Agent skill

Cto Advisor

by majiayu000 in majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Cto Advisor

skills CLI
$ npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill cto-advisor -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install majiayu000/claude-skill-registry cto-advisor --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/business/cto-advisor .claude/skills/cto-advisor && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
cto-advisor
GitHub stars
666
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~3.3k tokens
SKILL.md length
613 words
Files
2
Skills in repo
1,273
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics

  • Tasks that involve Architecture decision records
  • SKILL.md covers Build vs Buy Decision Framework, Tech Debt Quantification &…, Team Scaling Strategies and Architecture Decision Records…, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
  • Tasks that involve Technical debt

What it does

Cto Advisor is an agent skill from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry. CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics

Its SKILL.md is about 3.3k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 1 other file (for example `metadata.json`).

It sits in Development, covering Architecture decision records, Technical debt and Budgeting and forecasting. The repository describes itself as: Searchable Claude Code skills catalog with source-linked guides and generated registry artifacts. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Architecture decision records
  • Tasks that involve Technical debt
  • Tasks that involve Budgeting and forecasting

Example prompts

  • “/cto-advisor”

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 2d14a69. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Cto Advisor loads about 3.3k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 48 tokens; SKILL.md has 613 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~48
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.3k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry at commit 2d14a69, republished under its MIT licence (© majiayu000). 613 words, ~3,340 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/cto-advisor/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
cto-advisor
description
CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics

CTO Advisor

Build vs Buy Decision Framework

Decision Matrix
markdown
## Build vs Buy Analysis: [Feature/System Name]

### Scoring (1-5 each)

| Factor | Build | Buy | Weight |
|--------|-------|-----|--------|
| Core competency alignment | [1-5] | [1-5] | 3x |
| Time to market | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Total cost (3 year) | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Customization needs | [1-5] | [1-5] | 2x |
| Maintenance burden | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Data control | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Integration complexity | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| Vendor risk | [1-5] | [1-5] | 1x |
| **Weighted Total** | [sum] | [sum] | |

### Decision: BUILD / BUY / HYBRID
Decision Rules
ConditionRecommendation
Core differentiatorBUILD (competitive advantage)
Commodity capabilityBUY (focus on core)
Strict compliance / data sovereigntyBUILD (control)
Team has no domain expertiseBUY (faster, less risk)
Vendor lock-in risk > 7/10BUILD or multi-vendor
Time to market < 3 monthsBUY (speed)
Budget constrained, long-termBUILD (lower TCO)
Build vs Buy Anti-Patterns
Anti-PatternNeden YanlisDogru Yol
"Not invented here"Wasted engineering timeEvaluate vendors objectively
"We'll build it in 2 weeks"Always takes 5x longerRealistic estimation with buffer
Buying everythingNo differentiationBuild core, buy commodity
Ignoring maintenance costBuild looks cheaper initiallyInclude 3-5 year maintenance TCO
No exit strategy from vendorLock-in trapEvaluate migration cost upfront

Tech Debt Quantification & Prioritization

Tech Debt Classification
TypeDescriptionImpactExample
Code debtPoor code qualityDeveloper velocityNo types, huge functions, no tests
Architecture debtWrong architectural decisionsScalabilityMonolith that should be microservice
Test debtInsufficient test coverageReliabilityNo integration tests, flaky tests
Dependency debtOutdated dependenciesSecurity3 major versions behind, CVEs
Documentation debtMissing/outdated docsOnboardingNo API docs, stale README
Infrastructure debtManual processes, legacy infraReliabilityNo CI/CD, manual deployments
Design debtUX inconsistenciesUser experience5 different button styles
Tech Debt Scorecard
markdown
## Tech Debt Assessment: [Project Name]

| Area | Score (1-10) | Trend | Priority |
|------|-------------|-------|----------|
| Code quality | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Test coverage | [X%] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Dependency freshness | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Build/deploy time | [X min] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Documentation | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |
| Security posture | [X] | [up/down/flat] | [H/M/L] |

### Cost of Delay
[If we don't address debt area X, what happens in 6 months?]

### Investment Request
| Initiative | Effort | Impact | ROI Period |
|-----------|--------|--------|------------|
| [debt 1] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] |
| [debt 2] | [weeks] | [description] | [months] |
Prioritization Formula
Priority Score = (Impact * Urgency * Spread) / Effort

Impact (1-5):    How much does it slow the team?
Urgency (1-5):   How quickly will it get worse?
Spread (1-5):    How many areas does it affect?
Effort (1-5):    How hard is it to fix? (inverse: 1=hard, 5=easy)
Tech Debt Budget Rule
RULE: 20% of sprint capacity reserved for tech debt reduction

Sprint capacity: 10 story points
├── 8 points: Feature work
└── 2 points: Tech debt reduction (ZORUNLU, negotiable degil)

Team Scaling Strategies

Hiring Framework
markdown
## Hiring Plan: [Quarter/Year]

### Current State
| Role | Headcount | Capacity | Gap |
|------|-----------|----------|-----|
| Backend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] |
| Frontend | [X] | [Y features/quarter] | [shortfall] |
| DevOps | [X] | [Y deploys/week] | [shortfall] |
| QA | [X] | [Y tests/sprint] | [shortfall] |

### Ratios
- Engineer : Manager = 6-8 : 1
- Senior : Mid : Junior = 2 : 3 : 1
- Backend : Frontend = project-dependent
- Engineer : QA = 4-6 : 1

### Onboarding Milestones
| Day | Milestone |
|-----|-----------|
| 1 | Dev environment running, first commit |
| 7 | First PR merged |
| 14 | First feature shipped to staging |
| 30 | Independent task completion |
| 60 | Contributing to architecture discussions |
| 90 | Fully productive, mentoring others |
Team Topology Patterns
PatternWhen to UseSize
Stream-alignedProduct features5-8 people
PlatformInternal tooling, infrastructure3-5 people
EnablingCoach other teams, remove blockers2-3 people
Complicated subsystemDeep expertise (ML, security)2-4 people

Architecture Decision Records (ADR)

ADR Template
markdown
# ADR-[number]: [decision title]

## Status
[Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX]

## Context
[What is the issue? What forces are at play?]
[Include constraints, requirements, team capabilities]

## Decision
[What is the change that we're proposing and/or doing?]

## Alternatives Considered
### Option A: [name]
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]

### Option B: [name]
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]

## Consequences
### Positive
- [benefit 1]
- [benefit 2]

### Negative
- [tradeoff 1]
- [tradeoff 2]

### Risks
- [risk 1]: [mitigation]
- [risk 2]: [mitigation]

## Decision Date
[YYYY-MM-DD]

## Decision Makers
[names/roles]
ADR Index
markdown
## Architecture Decision Log

| # | Decision | Status | Date | Impact |
|---|---------|--------|------|--------|
| 001 | Use PostgreSQL over MongoDB | Accepted | 2025-01-15 | High |
| 002 | Adopt microservices for billing | Accepted | 2025-02-01 | High |
| 003 | Use React over Vue | Accepted | 2025-02-15 | Medium |
| 004 | Monolith-first for MVP | Deprecated | 2025-03-01 | High |

Technology Evaluation Framework

RICE Scoring
markdown
## Technology Evaluation: [Technology Name]

### RICE Score

| Factor | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|--------|-------|--------|----------|
| **Reach** (how many people/teams affected) | [1-10] | 1x | [X] |
| **Impact** (how much improvement per person) | [1-3: minimal/medium/massive] | 2x | [X] |
| **Confidence** (how sure are we) | [50-100%] | 1x | [X] |
| **Effort** (person-months) | [X] | divisor | [X] |

**RICE Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort = [score]**
Weighted Scoring Matrix
markdown
## Vendor/Technology Comparison

| Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| Performance | 20% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Community/support | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Learning curve | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Cost | 15% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Scalability | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Security | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Integration | 10% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| Maturity | 5% | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
| **Weighted Total** | | [sum] | [sum] | [sum] |

### Recommendation: [Option X]
### Reasoning: [1-2 sentences]
Technology Evaluation Anti-Patterns
Anti-PatternRiskDogru Yol
Resume-driven developmentWrong tool for the jobEvaluate against actual needs
Hype-driven adoptionImmature ecosystemWait for version 2.0+
Single vendor evaluationNo comparison baselineAlways evaluate 3+ options
Ignoring exit costFuture lock-inCalculate migration cost
No POC/prototypeUnknown unknownsBuild spike before committing

Budget Planning & TCO Analysis

TCO Template (3-Year)
markdown
## Total Cost of Ownership: [System/Technology]

### Year 1 (Setup + Operations)
| Category | Cost |
|----------|------|
| Licenses/subscriptions | $[X] |
| Infrastructure (cloud/hardware) | $[X] |
| Implementation/migration | $[X] |
| Training | $[X] |
| Integration development | $[X] |
| **Year 1 Total** | **$[X]** |

### Year 2-3 (Ongoing)
| Category | Annual Cost |
|----------|------------|
| Licenses/subscriptions (+ annual increase) | $[X] |
| Infrastructure | $[X] |
| Maintenance engineering (FTE fraction) | $[X] |
| Support contracts | $[X] |
| Upgrades/patches | $[X] |
| **Annual Ongoing** | **$[X]** |

### 3-Year TCO: $[Year 1 + Year 2 + Year 3]

### Hidden Costs (often missed)
- Context switching overhead
- On-call/incident response time
- Documentation maintenance
- Vendor management overhead
- Compliance/audit costs

Vendor Management

Vendor Assessment Checklist
  • Financial stability (will they exist in 3 years?)
  • Security certifications (SOC2, ISO 27001)
  • SLA guarantees (uptime, response time)
  • Data portability (can you export everything?)
  • API quality (documentation, versioning, reliability)
  • Support quality (response time, escalation path)
  • Pricing transparency (no surprise costs)
  • Contract flexibility (monthly vs annual, exit clause)
  • Reference customers (talk to existing users)
  • Roadmap alignment (are they building what you need?)
Show full SKILL.md (214 more words)Show less
Vendor Risk Matrix
RiskLikelihoodImpactMitigation
Vendor acquired/shutdownLowCriticalData export procedure, backup vendor
Price increase > 30%MediumHighMulti-year contract, alternative evaluation
SLA breachMediumHighCredits, contractual remedies
Data breach at vendorLowCriticalEncryption, contractual liability
Feature deprecationMediumMediumAPI abstraction layer

Engineering Metrics

DORA Metrics
MetricEliteHighMediumLow
Deployment FrequencyOn-demand (multiple/day)Daily-weeklyWeekly-monthlyMonthly-6monthly
Lead Time for Changes< 1 hour1 day - 1 week1 week - 1 month1 - 6 months
Change Failure Rate0-15%16-30%16-30%16-30%
Mean Time to Recovery< 1 hour< 1 day1 day - 1 week> 1 week
SPACE Framework
DimensionMetricsHow to Measure
SatisfactionDeveloper satisfaction surveyQuarterly survey (1-5 scale)
PerformanceCode review turnaround, incident resolutionTooling metrics
ActivityPRs merged, deploys, commitsGit/CI data (NOT for evaluation)
CommunicationKnowledge sharing, documentationSurvey + doc metrics
EfficiencyDev environment setup time, build timeMeasure and track
Engineering Health Dashboard
markdown
## Engineering Health: [Quarter]

### DORA Metrics
| Metric | Target | Actual | Status |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Deploy frequency | Daily | [X/week] | [on/off track] |
| Lead time | < 1 day | [X hours] | [on/off track] |
| Change failure rate | < 15% | [X%] | [on/off track] |
| MTTR | < 1 hour | [X min] | [on/off track] |

### Team Health
| Area | Score (1-10) | Trend |
|------|-------------|-------|
| Developer satisfaction | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| On-call burden | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| Tech debt sentiment | [X] | [up/down/flat] |
| Tooling satisfaction | [X] | [up/down/flat] |

### Actionable Insights
1. [Insight + recommended action]
2. [Insight + recommended action]

Board/Investor Technical Reporting

Quarterly Tech Report Template
markdown
## Technology Report: Q[X] [Year]

### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: key wins, risks, requests]

### Key Metrics
| Metric | Q-1 | Q0 | Target | Trend |
|--------|-----|-----|--------|-------|
| Uptime | [X%] | [X%] | 99.9% | [arrow] |
| Page load time | [Xs] | [Xs] | < 2s | [arrow] |
| Active users | [X] | [X] | [target] | [arrow] |
| Deploy frequency | [X/mo] | [X/mo] | Daily | [arrow] |

### Achievements
1. [Milestone/launch/improvement]
2. [Milestone/launch/improvement]

### Risks & Challenges
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation | Status |
|------|----------|-----------|--------|
| [risk] | [H/M/L] | [plan] | [active/mitigated] |

### Budget
| Category | Budget | Actual | Variance |
|----------|--------|--------|----------|
| Infrastructure | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |
| Licenses | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |
| Headcount | $[X] | $[X] | [+/-X%] |

### Next Quarter Focus
1. [Priority 1]
2. [Priority 2]
3. [Priority 3]

### Resource Request
[If applicable: what do we need and why]
Board Communication Anti-Patterns
Anti-PatternNeden YanlisDogru Yol
Too much jargonBoard members aren't engineersTranslate to business impact
Only good newsErodes trustHonest + solution-oriented
No metricsUnverifiableData-driven with trends
Feature list onlyNo business contextConnect features to revenue/growth
Asking for budget without ROIUnlikely approvalShow expected return

© majiayu000, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 1 other file in skills/business/cto-advisor of majiayu000/claude-skill-registry.

  • SKILL.md
  • metadata.json

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 2d14a69

Used in 1 other repository

We found 1 copy of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in majiayu000/claude-skill-registry, which our catalogue first saw on October 8, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Cto Advisor next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Cto Advisor compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Cto Advisor this skillmajiayu000/claude-skill-registry6661 repos~3.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Cto AdvisorIbrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor3804 repos~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Cto Advisoralirezarezvani/claude-skills28k1 repos~3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Oma Architecturefirst-fluke/oh-my-agent1.3k—~2.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Architecture Decisionjwynia/agent-skills1661 repos~1.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Modernization AssessmentEmeaAppGbb/spec2cloud100—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Cto Advisor

    Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor

    Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy.

    380 GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~2.4k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Cto Advisor

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy.

    28k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Oma Architecture

    first-fluke/oh-my-agent

    Architecture specialist for software/system design, module and service boundaries, tradeoff analysis, and stakeholder synthesis.

    1.3k GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Architecture Decision

    jwynia/agent-skills

    Systematically evaluate architecture decisions, document trade-offs, and select appropriate patterns.

    166 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.5k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Modernization Assessment

    EmeaAppGbb/spec2cloud

    Assess codebase for modernization opportunities — tech debt, deprecated dependencies, outdated patterns, architectural improvements.

    100 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 5 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Roadmap Planning

    manager-dot-dev/manager-skills

    Helps engineering managers plan roadmaps, prioritize work, and communicate priorities effectively — produces the 20% tech debt framework (and its 5 traps), a phased release pressure-test, a…

    114 GitHub stars~4.9k tokensUpdated 5 mo ago
    Product & Project ManagementAuto-check passed

More from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

All 1,273 skills in this repo
  • Deep Research

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Multi-source deep research using firecrawl and exa MCPs. An agent skill from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~1.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Exa Search

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Neural search via Exa MCP for web, code, and company research.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~856 tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Fal AI Media

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Unified media generation via fal.ai MCP — image, video, and audio.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.7k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Pyzotero

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Interact with Zotero reference management libraries using the pyzotero Python client.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.6k tokens
    Auto-check: notes
  • Bgpt Paper Search

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Search scientific papers and retrieve structured experimental data extracted from full-text studies via the BGPT MCP server.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~619 tokens
    Auto-check: notes
  • Bio Alignment Pairwise

    majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

    Perform pairwise sequence alignment using Biopython Bio.Align.PairwiseAligner.

    666 GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~1.7k tokens
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Cto Advisor

What does Cto Advisor do?

CTO-level advisory - build vs buy decisions, tech debt quantification, team scaling, ADRs, technology evaluation (RICE), budget planning, TCO, vendor management, DORA/SPACE metrics. Cto Advisor is an agent skill from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry.

When should I use Cto Advisor?

Cto Advisor fits situations like: tasks that involve Architecture decision records; tasks that involve Technical debt; tasks that involve Budgeting and forecasting.

How do I install Cto Advisor in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill cto-advisor -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/business/cto-advisor in majiayu000/claude-skill-registry) into .claude/skills/cto-advisor in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Cto Advisor in Codex?

Run `npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill cto-advisor -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/business/cto-advisor in majiayu000/claude-skill-registry) into .agents/skills/cto-advisor in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Cto Advisor in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill cto-advisor -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/cto-advisor, .gemini/skills/cto-advisor, .github/skills/cto-advisor and .opencode/skills/cto-advisor in your project.

What does Cto Advisor need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Cto Advisor is instructions for the agent only.

Does Cto Advisor access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Cto Advisor safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Cto Advisor use?

Cto Advisor is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Cto Advisor use?

About 3.3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 13k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Cto Advisor?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Cto Advisor: Cto Advisor (Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor, 380 stars), Cto Advisor (alirezarezvani/claude-skills, 28k stars), Oma Architecture (first-fluke/oh-my-agent, 1.3k stars) and Architecture Decision (jwynia/agent-skills, 166 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Cto Advisor?

majiayu000 (a GitHub user) maintains it in majiayu000/claude-skill-registry, which has 666 GitHub stars. The repository holds 1,273 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 7, 2026.

Source: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.