| name | pestel-delta-monitor |
| argument-hint | [prior PESTEL analysis, and any suspected events since] |
| description | Quarterly re-scan of a prior PESTEL analysis. Use when checking which macro factors moved, which assumptions broke, and what's new — turning PESTEL from a workshop artifact into a radar. |
| intent | Refresh a PESTEL analysis by diffing each factor against the prior run and reporting material movement only — regulation passed, thresholds crossed, technology matured, assumptions broken. Macro factors move slowly; the value is catching the two that moved, not re-debating the twenty that did not. |
| type | workflow |
| theme | market-intelligence |
| best_for | ["Keeping a PESTEL analysis alive on a quarterly cadence instead of letting it rot in a deck","Catching which macro assumptions your strategy quietly depends on — and which just broke","Feeding regulatory and macro shifts into roadmap and OKR conversations with citations"] |
| scenarios | ["Here's the PESTEL we did in Q1 — what's moved since?","A new regulation just passed in our space; re-run the macro scan against our baseline"] |
| estimated_time | 15-30 min per run |
PESTEL Delta Monitor
Purpose
Refresh a PESTEL analysis by diffing each factor — Political, Economic, Social, Technological,
Environmental, Legal — against the prior run and reporting material movement only: search plan
→ factor-by-factor diff → broken assumptions → new entrants to the frame → next-step options. Macro
factors move slowly, which is exactly why teams stop looking; the value of a cadence is catching the
two factors that moved, not re-debating the twenty that didn't. Diffing also reveals which baseline
entries were live assumptions versus furniture — broken assumptions are the real output.
Input
Works best with: the prior PESTEL analysis (pasted or attached) and the product/market scope it
covered — this skill requires a baseline to diff against.
Also useful: any events since the last run you already suspect matter — they get checked first.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? This is the one investigation skill with a hard prerequisite: with no
baseline, it recommends running pestel-analysis first and stops —
there is nothing to diff. (That referral is the empty-handed path: you leave knowing exactly what
to do first.)
Example invocation: PESTEL delta against the attached Q1 analysis — scope is our EU payments product; I suspect the new AI liability directive matters.
Key Concepts
- Governing protocol: honors the
autonomous-investigation
contract — question budget of 2, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step. Disciplines: GEOINT/DEMOINT statistics plus FININT
regulatory sources (see intelligence-collection-disciplines);
this is the annual/quarterly layer of the fusion cadence.
- Materiality for macro factors: regulation passed or credibly proposed, macro indicators
crossing thresholds your baseline named, technology maturation with adoption evidence, social
signals with data behind them. "No material movement" per factor is a valid and common result —
a quiet quarter reported honestly keeps the radar trusted.
- Broken assumptions are the headline. A baseline entry now contradicted by evidence outranks
ten new observations, because strategy was built on it. The diff exists to find these.
