okr-design
OKR trees, KPI dashboards, North Star Metric, leading/lagging indicators, and experiment design. Use when setting team goals, defining success metrics, building measurement frameworks, or designing A/B experiment guardrails.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yonatangross/orchestkit /tmp/okr-design && cp -r /tmp/okr-design/plugins/ork/skills/okr-design ~/.claude/skills/okr-designSKILL.md
# OKR Design & Metrics Framework
Structure goals, decompose metrics into KPI trees, identify leading indicators, and design rigorous experiments.
## OKR Structure
Objectives are qualitative and inspiring. Key Results are quantitative and outcome-focused — never a list of outputs.
```
Objective: Qualitative, inspiring goal (70% achievable stretch)
+-- Key Result 1: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
+-- Key Result 2: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
+-- Key Result 3: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
```
```markdown
## Q1 OKRs
### Objective: Become the go-to platform for enterprise teams
Key Results:
- KR1: Increase enterprise NPS from 32 to 50
- KR2: Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- KR3: Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days of onboarding
- KR4: Win 5 competitive displacements from [Competitor]
```
### OKR Quality Checks
| Check | Objective | Key Result |
|-------|-----------|------------|
| Has a number | NO | YES |
| Inspiring / energizing | YES | not required |
| Outcome-focused (not "ship X features") | YES | YES |
| 70% achievable (stretch, not sandbagged) | YES | YES |
| Aligned to higher-level goal | YES | YES |
See [references/okr-workshop-guide.md](references/okr-workshop-guide.md) for a full facilitation agenda (3-4 hours, dot voting, finalization template).
See [rules/metrics-okr.md](rules/metrics-okr.md) for pitfalls and alignment cascade patterns.
---
## KPI Tree & North Star
Decompose the top-level metric into components with clear cause-effect relationships.
```
Revenue (Lagging — root)
├── New Revenue = Leads × Conv Rate (Leading)
├── Expansion = Users × Upsell Rate (Leading)
└── Retained = Existing × (1 - Churn) (Lagging)
```
### North Star + Input Metrics Template
```markdown
## Metrics Framework
North Star: [One metric that captures core value — e.g., Weekly Active Teams]
Input Metrics (leading, actionable by teams):
1. New signups — acquisition
2. Onboarding completion rate — activation
3. Features used per user/week — engagement
4. Invite rate — virality
5. Upgrade rate — monetization
Lagging Validation (confirm inputs translate to value):
- Revenue growth
- Net retention rate
- Customer lifetime value
```
### North Star Selection by Business Type
| Business | North Star Example | Why |
|----------|--------------------|-----|
| SaaS | Weekly Active Users | Indicates ongoing value delivery |
| Marketplace | Gross Merchandise Value | Captures both buyer and seller sides |
| Media | Time spent | Engagement signals content value |
| E-commerce | Purchase frequency | Repeat = satisfaction |
See [rules/metrics-kpi-trees.md](rules/metrics-kpi-trees.md) for the full revenue and product health KPI tree examples.
---
## Leading vs Lagging Indicators
Every lagging metric you want to improve needs 2-3 leading predictors.
```markdown
## Metric Pairs
Lagging: Customer Churn Rate
Leading:
1. Product usage frequency (weekly)
2. Support ticket severity (daily)
3. NPS score trend (monthly)
Lagging: Revenue Growth
Leading:
1. Pipeline value (weekly)
2. Demo-to-trial conversion (weekly)
3. Feature adoption rate (weekly)
```
| Indicator | Review Cadence | Action Timeline |
|-----------|----------------|-----------------|
| Leading | Daily / Weekly | Immediate course correction |
| Lagging | Monthly / Quarterly | Strategic adjustments |
See [rules/metrics-leading-lagging.md](rules/metrics-leading-lagging.md) for a balanced dashboard template.
---
## Metric Instrumentation
Every metric needs a formal definition before instrumentation.
```markdown
## Metric: Feature Adoption Rate
Definition: % of active users who used [feature] at least once in their first 30 days.
Formula: (Users who triggered feature_activated in first 30 days) / (Users who signed up)
Data Source: Analytics — feature_activated event
Segments: By plan tier, by signup cohort
Calculation: Daily
Review: Weekly
Events:
user_signed_up { user_id, plan_tier, signup_source }
feature_activated { user_id, feature_name, activation_method }
```
Event naming: `object_action` in snake_case — `user_signed_up`, `feature_activated`, `subscription_upgraded`.
See [rules/metrics-instrumentation.md](rules/metrics-instrumentation.md) for the full metric definition template, alerting thresholds, and dashboard design principles.
---
## Experiment Design
Every experiment must define guardrail metrics before launch. Guardrails prevent shipping a "win" that causes hidden damage.
```markdown
## Experiment: [Name]
### Hypothesis
If we [change], then [primary metric] will [direction] by [amount]
because [reasoning based on evidence].
### Metrics
- Primary: [The metric you are trying to move]
- Secondary: [Supporting context metrics]
- Guardrails: [Metrics that MUST NOT degrade — define thresholds]
### Design
- Type: A/B test | multivariate | feature flag rollout
- Sample size: [N per variant — calculated for statistical power]
- Duration: [Minimum weeks to reach significance]
### Rollout Plan
1. 10% — 1 week canary, monitor guardrails daily
2. 50% — 2 weeks, confirm statistical significance
3. 100% — full rollout with continued monitoring
### Kill Criteria
Any guardrail degrades > [threshold]% relative to baseline.
```
### Pre-Launch Checklist
- [ ] Hypothesis documented with expected effect size
- [ ] Primary, secondary, and guardrail metrics defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated for minimum detectable effect
- [ ] Dashboard or alerts configured for guardrail metrics
- [ ] Staged rollout plan with kill criteria at each stage
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented
See [rules/metrics-experiment-design.md](rules/metrics-experiment-design.md) for guardrail thresholds, performance and business guardrail tables, and alert SLAs.
---
## Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---------|------------|
| KRs are outputs ("ship 5 features") | Rewrite as outcomes ("increase conversion by 20%") |
| Tracking only lagging inAccessibility patterns for WCAG 2.2 compliance, keyboard focus management, React Aria component patterns, cognitive inclusion, native HTML-first philosophy, and user preference honoring. Use when implementing screen reader support, keyboard navigation, ARIA patterns, focus traps, accessible component libraries, reduced motion, or cognitive accessibility.
Agent orchestration patterns for agentic loops, multi-agent coordination, alternative frameworks, and multi-scenario workflows. Use when building autonomous agent loops, coordinating multiple agents, evaluating CrewAI/AutoGen/Swarm, or orchestrating complex multi-step scenarios.
AI-assisted UI generation patterns for json-render, v0.app, Google Stitch, Bolt Cloud, and Cursor workflows. Covers prompt engineering for component and full-stack app generation, review checklists for AI-generated code, design token injection, refactoring for design system conformance, and CI gates for quality assurance. Use when generating UI components with AI tools, rendering multi-surface MCP visual output, reviewing AI-generated code, or integrating AI output into design systems.
Queries local analytics across OrchestKit projects for agent usage, skill frequency, hook timing, team activity, session replay, cost estimation, and model delegation trends. Privacy-safe with hashed project IDs. Supports time-range filtering and comparative analysis. Use when reviewing performance, estimating costs, or understanding usage patterns.
Animation and motion design patterns using Motion library (formerly Framer Motion) and View Transitions API. Use when implementing component animations, page transitions, micro-interactions, gesture-driven UIs, or ensuring motion accessibility with prefers-reduced-motion.
API design patterns for REST/GraphQL framework design, versioning strategies, and RFC 9457 error handling. Use when designing API endpoints, choosing versioning schemes, implementing Problem Details errors, or building OpenAPI specifications.
Use this skill when documenting significant architectural decisions. Provides ADR templates following the Nygard format with sections for context, decision, consequences, and alternatives. Use when writing ADRs, recording decisions, or evaluating options.
Architecture validation and patterns for clean architecture, backend structure enforcement, project structure validation, test standards, and context-aware sizing. Use when designing system boundaries, enforcing layered architecture, validating project structure, defining test standards, or choosing the right architecture tier for project scope.