Use for strategic thinking, or when the user must choose a direction under constraints: "where should we focus?", "how do we win?", "roadmap for next year", "what should we not do?". Ends in explicit bets and risks. Skip for step-by-step implementation.
---
name: strategic-thinking
description: >
Use for strategic thinking, or when the user must choose a direction under constraints: "where should we focus?", "how do we win?", "roadmap for next year", "what should we not do?". Ends in explicit bets and risks. Skip for step-by-step implementation.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: ysskrishna
version: "2026.10.5"
---
# Strategic Thinking
Strategy is choosing what **not** to do as much as what to do. End with explicit bets and guardrails.
## When to use
- Choosing a direction for a product, team, company, technology platform or career under real constraints.
- Competitive positioning, "where to play and how to win", roadmap narrative, portfolio trade-offs.
- Leadership or board-style narrative that links goals to constraints.
Skip: step-by-step implementation detail, or choosing between two concrete options on named criteria.
## Before you start
1. State in one block: **Strategic question** (one sentence) and **Pass** (Intent, Landscape, Advantage, Options, Choice, Risks and Cadence).
2. **Gather first.** Read the roadmap, docs, metrics or market notes you can reach before writing Landscape. Never invent market facts; say what is unknown. Ask up to 3 questions only for goals and non-negotiables that tools cannot answer.
3. **Light path.** Small ask: 1-2 lines per phase, 2 options, same order.
4. If the user wants a memo or deck storyline, add a **Short story** after Risks and Cadence (5-7 sentences: tension, insight, decision, proof path).
## Phases
### 1. Intent
**Win definition:** which outcome, by when. **Non-goals:** what is explicitly out of scope.
### 2. Landscape
Forces that matter: customers, competition, technology, regulation, economics. Use **Implication:** bullets, not encyclopedic lists. Keep short when information is thin.
### 3. 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 how to build one.
### 4. Options
2-4 genuinely different strategies:
> **Option:** ... - **Bet:** ... - **Cost:** ... - **Kill signal:** ...
### 5. Choice
Name one primary option (parallel bets only if clearly justified). Say **why now** and what you are **deferring or rejecting**.
### 6. Risks and Cadence
Top 3 risks with mitigations. Then a **near-term focus**, a **longer-term thesis** and a **review trigger** (a metric or event that forces a rethink). Match the horizons to the domain: 90 days and 12 months suit a business plan; an architecture or career decision may need different spans, so state the spans you chose.
## Pitfalls
- Platitudes ("innovate", "customer-centric") with no mechanism.
- Options that are really one option in different words.
- A Choice that introduces a strategy not in Options. Label it a revision if so.
- Advantage claimed with no evidence. Use Honest gap.
Worked example: [references/example.md](references/example.md).
## Checklist
- [ ] Strategic question and Pass stated
- [ ] Intent includes non-goals
- [ ] Options use Bet, Cost, Kill signal
- [ ] Choice explicit, with what is deferred or rejected
- [ ] Risks and Cadence: top 3 risks, stated horizons, review trigger
don't have the plugin yet? install it then click "run inline in claude" again.
added explicit inputs (user context, optional triggers, edge cases), reorganized original procedure into 8 numbered steps with input-output clarity, extracted decision logic into standalone section covering missing info and conflicting constraints, formalized output contract with required sections in order, and specified outcome signals for success validation.
strategy is choosing what you don't do as much as what you do. end with explicit bets and guardrails.
this skill frames decisions under constraint by connecting intent, context, capabilities, and options into coherent bets, tradeoffs, risks, and a sequenced path. use it when the user asks for strategic thinking (including obvious misspellings of "strategy"), needs direction on competitive positioning, roadmap narrative, where to play and how to win, portfolio prioritization, or leadership narrative that links goals to constraints. skip this skill if the request is purely step-by-step implementation detail with no strategic framing or choice among directions.
user context required:
optional trigger inputs:
external connections:
edge cases:
in one short block:
input: user's strategic request and context output: confirmed strategic question, list of gaps (if any), setup summary
frame the win definition and non-goals.
input: setup summary, user's stated goals output: 2-4 sentences clarifying win definition and non-goals
map forces that matter and their implications.
input: user context on market, competitors, customer needs, internal state output: 3-7 implication bullets per category
identify where durable advantage could come from.
input: landscape, user's capabilities and assets output: 3-5 sentences naming one or two advantage sources, or explicit statement that none is credible yet
generate 2-4 mutually distinct strategies or postures.
input: landscape, advantage analysis, strategic question output: 2-4 option blocks, each with bet, cost, kill signal
name the primary option and explain why now and what you defer or reject.
input: options block, landscape, intent output: 2-4 sentences naming choice, explaining why now, stating deferrals
surface top risks with mitigations and set review cadence.
input: choice, landscape, execution constraints output: risk + mitigation bullets, 90-day focus, 12-month thesis, review trigger
if user requested a memo or deck storyline, add this subsection after risks & cadence.
input: all prior phases output: 5-7 sentence narrative block
if goals, constraints, or non-negotiables are missing: ask up to 3 clarifying questions in one message, then proceed with stated working assumptions. do not stall the analysis.
if strategic question is vague or abstract: propose a concrete one-sentence reframing and confirm before proceeding.
if goals and constraints conflict: name the conflict explicitly (e.g. "you want 90-day launch but also zero technical debt", which is not credible). propose phased sequencing or ask which constraint wins.
if no credible advantage exists: say so plainly. pivot options to focus on "ways to build advantage" (e.g. acquire data, hire talent, partner for distribution) instead of ways to exploit existing advantage.
if information is thin (market size, customer behavior, competitive moves): state plainly what is unknown. do not fabricate market facts. offer to refine the analysis if user provides more data.
if user requested a memo or deck: add the "short story" subsection after risks & cadence. otherwise, omit it.
if choice introduces a new strategy not in the options block: label it explicitly as a revision and explain why. do not let it sneak in without naming it.
skill output is a formatted text response with these sections in order, each clearly headed:
no frontmatter, no code blocks, no meta-commentary. plain markdown headings and bullets.
the user knows the skill worked when they can:
skill fails if the analysis is generic (e.g. "be customer-centric and innovate"), if choice is not grounded in options, or if risks lack actionable mitigations.
credits: original skill authored by ysskrishna (clawhub). enriched per implexa standards.