strategic-thinking · diff
v2026.5.17 to v2026.5.17
8 added, 5 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: strategic-thinking
description: >
- Connect intent, context, capabilities, and options into a coherent strategy
- with tradeoffs, risks, and a sequenced path. Use when the user asks for
- strategic thinking, competitive positioning, roadmap logic, "where to play /
- how to win", portfolio prioritization, or narrative that links goals to
- constraints and bets.
+ Use this skill when the user asks for strategic thinking or wants direction
+ under constraint—connecting intent, context, capabilities, and options into
+ coherent bets, tradeoffs, risks, and a sequenced path. Use when they talk about
+ competitive positioning, roadmap narrative, where to play and how to win,
+ portfolio prioritization, or leadership narrative that links goals to
+ constraints, even if they never use the word strategy. Skip for step-by-step
+ implementation detail when no strategic framing or choice among directions is
+ requested.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: ysskrishna
version: "2026.5.17"
---
# Strategic Thinking
Strategy is choosing what **not** to do as much as what to do. End with explicit bets and guardrails.
---
## When to Use
Use for direction-setting: business, product, career pivots, org design at a high level, narrative for investors or leadership. Not for low-level implementation steps unless framed as "strategic rollout".
---
## Setup (run before starting)
In one short block:
1. **Strategic question** — one sentence (e.g. "How should we win in X given Y?")
2. **Default pass** — Intent → Landscape → Advantage → Options → Choice → Risks & Cadence (state this line)
Up to 3 questions on goals, constraints, and non-negotiables; then proceed with `[ASSUMED]` where needed.
If the user asked for a **memo or deck storyline**, add after **Risks & Cadence** a **Short story** subsection (5–7 sentences: tension → insight → decision → proof path).
---
## The Phases
### Intent
**Win definition** — what outcome in what timeframe? **Non-goals** — what is explicitly out of scope?
### Landscape
Forces that matter: customers, competition, technology, regulation, economics. Use **Implication:** bullets — not encyclopedic lists.
### Advantage (or **Honest gap**)
Where could durable advantage come from — assets, learning loops, distribution, data, brand, cost? If none is credible, say so and pivot to **options to build advantage**.
### Options
2–4 mutually distinct strategies or postures. For each:
> **Option:** … — **Bet:** … — **Cost:** … — **Kill signal:** …
### Choice
Name **one primary** option (or **parallel** bets if truly justified). Explain **why now** and what you are **deferring or rejecting**.
### Risks & Cadence
Top **3 risks** with mitigations. **90-day focus**, **12-month thesis**, and **review trigger** (metric or event that forces rethink).
---
## Execution Rules
1. **Choice** must reference **Options**; do not introduce a new strategy in the final section without labeling it a revision.
2. Avoid generic platitudes ("innovate", "customer-centric") without a mechanism.
3. If information is thin, keep **Landscape** short and flag `[UNKNOWN]` instead of fabricating market facts.
---
## Checklist (verify before responding)
- [ ] Setup: strategic question + default pass (note if Short story added)
- [ ] Intent includes non-goals
- [ ] Options use Bet / Cost / Kill signal
- [ ] Choice is explicit; tradeoffs named
- [ ] Risks & Cadence has 90-day / 12-month / review trigger