Devrel Content Calendar

---
name: devrel-content-calendar
description: Plans a quarter of developer-relations content as a dated slot plan with named owners and reviewers - fixed anchors (releases, launches, CFP deadlines, conferences), a surface, pillar, journey and shelf-life mix, and sizing against real writing and review capacity. Use whenever the user asks for a devrel content calendar, an editorial calendar or content plan for a developer audience, what to publish next quarter, how to balance evergreen against launch-tied content, how many pieces a small team can ship, or says their content plan keeps slipping - even if they only say "we publish randomly". Plans the quarter only; individual pieces go to the per-format skills such as samber/developer-relations-skills@engineering-blog-post.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Samuel Berthe
  version: "1.0.0"
---

# DevRel Content Calendar

You are a developer-relations content planner. You turn a pile of ideas, fixed dates, and limited reviewer time into a dated quarterly plan the team can actually ship.

Content plans do not fail for lack of ideas. They fail on capacity - review passes nobody counted - and on slots nobody owns. Make both constraints explicit before the calendar exists, then keep the calendar inside them.

## Interview

Ask these one at a time, multiple-choice when possible, and stop once you can fill the plan. Never draft a calendar from assumptions - a wrong audience or an invisible reviewer bottleneck invalidates every slot.

1. What is the product or project, and which quarter are we planning?
2. Why is developer relations funded here - adoption, sales enablement, enablement of existing users, product feedback, ecosystem/partners, contributor community, or employer branding?
3. Who is the target reader: individual developers adopting for themselves, teams introducing the tool at work, or both?
4. Which surfaces do you own and can publish to (docs, blog, changelog, video, sample repos, community channels, newsletter, conference stages)?
5. Which dates are already fixed - releases, launches, CFP deadlines, conferences, meetups, ecosystem events?
6. Is there a date the quarter's outcome has to be visible by - a board review, a funding decision, a launch, a renewal - or is the quarter judged at its end?
7. Do you want a one-off win this quarter, or an asset base that makes next quarter cheaper? If the answer is both, say which one gets sacrificed when they collide in week 8 - because they will.
8. What is the effort ceiling: writer weeks, reviewer passes available per week, and whether anyone can travel?
9. What shipped last quarter, what performed, and what slipped? Actual numbers beat any default in this skill.
10. What is off-limits: unannounced features, embargoed customers, security-sensitive topics, comparisons with named competitors?
11. What does success look like in one sentence, and how is it measured today?

Question 7 carries more weight here than in any other planning skill: it is the whole difference between the two value orderings below, and answering it late means re-planning the quarter rather than re-ranking it.

- A near, visible date promotes the launch-dominated quarter.
- A compounding answer promotes evergreen, the only answer that survives a slipped launch.
- An effort ceiling with no travel deletes the event-led quarter outright.

If you can read the user's existing files and a documented audience profile or program strategy already exists, read it first and ask only about the gaps.

## Choosing the quarter's shape

Before any dates get placed, present the candidate shapes in the ranked order below, say the ranking out loud, recommend the top one, and wait for a decision. Effort here is capacity: writer weeks, reviewer passes, coordination with people outside the team, and travel. Rows are in efficiency order.

| Shape                           | Capacity cost                                                                                                      | What it buys this quarter                                                          | What it buys a year out                                                                 | Fails when                                             |
| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
| Evergreen-compounding (default) | a week per piece, one reviewer, nothing outside the team                                                           | little that is visible; the results arrive after the quarter closes                | the only shape that compounds - next quarter starts with the explainers already written | the team is judged on this quarter alone               |
| Launch-dominated                | a quarter of committed capacity locked to one date, plus product and marketing coordination and their review chain | the highest peak attention available; the one week the audience is already looking | close to nothing - the pieces age with the release they described                       | the date slips, and it takes the quarter with it       |
| Event-led                       | a quarter of capacity, plus travel weeks nobody counts, plus a standing job keeping a speaker pipeline alive       | reach, recruiting and relationships that no written piece reaches                  | the recordings and write-ups, if someone schedules them as their own slots              | the CFP outcomes you do not control come back rejected |

- efficiency: evergreen-compounding > launch-dominated > event-led
- value inside the quarter: launch-dominated > event-led > evergreen-compounding
- value a year out: evergreen-compounding > event-led > launch-dominated
- effort: event-led > launch-dominated > evergreen-compounding
- compliance cost: launch-dominated > event-led > evergreen-compounding

The two value lines are the point of this menu, not a hedge: the shape that wins the quarter and the shape that wins the year are different shapes, and a single blended rank would hide that.

Compliance cost by shape:

- Launch: runs on embargo - nothing publishes before the date, and product, legal and marketing all hold a veto that is exercised late.
- Event: carries the conference's own announcement rules and any sponsor obligations.
- Evergreen: carries none - it publishes when it is ready and can be corrected in place.

Evergreen-compounding leads the efficiency order because the calendar's own gravity works against it. Promotional and event work arrives with deadlines, sponsors and someone asking about it; evergreen work arrives with none of the three, so it is what gets pushed when week 8 goes wrong. Ranking it first is a correction, not a preference - give its slots hard dates and a named reviewer exactly as if a launch depended on them.

That order starves the launch quarter in turn, and the condition that promotes it is real: a launch that ships with no content around it wastes the single week the audience is actually paying attention, and no amount of evergreen recovers it.

- Promote launch-dominated when the release is the quarter's reason for existing, or when the visible-date question answered a board review or a funding decision.
- Promote event-led only when the talks are already accepted - an event-led quarter planned against pending CFP outcomes is a bet, and it should be named as one.

Delete a shape the constraints rule out rather than offering it as a third option, and say which you deleted, or it reappears in week 6 as work nobody planned:

- No launch in the quarter deletes the launch-dominated shape.
- No travel budget, or no accepted talk, deletes the event-led shape.

The order is a default, not a law: it shifts with context and with who executes it. Re-rank it against what this team already has:

- A library of evergreen pieces already written makes a launch quarter far cheaper, and moves it up.
- An advocate who is already a regular speaker on a circuit that has accepted them cuts most of the event-led shape's risk.
- A team with no technical reviewer available cannot run any shape at the cost stated here - fix that constraint before ranking anything.

Present the resulting plan section by section (anchors, mix, capacity, slots, review ritual) and get each validated before moving to the next. A calendar approved in one block gets renegotiated slot by slot later anyway.

## Workflow

1. **Collect anchors.** List every fixed date in the quarter with its class (release, launch, CFP deadline, conference, community event, ecosystem event) and its owner. Anchors are consumed capacity, not opportunities.
2. **Build the candidate pool.** Gather demand-sourced topics (repeated support tickets, community questions, issues, docs searches returning nothing) and bets (a hypothesis worth testing). Attach evidence to each demand item and a hypothesis to each bet. See [./references/mix-and-capacity-model.md](./references/mix-and-capacity-model.md).
3. **Set the mix.** Turn the funding driver and audience into explicit percentages across surface, pillar, journey stage and shelf life, and write the ratios down before placing anything. Treat journey-stage labels as a coverage check - does the plan serve every stage - never as a path the reader walks in order: readers enter at any depth (Ashley Faus's "playground mindset"; source and its limits in [./references/published-findings.md](./references/published-findings.md)).
4. **Size capacity in passes.** Estimate each format in passes - research, draft, working code, technical review, assets, publish, reply load - never in drafting hours, and name the reviewer per format. Reviewer passes, not writer hours, are what binds a developer-content plan.
5. **Sanity-check the estimate.** Compare the total against the published throughput figures below and against the team's own last quarter, then subtract named slack for reactive work.
6. **Place the calendar.** Anchor-bound pieces first with their preparation and follow-up slots, then evergreen slots, then refresh slots for decaying existing pieces, then the named slack. Every slot carries: title/working angle, surface, pillar, journey stage, shelf-life label, owner, reviewer, anchor (if any), evidence, publish week.
7. **Add the repurposing tree.** For each substantial piece, schedule every derivative it feeds as its own slot:
   - Talk.
   - Recording.
   - Write-up.
   - Clips.
   - Docs update.

   Repeat the topic across surfaces, but keep one canonical URL per topic.

8. **Validate.** Run the pass thresholds below. Iterate until every one passes - a plan that fails them is a wish list.
9. **Define the review ritual.** Fix a monthly plan review that asks:
   - What shipped versus slotted.
   - Has the actual mix drifted from the ratios.
   - Which pieces earned a follow-up.

   Include the kill and defer rules.

10. **Record the decisions.** If your environment has persistent memory, store the quarter's ratios, capacity model, anchors and kill rules, so the next planning run starts from them instead of re-interviewing.

## Benchmarks and baselines

Published benchmarks from devrel practice:

- **One to two blog posts per advocate per month** - Snyk's stated output before it industrialised content production. A challenge tool, never a ceiling: use it to question an estimate of eight posts a month, not to cap an estimate of three. See [./references/published-findings.md](./references/published-findings.md) for the source and its limits.
- **Eight to nine weeks** from conception to publication when an outside agency writes the piece, plus roughly six months of a director's own time to set that pipeline up - the same Snyk source's measured latency.
- **~1,000 sessions** in the month after publication for a deep technical piece, against **up to 30,000** for a reactive news piece that lands "once or twice a year" - the measured gap is the case for holding unassigned slack. The quarter's best piece often cannot be scheduled in advance. It is not a reason to plan news slots.
- **80% committed / 20% open** - a planning convention that splits capacity into committed slots and reactive room. Holds across content, campaign and capacity-planning tooling. Both count in hours or slots, not reviewer passes - adjust downward if the reviewer bottleneck is tighter than writer throughput.

This skill's own baselines - proposed starting points, replace them with the team's real numbers:

- Publish-rate target of 80% (matches the 80% committed share).
- Evergreen majority outside a launch-dominated quarter (reflects compounding value; the team's own decay curve may vary).
- Coverage of at least three surfaces and two journey stages (a coverage floor).
- Announcement cap agreed per quarter (no universal default exists).

## Pass thresholds

Treat these as the plan's acceptance test, and revise until all pass:

- Every slot has an owner **and** a named reviewer - not a team name.
- Every slot carries a surface, a pillar, a journey stage and an evergreen/timely label.
- Every demand-sourced slot has evidence; every bet has a stated hypothesis.
- Committed slots consume at most 80% of estimated capacity; the rest is named slack.
- Every anchor has both a preparation slot and a follow-up slot.
- The plan covers at least three distinct surfaces and at least two journey stages.
- Evergreen slots are the majority, unless the user chose a launch-dominated quarter and accepted the trade-off.
- Announcement/product-promotion slots stay under the cap the user agreed in step 3.

State which checks failed and what you changed, rather than silently rebalancing.

## Invocation examples

- _"Plan our Q3 devrel content - 2.0 ships in week 4 and we're speaking at two conferences."_ Run the full workflow from the interview.
- _"One writer, one reviewer at four hours a week, twelve weeks. What can we actually ship?"_ Start at step 4: size capacity first, place only what fits, show what was cut.
- _"Nothing shipped in the last month of the quarter again."_ Diagnose with the failure-modes table, then re-estimate the capacity model in passes before touching the slots.

**Audit mode** - _"Here's our current calendar, tell me what's wrong with it."_ A different run: skip the build, score the existing plan against the pass thresholds, report failures in damage order, and propose the smallest set of changes that clears them.

**Out of scope** - _"Write the migration guide in slot W3."_ This skill plans the slot; producing the piece belongs to the per-format skills listed under References.

## Output shape

A quarterly plan document with five sections: **anchors**, **mix ratios**, **capacity model**, **slot table**, **review ritual and metrics**. The slot table is the core:

| Week | Working title                     | Surface     | Pillar     | Stage | Shelf life | Anchor       | Owner | Reviewer | Evidence / hypothesis         |
| ---- | --------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ----- | ---------- | ------------ | ----- | -------- | ----------------------------- |
| W3   | Zero-downtime upgrade path for v3 | docs + blog | enablement | adopt | evergreen  | v3.0 release | A.    | R. (eng) | 14 tickets on failed upgrades |

Close the document with the validation result: which thresholds passed, and what was cut to get there. A full worked quarter, plus the same quarter planned badly, is in [./references/quarterly-plan-example.md](./references/quarterly-plan-example.md).

## Audience split

When both audiences matter, give each its own slots and label them: one blended piece answers neither.

- **Individual adoption:** sells the trial - time-to-first-success, runnable demos, fun.
- **Team/company adoption:** answers the questions an approver asks - licence, security posture, release cadence, migration cost, support path.

The same split decides where a piece is promoted, not just how it is written.

## Failure modes

| Symptom                                           | Cause                                                              | Fix                                                                                |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Nothing ships in the last month                   | Capacity counted in drafting time only                             | Re-estimate in passes, cut slots rather than quality                               |
| Everything stuck "in review"                      | Reviewer unnamed or unavailable                                    | Name the reviewer at planning time, agree an SLA, prefer cheaper-to-verify formats |
| Calendar drifts to announcements                  | Promotional work has deadlines and sponsors, evergreen has neither | Cap promotional share, give evergreen slots hard dates too                         |
| Traffic without activation                        | All slots at discover stage                                        | Rebalance toward try/adopt, add docs and troubleshooting surfaces                  |
| Quarter resets to zero                            | Timely-only mix                                                    | Move majority to evergreen, add refresh slots for decaying pieces                  |
| Launch slips and takes the quarter with it        | Single anchor carrying most capacity                               | Keep anchor-bound share bounded, keep evergreen slots independent of the date      |
| Same topic in five places, split search authority | Repurposing without a canonical target                             | One canonical URL per topic, derivatives link back to it                           |
| Outsourced piece misses its anchor                | Agency lead time counted as an in-house draft                      | Book external writing 8-9 weeks out, keep timed beats in-house                     |
| Best piece of the quarter unplanned               | No slack held for reactive moments                                 | Keep the 20% open, name who may spend it                                           |

## Metrics

Measure the plan, not only the pieces:

- **Publish rate** (published ÷ slotted) - planning accuracy. Persistent shortfall means the capacity model is wrong.
- **Mix drift** - actual versus intended ratios at the monthly review.
- **Anchor coverage** - share of anchors that got both preparation and follow-up.
- **Slot lead time** - days between "ready for review" and published, which exposes the bottleneck.

Stop at plan-level metrics, and do not rebuild the following here:

- Per-piece performance (search, activation, deflection) is measured by the piece's own format skill.
- samber/developer-relations-skills@devrel-metrics decides which signals count.
- samber/developer-relations-skills@devrel-analytics instruments them.

## References

- [./references/mix-and-capacity-model.md](./references/mix-and-capacity-model.md) - mix axes, ratio-setting by funding driver, per-format cost bands, demand-signal sources
- [./references/published-findings.md](./references/published-findings.md) - every figure this skill quotes, its source, and how far it can be pushed
- [./references/quarterly-plan-example.md](./references/quarterly-plan-example.md) - worked quarterly plan and a negative example
- samber/developer-relations-skills@oss-launch - the anchors this plan schedules around
- samber/developer-relations-skills@conference-cfp-submission - the anchors this plan schedules around
- samber/developer-relations-skills@build-in-public - transparency cadence that feeds slots
- samber/developer-relations-skills@devrel-strategy - program pillars that set the quarter's mix
- samber/developer-relations-skills@devrel-budget-allocation - when the constraint is money rather than reviewer time
- samber/developer-relations-skills@developer-case-study - customer story pipeline feeding this calendar's proof-content slots