metrics-tree

$npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/metrics-tree

Decomposes North Star metrics into actionable drivers and experiments.

  • Maps causal relationships between high-level goals and sub-metrics.
  • Distinguishes leading indicators from lagging performance data.
  • Prioritizes experiments based on impact on key outcomes.
  • Delivers a structured six-step workflow for metric validation.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/metrics-treeView on GitHub ↗
---
name: metrics-tree
description: Decomposes high-level North Star metrics into actionable sub-metrics and leading indicators, maps causal relationships between metric levels, and identifies high-impact experiments to move key metrics. Use when setting product North Star metrics, decomposing business metrics into drivers, mapping strategy to measurable outcomes, identifying which metrics to move through experimentation, understanding leading vs lagging indicators, prioritizing metric improvement opportunities, or when user mentions metric tree, metric decomposition, North Star metric, KPI breakdown, metric drivers, or how metrics connect.
---

# Metrics Tree

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Metrics Tree Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define North Star metric
- [ ] Step 2: Identify input metrics (L2)
- [ ] Step 3: Map action metrics (L3)
- [ ] Step 4: Select leading indicators
- [ ] Step 5: Prioritize and experiment
- [ ] Step 6: Validate and refine
```

**Step 1: Define North Star metric**

Ask user for context if not provided:
- **Product/business**: What are we measuring?
- **Current metrics**: Any existing key metrics?
- **Goals**: What does success look like?

Choose North Star using criteria:
- Captures value delivered to customers
- Reflects business model (how you make money)
- Measurable and trackable
- Actionable (teams can influence it)
- Not a vanity metric

See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for North Star examples by type.

**Step 2: Identify input metrics (L2)**

Decompose North Star into 3-5 direct drivers:
- What directly causes North Star to increase?
- Use addition or multiplication decomposition
- Ensure components are mutually exclusive where possible
- Each input should be controllable by a team

See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for decomposition frameworks.

**Step 3: Map action metrics (L3)**

For each input metric, identify specific user behaviors:
- What actions drive this input?
- Focus on measurable, observable behaviors
- Limit to 3-5 actions per input
- Actions should be within user control

If complex, see [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for multi-level hierarchies.

**Step 4: Select leading indicators**

Identify early signals that predict North Star movement:
- Which metrics change before North Star changes?
- Look for early-funnel behaviors (onboarding, activation)
- Find patterns in high-retention cohorts
- Test correlation with future North Star values

**Step 5: Prioritize and experiment**

Rank opportunities by:
- **Impact**: How much will moving this metric affect North Star?
- **Confidence**: How certain are we about the relationship?
- **Ease**: How hard is it to move this metric?

Select 1-3 experiments to test highest-priority hypotheses.

See [resources/evaluators/rubric_metrics_tree.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_metrics_tree.json) for quality criteria.

**Step 6: Validate and refine**

Verify metric relationships:
- Check correlation strength between metrics
- Validate causal direction (does A cause B or vice versa?)
- Test leading indicator timing (how early does it predict?)
- Refine based on data and experiments

## Common Patterns

**North Star Metrics by Business Model:**

**Subscription/SaaS:**
- Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR)
- Weekly Active Users (WAU)
- Net Revenue Retention (NRR)
- Paid user growth

**Marketplace:**
- Gross Merchandise Value (GMV)
- Successful transactions
- Completed bookings
- Platform take rate × volume

**E-commerce:**
- Revenue per visitor
- Order frequency × AOV
- Customer lifetime value (LTV)

**Social/Content:**
- Time spent on platform
- Content created/consumed
- Engaged users (not just active)
- Network density

**Decomposition Patterns:**

**Additive Decomposition:**
```
North Star = Component A + Component B + Component C

Example: WAU = New Users + Retained Users + Resurrected Users
```
- Use when: Components are independent segments
- Benefit: Teams can own individual components

**Multiplicative Decomposition:**
```
North Star = Factor A × Factor B × Factor C

Example: Revenue = Users × Conversion Rate × Average Order Value
```
- Use when: Components multiply together
- Benefit: Shows leverage points clearly

**Funnel Decomposition:**
```
North Star = Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 → Final Conversion

Example: Paid Users = Signups × Activation × Trial Start × Trial Convert
```
- Use when: Sequential conversion process
- Benefit: Identifies bottlenecks

**Cohort Decomposition:**
```
North Star = Σ (Cohort Size × Retention Rate) across all cohorts

Example: MAU = Sum of retained users from each signup cohort
```
- Use when: Retention is key driver
- Benefit: Separates acquisition from retention

## Guardrails

**Avoid Vanity Metrics:**
- ❌ Total registered users (doesn't reflect value)
- ❌ Page views (doesn't indicate engagement)
- ❌ App downloads (doesn't mean active usage)
- ✓ Active users, engagement time, completed transactions

**Ensure Causal Clarity:**
- Don't confuse correlation with causation
- Test whether A causes B or B causes A
- Consider confounding variables
- Validate relationships with experiments

**Limit Tree Depth:**
- Keep to 3-4 levels max (North Star → L2 → L3 → L4)
- Too deep = analysis paralysis
- Too shallow = not actionable
- Focus on highest-leverage levels

**Balance Leading and Lagging:**
- Need both for complete picture
- Leading indicators for early action
- Lagging indicators for validation
- Don't optimize leading indicators that hurt lagging ones

**Avoid Gaming:**
- Consider unintended consequences
- What behaviors might teams game?
- Add guardrail metrics (quality, trust, safety)
- Balance growth with retention/satisfaction

## Quick Reference

**Resources:**
- `resources/template.md` - Metrics tree structure with decomposition frameworks
- `resources/methodology.md` - Advanced techniques for complex metric systems
- `resources/evaluators/rubric_metrics_tree.json` - Quality criteria for metric trees

**Output:**
- File: `metrics-tree.md` in current directory
- Contains: North Star definition, input metrics (L2), action metrics (L3), leading indicators, prioritized experiments, metric relationships diagram

**Success Criteria:**
- North Star clearly defined with rationale
- 3-5 input metrics that fully decompose North Star
- Action metrics are specific, measurable behaviors
- Leading indicators identified with timing estimates
- Top 1-3 experiments prioritized with ICE scores
- Validated against rubric (score ≥ 3.5)

**Quick Decision Framework:**
- **Simple product?** → Use [template.md](resources/template.md) with 2-3 levels
- **Complex multi-sided?** → Use [methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for separate trees per side
- **Unsure about North Star?** → Review common patterns above, test with "captures value + predicts revenue" criteria
- **Too many metrics?** → Limit to 3-5 per level, focus on highest impact

**Common Mistakes:**
1. **Choosing wrong North Star**: Pick vanity metric or one team can't influence
2. **Too many levels**: Analysis paralysis, lose actionability
3. **Weak causal links**: Metrics correlated but not causally related
4. **Ignoring tradeoffs**: Optimizing one metric hurts another
5. **No experiments**: Build tree but don't test hypotheses

More from lyndonkl/claude

SkillDescription
abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".