culture, hypothesis-driven | OKR-native |
| Decentralized, flat, high autonomy | Holacracy (only if you're patient) |
| None of the above quite fit | Custom hybrid |
---
## Implementation Roadmap
Don't implement everything at once. See `references/implementation-guide.md` for the full 90-day plan.
**Quick start (first 30 days):**
1. Build the accountability chart (1 workshop, 2 hours)
2. Define 5–10 weekly scorecard metrics (leadership team alignment, 1 hour)
3. Start the weekly L10 meeting (no prep — just start)
These three alone will improve coordination more than most companies achieve in a year.
---
## Common Failure Modes
**Partial implementation:** "We do OKRs but skip the weekly check-in." Half an operating system is worse than none — it creates theater without accountability.
**Meeting fatigue:** Adding the full rhythm on top of existing meetings. Start by replacing meetings, not adding them.
**Metric overload:** Starting with 30 KPIs because "they all matter." Start with 5. Add when the cadence is established.
**Rock inflation:** Setting 12 rocks per person because "everything is a priority." When everything is a priority, nothing is. Hard limit: 7.
**Leader non-compliance:** Leadership team skips the L10 or doesn't follow IDS. The operating system mirrors the respect leadership gives it. If leaders don't take it seriously, nobody will.
**Annual planning without quarterly review:** Setting annual goals and checking in at year-end. Quarterly is the minimum review cycle for any meaningful goal.
---
## Integration with C-Suite
The company OS is the connective tissue. Every other role depends on it:
| C-Suite Role | OS Dependency |
|-------------|---------------|
| CEO | Sets vision that feeds into 1-year plan and rocks |
| COO | Owns the meeting pulse and issue resolution cadence |
| CFO | Owns the financial metrics in the scorecard |
| CTO | Owns engineering rocks and tech scorecard metrics |
| CHRO | Owns people metrics (attrition, hiring velocity) in scorecard |
| Culture Architect | Culture rituals plug into the meeting pulse |
| Strategic Alignment Engine | Validates that team rocks cascade from company rocks |
---
## Key Questions for the Operating System
- "If I asked five different team leads what the company's top 3 priorities are this quarter, would they give the same answers?"
- "What was the most important issue raised in last week's leadership meeting? Was it resolved or is it still open?"
- "Name a metric that would tell us by Friday whether this week was a good week. Do we track it?"
- "Who owns customer churn? Can you name that person without hesitation?"
- "When was the last time we updated the accountability chart?"
## Detailed References
- `references/os-comparison.md` — EOS vs Scaling Up vs OKRs vs Holacracy vs hybrid
- `references/implementation-guide.md` — 90-day implementation plan
More from alirezarezvani/claude-skills
- a11y-auditAccessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.
- ab-test-setupWhen the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
- ad-creativeWhen the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.
- adversarial-reviewerAdversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
- aeoAnswer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.
- agent-designerUse when the user asks to design a multi-agent system, pick an orchestration pattern (supervisor/swarm/pipeline), generate tool schemas for agents, or evaluate agent execution logs for cost, latency, and failure bottlenecks. Examples: 'design an agent architecture for research automation', 'generate Anthropic tool schemas from these tool descriptions', 'analyze these agent run logs for bottlenecks'. NOT for Claude Code workflow files (use workflow-builder) or single-agent prompt design (use agent-workflow-designer).
- agent-protocolInter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
- agent-workflow-designerDesign production-grade multi-agent workflows with clear pattern choice (sequential, parallel, hierarchical), handoff contracts, failure handling, and cost/context controls. Use when architecting a multi-step agent pipeline, choosing between single-agent vs multi-agent approaches, or refactoring an LLM workflow that suffers from context bloat or unreliable handoffs.
- agenthubMulti-agent collaboration plugin that spawns N parallel subagents competing on the same task via git worktree isolation. Agents work independently, results are evaluated by metric or LLM judge, and the best branch is merged. Use when: user wants multiple approaches tried in parallel — code optimization, content variation, research exploration, or any task that benefits from parallel competition. Requires: a git repo.
- agile-product-ownerAgile product ownership for backlog management and sprint execution. Covers user story writing, acceptance criteria, sprint planning, and velocity tracking. Use when writing user stories, creating acceptance criteria, planning sprints, estimating story points, breaking down epics, or prioritizing the backlog.