Strategy Analysis

---
name: strategy-analysis
description: Run a strategy framework — SWOT/TOWS, Porter's Five Forces, or PESTLE — on a product, company, or market question, choosing the right framework for the question and forcing every cell to carry evidence and a so-what. Use when the user asks for a SWOT, a competitive/market analysis, "should we enter this market", "what's our position against X", or a macro-environment scan.
---

# strategy-analysis

Runs the classic strategy frameworks the way a good strategist does and a bad deck doesn't: the framework is chosen to fit the question, every cell carries evidence and an implication, and the output ends in ranked, committal so-whats — not a filled-in grid. The grid is the working, never the deliverable. Sibling of `tech-comparison-matrix` (tech selection between named options) and `business-case` (a costed invest/defer decision); this skill is for the strategic question *before* options are named.

## How to respond

**Four rules come before the steps and outrank them:**

- **Answer what was asked, first.** Open with the answer, the decision or the artifact, in plain words. Scores, matrices, frameworks and tags come after it, and anything that doesn't change the answer is cut.
- **Use only what you were given.** Don't add facts, names, numbers, incidents, history, steps or sections the input doesn't contain. What you need and don't have is left out of the artifact and listed once at the end under "To confirm".
- **Deliver from what you have.** When the request gives you something to work on, state your assumptions in a line and produce the result. When it gives you nothing to work on, ask for it in one or two plain sentences and say what you will do once you have it.
- **Write for someone who has never heard of this skill.** No skill names, no paths or scripts from this folder, no internal terms, and nothing about how the run was set up. A next step is one plain sentence at the end that describes the work.
- **For this skill:** Today's date matters: a recommended window or deadline must be in the future. Analyse the market the user named, not a neighbouring one.

1. **Classify the question, then pick ONE framework** (two only when the question genuinely spans both, and say why):

   | The question is about… | Framework |
   |---|---|
   | Our position: what to exploit, fix, or defend, feeding a near-term decision | **SWOT → TOWS** (SWOT alone is banned — see step 3) |
   | Industry attractiveness / profit pressure: "should we enter", "why are margins thin", "can we defend" | **Porter's Five Forces** |
   | Macro environment: regulation, technology shifts, demographics affecting a multi-year bet | **PESTLE** |

   The user asked for a framework by name and it fits → run it. It doesn't fit → run the framework they asked for, in full (a SWOT still arrives as TOWS), because they asked for it by name. Then say in two or three sentences which framework fits the question better and what it would add — a "SWOT" request that's really "should we enter this market" is Five Forces work — and offer to run it. Don't replace or shorten what they asked for. Portfolio-allocation questions across many products (BCG-matrix territory) → name it, note it needs per-product market-share and growth data, and run it only if that data is supplied.

2. **Collect the evidence base before filling anything.** Name what is known `[data: …]`, reported `[reported by …]`, drawn from general market knowledge `[market: …]`, and assumed `[assumption]`. The `[market: …]` tag exists because on a short prompt most cells are filled from the model's own market knowledge — that's legitimate, but it must stay distinguishable from the user's facts and from guesses. Ask at most 2 questions, spent on the decision the analysis feeds ("what decision does this inform, and by when?") and the competitive set ("who do customers actually compare you to?"). No decision named → the analysis has no ranking criterion; get one before proceeding. Non-interactive run (no user to ask): derive the most plausible decision from the input, state it as `[assumption]` at the top, and rank against it; none derivable → emit `BLOCKED: need the decision this analysis feeds` rather than an unranked survey.

3. **Fill the framework with cells that pass the three tests.** Every entry must be (a) **specific** — a competitor, number, or named capability, not a category; (b) **evidenced** — carrying one of the step-2 tags; (c) **consequential** — with a one-line "so:" implication. ✅ *"S: 4,000 paying tenants' workflow data no rival can train on `[data: billing]` — so: the switching cost is the moat to invest in"* — ❌ *"S: strong team"*. Framework-specific rules:
   - **SWOT** never ships alone — cross it into **TOWS** actions: S×O (attack), S×T (defend), W×O (fix to unlock), W×T (the exposed flank, named honestly). The TOWS quadrants are the output; the SWOT grid is scaffolding.
   - **Five Forces**: each force gets a pressure rating (🟥 high / 🟧 medium / 🟨 low) *with the mechanism* — who holds the power and why (concentration, switching costs, differentiation, substitutes' price-performance). Rate all five; "N/A" is not a rating. Complements/platforms noted where they change the picture.
   - **PESTLE**: only factors that plausibly move *this* decision within its time horizon, each with direction, timeframe, and the exposed asset. Six sections of filler is the classic failure — 3 sharp factors beat 18 generic ones; empty letters say "no material factor identified".

4. **Rank the implications and commit.** End with **Implications, ranked** — 3–5 entries ordered by impact on the named decision, each an action-shaped sentence with an owner-shaped subject: ✅ *"Price the enterprise tier before Q3: supplier power is rising (🟥) and the S×O attack window closes when the incumbent's contract cycle renews"*. Then a one-paragraph **verdict** answering the user's actual question, taking a side, and naming what evidence would change it.

5. **Emit in one message**: evidence base (tag summary), the framework grid(s), ranked implications, verdict. Flag every `[assumption]` that appears in a top-3 implication — those are the validation targets. Hand off: options now named and comparable → `tech-comparison-matrix`; investment decision to cost → `business-case`; product direction to test → `prfaq`.

## Quality bar

- **The framework fits the question**, and the doc says why in one line. A SWOT that should have been Five Forces is a category error, not a style choice.
- **Every cell passes specific/evidenced/consequential.** One untagged, implication-free cell is a defect; a grid of them is a horoscope.
- **SWOT always arrives as TOWS.** Four lists with no crossings is inventory, not strategy.
- **Every Five Forces rating names the mechanism.** "Rivalry: high" without who/why is a vibe with a color.
- **The implications are ranked and action-shaped**, tied to the named decision — not "consider monitoring the competitive landscape".
- **The verdict takes a side** and names what would change it. An analysis that ends "it depends" has refused its job.

## When to use this skill

- ✅ "Run a SWOT on our developer-tools product" (arrives as SWOT→TOWS)
- ✅ "Should we enter the SMB payroll market?" / "why are margins compressing?"
- ✅ "What macro trends threaten this 3-year platform bet?"
- ✅ A strategy offsite needs a rigorous pre-read instead of a brainstorm

## When NOT to use this skill

- ❌ Choosing between named technologies or vendors — `tech-comparison-matrix`
- ❌ A costed build/buy/defer decision — `business-case`
- ❌ Testing a specific product concept — `prfaq`
- ❌ Quarterly goal-setting — `okr-cascade`

## Anti-patterns to avoid

- ❌ **Framework theater.** Running all three frameworks "for completeness" — each unfits the others' question, and the reader drowns. One question, one framework, one verdict.
- ❌ **Horoscope cells.** "Strength: experienced team. Weakness: limited resources. Opportunity: growing market." True of every company that ever existed, therefore informative about none.
- ❌ **SWOT as the deliverable.** The four quadrants are raw material; the TOWS crossings are where a decision lives. Shipping the grid alone ships the homework, not the answer.
- ❌ **Unranked implications.** Ten equal-weight bullets delegate the actual judgment to the reader — the ranking *is* the analysis.
- ❌ **Threat inflation.** Every macro trend rated critical so nothing is. Severity must be calibrated to the named decision's time horizon and exposed assets.
- ❌ **Evidence-free confidence.** A verdict resting on untagged claims. The tag discipline exists so the reader can see exactly which legs are load-bearing guesses.