Same root cause as #587/#591 — Claude Code's runtime loader rejects array-form skills paths like ["./content-production", "./ai-seo", ...] even when each entry is a valid subdirectory containing SKILL.md. `claude plugin validate` accepts them but the loader does not. The proven canonical layout (used by self-improving-agent in #536): <plugin>/ ├── .claude-plugin/plugin.json skills: "./skills" └── skills/ ├── <skill-1>/SKILL.md ├── <skill-2>/SKILL.md └── ... Restructured 9 multi-skill domain plugins: - business-growth (4 skills moved) - c-level-advisor (28) - engineering (36) - engineering-team (32) - finance (2) - marketing-skill (43) - product-team (12) - project-management (8) - ra-qm-team (13) Also fixed standalone plugins that had root SKILL.md + ./skills/ subdir (agenthub, autoresearch-agent, executive-mentor, playwright-pro). The loader rejected them despite skills="./skills" because of the conflicting root SKILL.md (compare self-improving-agent which works because PR #536 moved its root SKILL.md). Moved each root SKILL.md into ./skills/<name>/. Restored standalone plugin folders to their original paths after the multi-skill restructure swept them into parent skills/ directories (marketplace.json source paths require original locations). Removed 7 orphaned marketplace entries that pointed to skill folders without their own plugin.json (content-creator, demand-gen, fullstack-engineer, aws-architect, product-manager, scrum-master, skill-security-auditor) — these were already non-functional. Bumped patch versions on every changed plugin and synced marketplace.json. Marketplace now lists 29 working plugins (down from 36). After merge: users run `/plugin marketplace update claude-code-skills` followed by `/plugin update --all` to pick up the working layout.
6.8 KiB
Board Deck Frameworks
The SaaS Board Pack (Christoph Janz / Point Nine Style)
Point Nine's board pack format became the de facto standard for early-stage SaaS. Core principle: the numbers tell the story; the narrative explains the numbers.
Required Metrics (non-negotiable for SaaS boards)
- ARR (not MRR — boards think annually)
- MoM / QoQ growth rate
- NRR (Net Revenue Retention) — the single most important SaaS metric
- Gross margin — typically 60-80% SaaS; <60% is a flag
- CAC payback period — months to recover customer acquisition cost
- Burn multiple = net burn / net new ARR; <2x is good, >3x is a problem
- Runway — months at current burn
Point Nine Benchmark Targets (Series A SaaS)
| Metric | Good | Great | Warning |
|---|---|---|---|
| MoM growth | 10-15% | >20% | <7% |
| NRR | >110% | >130% | <100% |
| Gross margin | >65% | >75% | <60% |
| CAC payback | <18 months | <12 months | >24 months |
| Burn multiple | <2x | <1.5x | >3x |
| Logo churn | <10%/yr | <5%/yr | >15%/yr |
SaaS ARR Waterfall (Christoph Janz Format)
Show this every quarter:
Starting ARR: $1,970,000
+ New ARR: +$480,000 (new logos)
+ Expansion ARR: +$120,000 (upsells/cross-sells)
- Churned ARR: -$90,000 (cancellations)
- Contraction ARR: -$35,000 (downgrades)
= Ending ARR: $2,445,000
NRR = (Ending - New) / Starting = ($1,965K) / ($1,970K) = 99.7% ← flag this
Sequoia Board Deck Structure
Sequoia's canonical deck (used for both fundraising and board updates):
- Company Purpose — one sentence, the existential "why"
- The Problem — pain, size, who has it
- The Solution — what you do, how it's different
- Why Now — market timing, tailwinds, enabling factors
- Market Size — TAM/SAM/SOM with methodology
- Business Model — how you make money
- Traction — proof it's working (growth, retention, logos)
- Team — why you're the ones to win this
- Financials — 3-year model, current metrics
- The Ask — amount, use of funds, milestones to next round
For ongoing board updates: Swap 1-5 (context) for "State of the Business" and "Last Quarter vs Plan." Boards know the company — skip the pitch.
Investor-Specific Tailoring
What Different Investor Types Care About
Early-stage VCs (Seed, A):
- Growth rate above all else
- NRR — "does the product retain?"
- Founder-market fit narrative
- Milestone achievement vs last board meeting
Growth-stage VCs (B, C):
- Capital efficiency (burn multiple, CAC payback)
- GTM repeatability — can you hire 10 AEs and have it work?
- Market leadership signals
- Path to profitability (even if years away)
Strategic investors:
- Synergies with their portfolio/business
- Technology differentiation
- Partnership potential
Angels:
- Team above all
- Personal conviction in the thesis
- Exit scenarios
Tailoring the Narrative
- If you're ahead of plan: "Here's why, and here's how we'll sustain it"
- If you're behind plan: "Here's why, here's what we've learned, here's the new plan"
- If the plan was wrong: "The assumption that was wrong, what we know now, updated thesis"
Never pretend the plan was right when it wasn't. Board members have memories and models.
How to Present Bad News
Boards have seen everything. What loses credibility isn't bad results — it's bad framing.
The Credibility Formula
- Lead with the headline — "We missed ARR target by 18%"
- Quantify the gap — absolute and percentage
- Diagnose the cause (one primary, max two secondary)
- Show your work — "We analyzed 12 churned/stalled deals and found..."
- Present the fix — specific, dated, owned by a name
- Update the forecast — bottom-up rebuild, not wishful thinking
- Flag the risk — "If X doesn't close, here's the contingency"
What "Showing Your Work" Looks Like
Bad: "Sales cycle was longer than expected." Good: "Sales cycle stretched from 45 to 72 days. Root cause: new legal review requirement at enterprise accounts, triggered by our SOC 2 Type II gap. Fix: SOC 2 audit underway (target: Dec 15), and we've pre-built contract language to accelerate review. Impact: estimated 3 stalled deals ($420K ARR) unblock in Q4."
Scenarios and How to Handle Each
| Scenario | Frame |
|---|---|
| Missed revenue target | Lead with it; diagnose cause; bottom-up revised forecast |
| Key customer churned | Announce it; explain why; show retention analysis of remaining accounts |
| Key exec left | Announce it; show succession/coverage plan; don't overpromise the replacement timeline |
| Burn accelerated | Show P&L detail; explain what drove it; adjust runway projection; plan to fix |
| Market headwinds | Acknowledge; show relative performance vs peers; pivot if needed |
| Fundraise delayed | Runway impact; bridge options; revised timeline |
Appendix Data That Boards Actually Use
Boards use the appendix for due diligence, not during the meeting. Include:
Financial:
- Full P&L (monthly for last 4 quarters)
- Cash flow statement
- 3-year model with assumptions
- Unit economics by cohort
Revenue:
- Customer list by ARR (anonymized or full, per board agreement)
- Pipeline detail by deal
- Cohort analysis (NRR by cohort vintage)
- Churn analysis: when, why, segment
Product:
- Feature adoption rates
- NPS score distribution and trend
- DAU/MAU by segment
Team:
- Org chart
- Full headcount list with fully loaded costs
- Open reqs with priority ranking
One rule: If the appendix is more than 20 slides, you have too much. Boards won't read it.
Quarterly vs Monthly Board Meetings
Quarterly (Series A+)
- Full board pack, all sections
- 2 hours: 30 min pre-read, 90 min discussion
- Voting items at end
- Sent 48 hours before (72 hours preferred)
- Add 1-2 "deep dive" topics beyond standard update
Monthly (Seed / High-Growth A)
- Metrics dashboard + financials + top risks only
- 45-60 minutes
- Informal tone, more conversational
- Sent 24 hours before
- Skip slides for items where nothing changed
When to Increase Frequency
- Approaching 6-month runway
- Major strategic pivot
- Fundraise in progress
- Significant underperformance vs plan
- M&A discussions
Meeting Logistics (Often Overlooked)
- Pre-read requirement: Board packs should be read before the meeting. If you're presenting slides, you're wasting time.
- Discussion format: "I'll be brief on X since you've read it. Want to spend time on Y?" — respect board members' time
- One note-taker: CEO's EA or COO; not the CEO (they need to be present)
- Follow-up within 24 hours: Action items, voting outcomes, next meeting date
- Board portal vs email: Use a board portal (Carta, Boardable, Notion) for version control and D&O protection