{"id":18857,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a8cb99c669c81919b71dfdc7a38a195","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:14:58.671Z","digest":"e11ae644ca30bbc3c41465ff6d973a74a8b26f95e8fe4890f3ec106d9a94168d","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Structure an ambiguous business decision, test competing explanations, and recommend a course using evidence. Use for growth, market entry, competitive positioning, business models, and portfolio choices. For execution of an approved direction, use implementation-planning when available.","included_files":[{"relative_path":"references/market-and-competition.md","size_in_bytes":2310},{"relative_path":"references/strategic-frameworks.md","size_in_bytes":6109}],"name":"strategic-analysis","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: strategic-analysis\ndescription: \"Structure an ambiguous business decision, test competing explanations, and recommend a course using evidence. Use for growth, market entry, competitive positioning, business models, and portfolio choices. For execution of an approved direction, use implementation-planning when available.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  category: problem-solving\n  version: \"2.2.0\"\n  author: Anot\n---\n\n# Strategic Analysis\n\nProduce an answer the decision-maker can use and a supporting argument a skeptical reviewer can inspect. Start at the user's current stage: framing a question, diagnosing a cause, evaluating options, or challenging a recommendation. Do not restart completed analysis unless a material inconsistency changes the decision.\n\n## Frame the work\n\nIdentify the decision, decision-maker, timeframe, success criteria, and constraints from the supplied context. Respect the requested format and length. Distinguish hard constraints (cash, legal eligibility, capacity, deadlines) from preferences that can be traded off. Screen infeasible options before comparing attractive features.\n\nUse what is available. Mark missing information and proceed with work it does not block. Ask only when the missing answer materially changes the decision and cannot be handled with a transparent assumption or conditional recommendation. A request for a draft or an illustrative method does not require a complete client data room. Label fictional examples at their point of use.\n\n## Diagnose and compare\n\nBuild a causal decomposition that fits the economics or operating problem. Define units and avoid overlapping branches or mixing different cuts of the same business. A price-volume-mix bridge may answer a profitability question more directly than a named strategic framework.\n\nFor the branches that could change the answer, state a testable hypothesis, evidence for and against it, the quickest useful test, and the action implied if it holds. Distinguish a plausible mechanism from a demonstrated cause. Prioritize by decision impact, uncertainty, and the cost of obtaining better information. Stop expanding an analysis when further work would not change the choice at the required confidence.\n\nDevelop materially different options when the choice is open. Include continuing the current course or deferring when relevant. Compare on consistent scope, timing, economics, execution capacity, reversibility, and the client's priorities. Do not invent alternatives or reopen an approved choice merely to complete a table.\n\nUse [strategic frameworks](references/strategic-frameworks.md) only for the lens the question needs. There is no minimum framework count. A second lens earns its place by revealing a distinct driver, trade-off, or blind spot. Two frameworks using the same evidence do not provide independent corroboration.\n\n## Evidence and uncertainty\n\nTrace consequential claims to a supplied file, interview, calculation, or external source. Record date, population, definitions, and limitations where they affect comparability. Separate observed results, management claims, estimates, and forecasts. When current external information is required, use available research tools and primary sources; if unavailable, identify what remains unverified.\n\nKeep conflicting sources visible. Investigate differences in dates, populations, definitions, and incentives before choosing between them. Do not average incompatible estimates or convert repeated interview opinions into measured facts. Treat benchmarks as comparisons with a stated source and context, not automatic targets.\n\nFor market sizing or competitor work, use [market and competitive analysis](references/market-and-competition.md). Compute material quantities with available tools, show the method, and test the assumptions that could reverse the answer.\n\n## Deliver the decision\n\nLead with the recommendation or the specific reason a decision must remain conditional. Connect the supporting evidence to implications, trade-offs, and action. State the strongest supported alternative, the downside being accepted, and what new evidence or threshold would change the recommendation. For execution next steps, distinguish proposed owners and dates from agreed commitments.\n\nKeep tables compact: numeric cells contain numbers with units; assessments have enough nearby reasoning to be defensible. Match confidence and precision to evidence. A complete answer can be a paragraph, an issue tree, a workplan, or a substantial report; the user's decision determines the form.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}