strategy-analysislisted

# 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 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 → say so in one line and run the fitting framework instead — the quality bar treats a misfit framework as a category error, and a "SWOT" request that's really "should we enter this market" is Five Forces work; run the requested framework only if the user insists after the flag. Portfolio-allocation questions across