feature-investment-advisor by deanpeters/product-manager-skills
npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill feature-investment-advisor指导产品经理通过财务影响分析来评估是否要构建某个功能。通过评估收入关联(直接或间接)、成本结构(开发 + 销售成本 + 运营支出)、投资回报率计算和战略价值,做出数据驱动的优先级决策——然后提供可操作的建议(构建/不构建)并附上支持性的计算。
这不是一个通用的优先级排序框架——它是一个用于功能决策的财务视角,是对其他优先级排序方法(如 RICE、价值与工作量、用户研究)的补充。当财务影响是关键决策因素时使用。
一种系统性的财务评估功能的方法:
在以下情况使用:
在以下情况不要使用:
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
使用 workshop-facilitation 作为此技能的默认交互协议。
它定义了:
其他(请说明))此文件定义了特定领域的评估内容。如果存在冲突,请遵循此文件的领域逻辑。
此交互式技能会提出最多 4 个自适应问题,并在决策点提供3-5 个枚举选项。
代理询问:
"我们来评估这个功能投资的财务影响。请提供:
功能描述:
当前业务背景:
约束条件:
如果没有确切数字,可以提供估算。"
代理询问:
"此功能如何影响收入?选择最能描述收入关联的选项:
选择一个数字,或描述自定义的收入关联。"
根据选择,代理进行调整:
如果选择 1(直接货币化):
潜在月度收入 = 客户基数 × 采用率 × 价格如果选择 2(留存改善):
客户终身价值影响 = 客户生命周期增加 × 客户基数 × 每用户平均收入 × 利润率如果选择 3(转化改善):
额外月度经常性收入 = 试用用户数 × 转化提升 × 每用户平均收入如果选择 4(扩张赋能):
扩张月度经常性收入 = 客户基数 × 扩张率 × 每用户平均收入增加额如果选择 5(无直接收入影响):
代理询问:
"此功能的成本结构是什么?
开发成本(一次性):
持续成本(如果有):
如果没有持续成本,请输入 $0。"
代理计算:
(收入 - 销售成本) / 收入代理标记:
代理询问:
"有哪些约束或时机考虑因素?
选择一个数字,或描述你的约束。"
根据选择:
如果选择 1(竞争威胁):
如果选择 2(有限容量):
如果选择 3(依赖关系):
如果选择 4(无约束):
代理综合:
代理提供 3-4 条建议:
适用情况:
建议:
"立即构建 — 强有力的财务案例
收入影响:
成本:
投资回报率:
为什么这有道理: [基于数字的具体推理]
后续步骤:
适用情况:
建议:
"出于战略原因构建(财务案例微薄)
财务现实:
战略价值:
建议: 构建,但密切监控:
风险: 机会成本——其他功能可能具有更好的投资回报率"
适用情况:
建议:
"不构建 — 财务案例不支持投资
原因:
替代方法:
需要改变什么:
适用情况:
建议:
"稍后构建 — 首先验证假设
当前的不确定性:
需要验证的内容:
决策标准:
时间线:
代理提供:
"你想:
或者,提出任何后续问题。"
代理可以:
查看 examples/ 文件夹中的示例对话流程。以下为迷你示例:
用户: "我们正在考虑构建时间跟踪作为付费附加组件。"
代理: [收集上下文]
用户提供:
代理计算:
代理建议:
"立即构建 — 投资回报率为正且回收期快
收入影响: $240K/年(保守估计 20% 采用率) 投资回报率: 第一年 1.92:1,第二年 3.8:1 回收期: 5 个月
为什么可行:
后续步骤:
用户: "我们正在流失客户,因为他们无法轻松导出数据。我们应该构建一个全面的导出功能吗?"
代理: [收集上下文]
用户提供:
代理计算:
如果功能将此减少 50%:
代理计算投资回报率:
代理建议:
"立即构建 — 留存方面的投资回报率极高
影响:
为什么这是显而易见的选择:
后续步骤:
用户: "用户要求深色模式。我们应该优先考虑它吗?"
代理: [收集上下文]
用户提供:
代理询问: "你有什么证据表明深色模式会减少流失?"
用户: "50 名用户的功能请求。没有关于流失影响的数据。"
代理计算:
投资回报率:$360K / $80K = 4.5:1 (看起来还行,但基于薄弱的假设)
代理建议:
"稍后构建 — 投资回报率的证据薄弱
当前情况:
问题:
替代方法:
更好的功能考虑:
构建的决策标准:
症状: "这个功能将产生 100 万美元的收入!"(忽略了 80 万美元的销售成本)
后果: 100 万美元收入,利润率 20%,价值 20 万美元利润,而不是 100 万美元。在考虑成本之前,功能看起来很棒。
解决方法: 始终计算边际贡献。使用 收入 × 利润率百分比,而不仅仅是收入。
症状: "投资回报率是 5:1,我们构建吧!"(但回收期是 36 个月,而客户生命周期是 24 个月)
后果: 你永远无法收回投资,因为客户在回收期之前就离开了。
解决方法: 检查回收期。必须短于平均客户生命周期。
症状: "100% 的客户都会使用这个付费附加组件!"
后果: 实际采用率是 10-20%。收入预测高出 5-10 倍。
解决方法: 使用保守的采用率估算(附加组件为 10-20%)。通过支付意愿研究进行验证。
症状: "我们认为这会减少流失"(没有客户访谈)
后果: 你构建了一个不能解决真正流失原因的功能。流失率保持不变。
解决方法: 首先访谈流失客户。验证此功能是否解决了前 3 大流失原因。
症状: "这个功能有 2:1 的投资回报率,我们构建吧!"(其他功能有 10:1 的投资回报率)
后果: 你构建了一个平庸的功能,而更好的选择却躺在待办事项列表中。
解决方法: 比较不同功能的投资回报率。首先构建投资回报率最高的功能(除非战略价值优先)。
症状: "投资回报率很差,但这是战略性的!"(没有明确的战略)
后果: "战略性"变成了构建低价值功能的万能借口。
解决方法: 定义"战略性"的含义(竞争护城河、平台赋能、合规性)。如果不匹配,就不是战略性的。
症状: "这个功能增加了 50 万美元收入!"(但销售成本是 40 万美元)
后果: 你的毛利率从 80% 下降到 60%。功能破坏了单位经济效益。
解决方法: 计算边际贡献。如果利润率 < 50%,重新考虑或收取溢价。
症状: "这个功能将提高参与度!"(但不影响收入或留存)
后果: 你构建了感觉良好但不影响业务成果的功能。
解决方法: 将功能与收入或留存挂钩。参与度是领先指标,不是结果。
症状: "这个功能在 5 年内收回成本"
后果: 5 年后的 1 美元在今天只值约 0.65 美元(按 9% 的贴现率计算)。投资回报率被高估了。
解决方法: 对于长回收期(> 24 个月),使用净现值来贴现未来现金流。
症状: "50 名客户请求了这个功能!"(总共 10,000 名客户)
后果: 你为 0.5% 的客户群进行了优化,而忽略了其他 99.5%。
解决方法: 根据收入影响或客户细分对功能请求进行加权。如果你的战略是企业客户,那么 10 个企业客户 > 100 个中小企业客户。
saas-revenue-growth-metrics — 用于影响计算的收入、每用户平均收入、流失率、净收入留存率指标saas-economics-efficiency-metrics — 投资回报率、回收期、边际贡献计算finance-metrics-quickref — 公式和基准的快速查找acquisition-channel-advisor — 渠道决策的类似投资回报率框架finance-based-pricing-advisor — 货币化功能的定价影响分析research/finance/Finance_For_PMs.Putting_It_Together_Synthesis.md(决策框架 #1)research/finance/Finance for Product Managers.md每周安装次数
220
代码库
GitHub 星标数
1.5K
首次出现
2026年2月12日
安全审计
安装于
codex196
opencode193
gemini-cli190
github-copilot189
cursor187
kimi-cli186
Guide product managers through evaluating whether to build a feature based on financial impact analysis. Use this to make data-driven prioritization decisions by assessing revenue connection (direct or indirect), cost structure (dev + COGS + OpEx), ROI calculation, and strategic value—then deliver actionable build/don't build recommendations with supporting math.
This is not a generic prioritization framework—it's a financial lens for feature decisions that complements other prioritization methods (RICE, value vs. effort, user research). Use when financial impact is a key decision factor.
A systematic approach to evaluate features financially:
Revenue Connection — How does this feature impact revenue?
Cost Structure — What does it cost to build and run?
ROI Calculation — Is the return worth the investment?
Strategic Value — Non-financial value that might override pure ROI
Use this when:
Don't use this when:
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
Other (specify) when useful)This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
This interactive skill asks up to 4 adaptive questions , offering 3-5 enumerated options at decision points.
Agent asks:
"Let's evaluate the financial impact of this feature investment. Please provide:
Feature description:
Current business context:
Constraints:
You can provide estimates if you don't have exact numbers."
Agent asks:
"How does this feature impact revenue? Choose the option that best describes the revenue connection:
Choose a number, or describe a custom revenue connection."
Based on selection, agent adapts:
If 1 (Direct monetization):
Potential Monthly Revenue = Customer Base × Adoption Rate × PriceIf 2 (Retention improvement):
LTV Impact = Increase in Customer Lifetime × Customer Base × ARPU × MarginIf 3 (Conversion improvement):
Additional MRR = Trial Users × Conversion Lift × ARPUIf 4 (Expansion enabler):
Expansion MRR = Customer Base × Expansion Rate × ARPU IncreaseIf 5 (No direct revenue impact):
Agent asks:
"What's the cost structure for this feature?
Development cost (one-time):
Ongoing costs (if any):
If no ongoing costs, enter $0."
Agent calculates:
(Revenue - COGS) / RevenueAgent flags:
Agent asks:
"What constraints or timing considerations apply?
Choose a number, or describe your constraints."
Based on selection:
If 1 (Competitive threat):
If 2 (Limited capacity):
If 3 (Dependencies):
If 4 (No constraints):
Agent synthesizes:
Agent offers 3-4 recommendations:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build now — Strong financial case
Revenue Impact:
Cost:
ROI:
Why this makes sense: [Specific reasoning based on numbers]
Next steps:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build for strategic reasons (financial case is marginal)
Financial Reality:
Strategic Value:
Recommendation: Build, but monitor closely:
Risk: Opportunity cost—other features may have better ROI"
When:
Recommendation:
"Don't build — Financial case doesn't support investment
Why:
Alternative approaches:
What would need to change:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build later — Validate assumptions first
Current uncertainty:
What to validate:
Decision criteria:
Timeline:
Agent offers:
"Do you want to:
Or, ask any follow-up questions."
Agent can:
See examples/ folder for sample conversation flows. Mini examples below:
User: "We're considering building time tracking as a paid add-on."
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
Agent recommends:
"Build now — Positive ROI with fast payback
Revenue Impact: $240K/year (conservative 20% adoption) ROI: 1.92:1 in year 1, 3.8:1 in year 2 Payback: 5 months
Why this works:
Next steps:
User: "We're losing customers because they can't export their data easily. Should we build a comprehensive export feature?"
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
If feature reduces this by 50%:
Agent calculates ROI:
Agent recommends:
"Build immediately — Exceptional ROI on retention
Impact:
Why this is a no-brainer:
Next steps:
User: "Users are requesting dark mode. Should we prioritize it?"
Agent: [Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent asks: "What evidence do you have that dark mode will reduce churn?"
User: "Feature requests from 50 users. No data on churn impact."
Agent calculates:
ROI: $360K / $80K = 4.5:1 (looks okay, but based on weak assumptions)
Agent recommends:
"Build later — Weak evidence for ROI
Current case:
Problem:
Alternative approach:
Better features to consider:
Decision criteria to build:
Symptom: "This feature will generate $1M in revenue!" (ignoring $800K COGS)
Consequence: $1M revenue at 20% margin is worth $200K profit, not $1M. Feature looks great until you factor in costs.
Fix: Always calculate contribution margin. Use Revenue × Margin %, not just revenue.
Symptom: "ROI is 5:1, let's build!" (but payback is 36 months and customers churn at 24 months)
Consequence: You never recover the investment because customers leave before payback.
Fix: Check payback period. Must be shorter than average customer lifetime.
Symptom: "100% of customers will use this paid add-on!"
Consequence: Real adoption is 10-20%. Revenue projections are 5-10x too high.
Fix: Use conservative adoption estimates (10-20% for add-ons). Validate with willingness-to-pay research.
Symptom: "We think this will reduce churn" (no customer interviews)
Consequence: You build a feature that doesn't address real churn reasons. Churn stays flat.
Fix: Interview churned customers first. Validate that this feature addresses top 3 churn reasons.
Symptom: "This feature has 2:1 ROI, let's build!" (other features have 10:1 ROI)
Consequence: You build a mediocre feature while better options sit in the backlog.
Fix: Compare ROI across features. Build highest-ROI features first (unless strategic value overrides).
Symptom: "ROI is terrible but it's strategic!" (no clear strategy)
Consequence: "Strategic" becomes a catch-all for building low-value features.
Fix: Define what "strategic" means (competitive moat, platform enabler, compliance). If it doesn't fit, it's not strategic.
Symptom: "This feature adds $500K revenue!" (but COGS is $400K)
Consequence: Your gross margin drops from 80% to 60%. Feature destroys unit economics.
Fix: Calculate contribution margin. If margin is <50%, reconsider or charge a premium.
Symptom: "This feature will increase engagement!" (but not revenue or retention)
Consequence: You build features that feel good but don't impact business outcomes.
Fix: Tie features to revenue or retention. Engagement is a leading indicator, not an outcome.
Symptom: "This feature pays back in 5 years"
Consequence: $1 in 5 years is worth ~$0.65 today (at 9% discount rate). ROI is overstated.
Fix: For long payback periods (>24 months), use NPV (net present value) to discount future cash flows.
Symptom: "50 customers requested this!" (out of 10,000)
Consequence: You optimize for 0.5% of your base while ignoring the other 99.5%.
Fix: Weight feature requests by revenue impact or customer segment. 10 enterprise customers > 100 SMB customers if enterprise is your strategy.
saas-revenue-growth-metrics — Revenue, ARPU, churn, NRR metrics used in impact calculationssaas-economics-efficiency-metrics — ROI, payback, contribution margin calculationsfinance-metrics-quickref — Quick lookup for formulas and benchmarksacquisition-channel-advisor — Similar ROI framework for channel decisionsfinance-based-pricing-advisor — Pricing impact analysis for monetization featuresresearch/finance/Finance_For_PMs.Putting_It_Together_Synthesis.md (Decision Framework #1)research/finance/Finance for Product Managers.mdWeekly Installs
220
Repository
GitHub Stars
1.5K
First Seen
Feb 12, 2026
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
codex196
opencode193
gemini-cli190
github-copilot189
cursor187
kimi-cli186
飞书日程待办摘要工作流:AI自动生成每日/每周开工报告,提升个人生产力
3,100 周安装