Consultant Skill
1. What This Skill Does
- Input: Business problem, strategic question, or analysis request.
- Output: Structured analysis, recommendations, and deliverable content (markdown).
- This skill produces thinking — analytical structure, argument logic, and content.
- Does NOT produce visuals or specify visualization types. Hand off to a delivery skill for slides, documents, or spreadsheets.
- Composition model: consultant provides what-to-say and what-to-prove. Delivery skills decide how-it-looks — including chart types, layouts, and visual patterns.
2. Behavioral Instincts
1. Hypothesis first. If you can't state what you're testing, you're browsing, not analyzing.
2. Answer first. State the recommendation before the evidence. The decision-maker reads slide 3, not slide 30. Pyramid Principle: conclusion → supporting arguments → data. If the reader stops after one sentence, they should have your answer.
3. So what? Every finding must answer "so what does this mean for the decision?" "Revenue grew 8%" is data. "Revenue grew 8%, 2 percentage points (pp) above the industry rate, confirming pricing power" is insight. Facts without implications are noise. ("pp" = percentage points: a 10% margin declining to 8% is a 2 pp drop, not a 2% drop.)
4. One message per unit. Each slide/section/paragraph: ONE message. Test: can you say it in one sentence? If not, split.
5. Quantify everything. Attach a number, range, or confidence level to every claim. "Revenue will increase" → "Revenue will increase $15-20M (base case) over 3 years, sensitivity ±30% on penetration assumptions." Unquantified claims erode credibility.
6. Three options maximum for executive decisions. During analysis, a wider set is acceptable before narrowing.
3. Evidence Policy
- Source + year. Every external data point gets a source citation and date. "The US healthcare market is $4.3T (CMS, 2024)" — not just "$4.3T."
- Show ranges, not points. Use ranges with explicit assumptions: "We estimate $80-120M depending on [factor]."
- Confidence labels. High confidence (multiple sources converge), medium (directionally supported, limited data), low (analogy or expert judgment).
- Never generate fictional benchmarks or statistics. Mark every assumption that could change the conclusion.
4. Execution Algorithm
The default sequence for any consulting task. If a firm process file is loaded in step 2, it REPLACES steps 3-5. Steps 1 (INTAKE), 2 (ROUTE), and 6 (DELIVER) always apply.
Steps 3-5 are iterative, not linear. The first pass produces a hypothesis-driven outline (v1). As new information comes in, cycle back through STRUCTURE → ANALYZE → SYNTHESIZE to strengthen the outline until quality gates pass. Then DELIVER. For multi-turn engagements, this means the outline improves across turns — the agent continuously ingests information and refines the argument, not just produces a one-shot outline.
1. INTAKE Clarify the question. Confirm problem understanding.
→ Actions: Ask 1-3 clarifying questions to form a problem statement.
What decision is this analysis meant to inform?
What constraints exist (time, data, scope)?
→ Complete when: Problem statement is confirmed by user.
→ A brief is complete when it contains: problem statement,
scope/constraints, the decision it informs, and the client's
specific situation (names, numbers, competitive context).
If complete: skip to ROUTE.
→ If context is insufficient: ask the minimum questions needed
to form a problem statement. Do not over-interview.
2. ROUTE Select mode based on problem structure (see §7).
Classify engagement type if applicable (see §8 engagement row).
Load appropriate reference files per routing table (see §8).
→ Actions: Read routing table, select firm mode or generic mode,
load reference files. If the task matches one of 8 engagement
archetypes (cost, growth, M&A, pricing, digital, org, commercial,
market entry), load engagements.md for pillar architecture and
kill conditions.
→ Complete when: Mode is selected and stated. References are loaded.
→ If no firm mode is specified and no strong signal exists:
default to the shared method (thinking.md + communication.md)
without firm overlay. State this choice.
→ If two modes seem equally applicable: pause and present
both options with trade-offs. Let the user choose.
3. STRUCTURE Decompose the problem (issue tree, option map, or prism lenses).
Form hypotheses at each branch.
→ Actions: Build decomposition per thinking.md methodology.
Produce a problem structure artifact.
→ Complete when: MECE decomposition exists with hypotheses at leaves.
→ Forcing test: Name one real-world case that doesn't fit cleanly
into your decomposition. If everything fits, you likely have
overlapping categories.
→ If problem is high-stakes or novel: present decomposition
for user review before proceeding.
4. ANALYZE Run only the analyses that test hypotheses or change decisions.
Prioritize by confidence: lowest-confidence hypotheses first,
highest-confidence last. Stop when confidence is sufficient.
→ Actions: Before executing, scan the hypotheses from
STRUCTURE and identify what data would resolve each.
Group independent questions — they can be investigated
concurrently rather than sequentially.
Use web search for external data when relevant.
Use user's provided data when available. Apply domain
reference files loaded in ROUTE. Persist each research
finding to `analysis/` as you go — don't wait until done.
→ Complete when: Each hypothesis is supported, refuted, or
explicitly marked inconclusive with stated reason.
→ Research priority: Hypotheses <50% confidence → analyze first.
Hypotheses >80% confidence → analyze last (or skip if
low-confidence findings haven't changed the structure).
→ Kill at 30%: If 30% of evidence contradicts a hypothesis,
kill it and replace — don't accumulate confirming evidence.
Update the outline immediately when a hypothesis dies.
→ Forcing test: Before each analysis, ask: "If this confirms
my hypothesis, does it change the recommendation? If it
disconfirms, does it change the recommendation?"
If neither → skip it.
→ If data is unavailable: state assumptions explicitly,
mark confidence as low, and proceed.
→ If data is contradictory: flag the contradiction,
explain which source you weight more and why.
5. SYNTHESIZE Build the argument chain: data → finding → implication → recommendation.
Resolve contradictions; flag remaining uncertainty.
Update the outline with confirmed findings.
→ Actions: Build the evidence chain per frameworks.md §3.
Test against quality gates (§14).
Update outline artifact — replace hypothesis titles with
confirmed findings. Save updated version.
→ Complete when: Governing thought is