`strategy-analysis`

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.

Pack product-managerTier heavyJob Decide what to buildv0.1.3

npx skilldrop-cli install strategy-analysis

Other ways to install

With the sibling skills it hands off to:

npx skilldrop-cli install strategy-analysis --with-related

The whole pack it belongs to:

npx skilldrop-cli install --pack product-manager

By hand, from a clone of the repo:

cp -R packs/product-manager/skills/strategy-analysis ~/.claude/skills/

In Claude Code, with the product-manager plugin installed, invoke it as:

/product-manager:strategy-analysis

Try it

A realistic prompt from the skill's acceptance evals:

Run a SWOT on our product: a developer-tools startup with 4,000 paying tenants, strong CI/CD integration data, a small sales team, and a well-funded incumbent (CircleCI) moving into our niche. The decision this feeds: where to focus the next two quarters.

What a good result looks like

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.

Example output

SWOT arriving as TOWS for a market-entry decision · the skill's own worked example, source

Worked example

Input → output oracle for strategy-analysis. Shows the framework justified in one line, evidenced/consequential cells, the mandatory SWOT→TOWS crossings, ranked action-shaped implications tied to the decision, and a verdict that takes a side.

Input

"Should [Acme], a mid-market B2B analytics vendor, enter the SMB self-serve segment next year? Decision owner wants a go / no-go with conditions."

Framework fit (one line)

SWOT→TOWS, not Five Forces: the question is about our fit to a new segment (internal capabilities vs. external openings), not the structural attractiveness of the industry.

SWOT (every cell specific · evidenced · consequential)

	Helpful	Harmful
Internal	S1 Self-serve onboarding already built for mid-market trials (evidence: 40% of trials activate with zero sales touch) → marginal cost to serve SMB is low.	W1 Pricing starts at $2k/mo (evidence: current floor plan) → 5–10× above SMB willingness-to-pay; no viable entry SKU.
External	O1 No incumbent owns SMB self-serve analytics in this niche (evidence: top 3 competitors are all sales-led, $10k+ ACV) → an unserved segment with a wedge.	T1 Two horizontal BI tools added SMB free tiers this year (evidence: their changelogs) → the window is closing; a free tier resets price expectations.

TOWS crossings (the strategy — inventory becomes moves)

S1 × O1 (invest): Package the existing zero-touch onboarding as a low-price self-serve SKU to claim the unserved niche before it's contested.
W1 × T1 (defend/decide): The $2k floor collides head-on with free tiers — a new SMB SKU is a prerequisite, not an option; without it, don't enter.
S1 × T1 (hedge): Low cost-to-serve means an SMB tier can be near-free to run, so a defensive free/low tier is affordable if a competitor forces it.
W1 × O1 (fix-first): The opportunity is real but unreachable until pricing is solved — so pricing is the gating workstream, not marketing.

Ranked implications (action-shaped, tied to the go/no-go)

Gate the decision on a validated SMB SKU (target ≤ $99/mo, positive unit economics at self-serve volume). No SKU → no-go. (from W1×T1, W1×O1)
Run a 60-day self-serve pilot on the existing onboarding to test activation without sales. (S1×O1)
Pre-commit a free-tier response so a competitor's move doesn't catch us flat. (S1×T1)

Verdict (takes a side + what would change it)

Conditional GO — enter only after a sub-$100 SKU clears a unit-economics test in a 60-day pilot; the low cost-to-serve and the open niche make the upside real, but the pricing gap is disqualifying until fixed. What flips it to no-go: the pilot shows self-serve activation < 20% (the zero-touch advantage doesn't transfer), or a horizontal BI tool ships a vertical SMB tier first (the wedge closes).

Why this passes the quality bar

The framework choice is justified; every cell is specific, evidenced, and carries a "→ so what"; SWOT is delivered as TOWS with real crossings; implications are ranked and tied to the named decision; and the verdict commits with a falsifiable flip-condition instead of "it depends."

How it's checked

Measured against plain Claude Code (2026-10-23): it met 66% of its checks, against 35% without it, and a blind judge preferred the agent without it. How skills are checked

26 assertions across 5 acceptance evals, and 10 trigger queries. Every skill's checks

What the output must do

SWOT is crossed into TOWS quadrants (S×O, S×T, W×O, W×T) — the four raw lists are not the final output
Every cell is specific (names a competitor, number, or capability), carries an evidence tag ([data]/[reported]/[assumption]), and has a 'so:' implication
No horoscope cells like 'strong team' or 'growing market' without specifics
Implications section is ranked (3-5 entries) and each is action-shaped, tied to the two-quarter focus decision
A verdict paragraph takes a side and names what evidence would change it
Assumptions appearing in top-ranked implications are flagged as validation targets
A hand-off to business-case or prfaq is offered where apt
The skill flags that market-entry attractiveness is a Five Forces question and suggests it before or instead of SWOT
If Five Forces is run, all five forces get a pressure rating with the mechanism (who holds power and why) — no force rated 'N/A'
The output ends with a committal verdict on entering, not 'it depends'
The skill proceeds (the decision IS named in the input) instead of blocking
Assumptions replacing the capped clarifying questions (e.g. competitive set) are tagged [assumption] and stated at the top
Market facts drawn from general knowledge are tagged [market: ...], distinguishable from user-supplied facts and assumptions
Uses or reconciles the airport authority's passenger figures (roughly 3–4% annual growth) rather than relying on the consultant's 12%
Catches the market-size arithmetic error: 1.2M trips x $28 is $33.6M, not $46M
Recognises that the incumbent's exclusive curbside rights until June 2029 block or limit a curbside service now, and the recommendation reflects it
Does not give a year-1 market-share number as a finding; says the inputs cannot support one, or labels any figure as a hedged assumption
Gives a clear recommendation (for example enter now, enter a different way, or wait) tied to the evidence
Does not invent competitors, figures, or regulations not in the notes
About one page (roughly 500 words or less)
Gives concrete advice without stopping to ask questions first
Short — no more than about 10 bullets or 250 words
Uses plain language a non-business owner can act on; any framework terms are explained or avoided
Identifies where a specialist swim school can realistically compete with or differ from a gym chain's lessons, rather than only generic advice
Points out that depending on rented pool hours is a vulnerability or a factor to manage
Does not invent facts about the gym chain (its prices, class sizes, quality) or the local market as known; such points are framed as things to find out

When it should and shouldn't activate

Should activate:

Run a SWOT analysis on our product
Should we enter the SMB payroll market?
Do a Porter's Five Forces on the ride-sharing industry
What macro trends could threaten our 3-year platform bet?
Why are our margins compressing — analyze the competitive pressure
I need a PESTLE analysis for the board offsite

Should leave to another skill:

Compare Postgres vs DynamoDB for our new service
Write a business case for acquiring this tooling vendor
Write a PRFAQ for our new product idea
Cascade our company OKRs down to the platform team

Hands off to

business-case — when the direction is chosen and needs costing before approval. Cost the chosen option against a do-nothing baseline.

Related skills

okr-cascade, prfaq

Source

SKILL.md · the whole folder on GitHub.