zero-based-budget-planner
Installation
SKILL.md
Zero-Based Budget Planner
When to use
Use whenever spend needs to be justified from a zero base rather than carried forward from last year, or when a budget cut is coming and the instinct is an across-the-board percentage reduction — a method that cuts high-value and low-value spend by the same amount, protecting waste exactly as much as it protects what actually matters.
What it does
Scores every discretionary spend item as a decision package with a cost and a value score, computes value per dollar via a bundled calculator, ranks all packages by that ratio, and shows precisely which packages a stated total budget actually funds versus cuts — separating mandatory spend (compliance, core operations) that gets funded regardless of ranking from discretionary spend that competes on value.
Method
- Separate mandatory from discretionary spend up front. Mandatory means the business cannot legally or operationally function without it (compliance, core infrastructure, contractual obligations) — these get funded first and are excluded from the ranking competition, since ranking them against a marketing campaign would be a category error.
- Break discretionary spend into decision packages — a specific initiative or program with a cost and a stated business value, not a department-level lump sum. A department budget line is too coarse to rank; the individual programs inside it are what actually compete for funding.
- Score each package's value (1-10) based on its actual business impact — revenue contribution, risk reduction, strategic importance — with the reasoning stated, not just a number pulled from department politics.
- Run the bundled calculator (
scripts/zbb_ranker.py) to compute value per dollar for every discretionary package, rank them, and show exactly which packages fall inside the available budget and which get cut. - Read the cut list as a set of explicit trade-offs, not a byproduct. If a cut package is politically important despite ranking low on value per dollar, that's now a visible, named decision to override the ranking, rather than an invisible casualty of a blanket percentage cut.
- Check for packages that are individually low-value but collectively necessary (a set of small tools that together support one critical workflow) — the value score should reflect the package's real function, not just its individual visibility.
- Publish the ranking, not just the final funded list. Showing why each package was funded or cut is what makes a zero-based budget defensible when someone asks "why did we cut X but keep Y."