Allocate Resources

Allocate Resources

When to use

For CSO, portfolio managers, or strategy leads diagnosing whether capital, headcount, and management attention match stated strategic priority — not history, politics, or sunk cost.

What this skill does not do

• Does not infer priority from current spend — that's the failure mode being diagnosed.
• Does not invent budget or headcount — INPUT NEEDED when data missing.
• Does not approve reallocation — recommends specific from→to moves for portfolio forum.
• Does not run growth-vector assessment — cross-checks assess-growth-vectors if available.

Preconditions

Provisional mode

Defaults: generic portfolio units; three priority tiers; [PROVISIONAL] on all figures. User must provide dollars/headcount — never invented.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (option-evaluation): High = all options scored against same priority framework, sourced; Medium = criteria explicit, some data partial; Low = priority or spend unknown — structured first pass only.
• Strategic advice vs. support (mandatory): Reallocation table is recommendation input — [review] on each move; strategist and portfolio committee decide.
• Escalation: Missing priority → stop; inferring priority from spend → forbidden; board-final → GATE + reviewer note.

SOURCING / ASSUMPTIONS / NUMBERS / CONFIDENCE / GATE — per trust-conventions

Workflow

Step 1: Orient

Portfolio scope, allocation types, review forum, time horizon, evidence pack. Read profile definitions for units, tiers, stickiness.

Step 2: Evidence pack

Capital/budget, headcount, management attention, priority ranking — status and source per row. Management attention: [user estimate — not verified] if unsourced. Figures from ~~bi analytics, ~~spreadsheet, or ~~crm connectors must carry [sourced: <connector>, <asset>, <as-of>] on the load-bearing digit.

Step 3: Allocation vs priority comparison

Per unit: priority tier/rank alongside capital %, headcount %, attention. Tag [sourced] or INPUT NEEDED.

Step 4: Pattern detection

Ask why for legacy overfunding — history is diagnosis, not justification.

Step 5: Growth bets check

Cross-check assess-growth-vectors if run; else flag partial check.

Step 6: Reallocation recommendation

Specific from→to moves with rationale — not vague "rebalance toward growth."

Step 7: Portfolio committee gate

GATE before board/portfolio-committee finals.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
SCOPE: [units]
REVIEW FORUM: [working | portfolio committee | board]

LOAD-BEARING ASSUMPTIONS: [...]

ALLOCATION VIEW:
| Unit | Priority | Capital % | Headcount % | Attention | Flag |
...

UNDER-DIFFERENTIATION CHECK: [...]
GROWTH BETS CHECK: [...]

RECOMMENDED REALLOCATION:
| From | To | Type | Magnitude | Rationale |
...

STICKINESS NOTE: [...]
EVIDENCE GAPS: [...]

Worked example

Input: Unit A priority tier 3 (exit candidate), 28% capital share; Unit B tier 1 adjacent bet, 8% capital.

Excerpt: Unit A flagged legacy overfunding; Unit B under-resourced growth bet. Reallocation: A −10% capital → B +10% [review] — adjacent bet cannot scale at current funding.

Quality checks before delivering

• Profiles loaded or [PROVISIONAL]
• Priority not inferred from spend
• No invented figures
• Patterns named explicitly
• Reallocation specific from→to
• Growth bets checked where data exists

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/corporate-strategy/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /corporate-strategy:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Branches: supply missing data, portfolio committee memo, exit-or-double-down on legacy units, assess-growth-vectors, or set reallocation trigger date.