choose-framework

name	choose-framework
description	Select the right strategic framework for your situation through exploratory dialogue. Use when user describes a problem, decision, or challenge; needs structured thinking approach; mentions "strategy", "decision", or "problem-solving"; or asks "how should I think about this?". Creates framework selection briefs in .frameworks-output/ folder.

Choose Framework - Strategic Framework Selection

Overview

This skill helps users select the right strategic framework for their situation through facilitated exploratory dialogue. The approach is structured and evidence-based - matching frameworks to problems using proven selection criteria.

Core principles:

• Evidence-based selection - Match frameworks to situations based on proven criteria
• Exploratory dialogue - Understand context deeply before recommending
• Multiple options - Present 2-3 frameworks with reasoning
• Natural conversation - Conversational flow, not rigid questionnaire
• Clear reasoning - Explain why each framework fits

Output: Framework selection brief saved to .frameworks-output/[session-name]/framework-selection.md

---

Workflow

Phase 1: Initial Understanding (5-10 minutes)

Goal: Understand user's situation, problem, and context.

Start with open questions:

• "Tell me about the situation or problem you're facing"
• "What are you trying to achieve or decide?"
• "What's the context?" (startup, corporation, personal, career)

Listen for:

• Problem type (strategic, operational, innovation, decision)
• Situation context (stable, changing, uncertain, complex)
• User's role and constraints
• Urgency and timeline
• Stakeholders involved

Set expectations early: "I'll ask some questions to understand your situation, then recommend 2-3 frameworks that fit best. Sound good?"

Phase 2: Deep Exploration (10-20 minutes)

Goal: Systematically explore 6 key dimensions to match framework to situation.

Key Dimensions (explore all 6):

1. Problem Type

   • Strategic decision (long-term direction)
   • Operational issue (process, execution)
   • Innovation challenge (new product, service, approach)
   • Decision-making need (choice between options)

2. Situation Context

   • Stable (clear cause-effect)
   • Changing (evolving, competitive)
   • Uncertain (multiple unknowns)
   • Complex (interconnected, emergent)

3. Time Horizon

   • Immediate (days/weeks)
   • Short-term (months)
   • Long-term (years)

4. Stakeholders

   • Who's involved?
   • Who's affected?
   • Who needs to buy in?

5. Data Availability

   • Rich data available
   • Some data, some assumptions
   • Mostly unknowns

6. Implementation Complexity

   • Simple (individual action)
   • Moderate (team effort)
   • Complex (organizational change)

How to navigate:

1. Ask questions one at a time - Don't bombard with a list
2. Use discovery questions from references/discovery-questions.md
3. Follow interesting threads - If user reveals something important, explore it
4. Consult selection guide - Use references/framework-selection-guide.md for category details
5. Check warnings - Use references/framework-warnings.md to identify mismatches
6. Mark uncertainties - Note what's unclear

Reference files to consult:

• references/frameworks-index.md - Complete framework catalog with keywords
• references/framework-selection-guide.md - Deep dive on selection dimensions
• references/discovery-questions.md - Question library for exploration
• references/framework-warnings.md - Warning signs and mismatches

Dialogue style:

Good examples:

• "What specifically are you trying to decide?" (clarify problem type)
• "How much is changing in your market/situation?" (assess context)
• "Who else is affected by this decision?" (identify stakeholders)
• "What data do you have vs what are assumptions?" (understand information)

Bad examples:

• Jumping to framework recommendation too quickly
• Not exploring context deeply enough
• Recommending frameworks user has heard of vs best fit
• Failing to explain why framework matches

Key tactics:

1. Clarify problem type:

• Is this about long-term strategy or immediate execution?
• Are you innovating or optimizing?
• Making a decision or solving a problem?

2. Assess situation complexity: Use Cynefin-like thinking:

• Clear = Simple frameworks (Eisenhower Matrix, Pareto)
• Complicated = Analytical frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, SWOT)
• Complex = Sense-making frameworks (Cynefin, Systems Thinking)
• Chaotic = Fast-cycle frameworks (OODA Loop)

3. Match to role and context:

• Founders/CEOs: Mental Models, Regret Minimization, First Principles
• Product Managers: Jobs-to-be-Done, Design Thinking, RICE
• Strategists: Porter's Five Forces, Blue Ocean, Wardley Mapping
• Operations: Theory of Constraints, Pareto, Systems Thinking

4. Consider time horizon:

• Immediate: OODA Loop, Eisenhower Matrix, Pareto
• Short-term: Design Thinking, Lean Startup, Pre-Mortem
• Long-term: Regret Minimization, Scenario Planning, Wardley Mapping

5. Identify warning signs: From references/framework-warnings.md:

• Framework too complex for situation (using McKinsey 7S for personal decision)
• Wrong framework type (using strategic framework for operational problem)
• Insufficient data (using quantitative framework without data)

Phase 3: Framework Recommendation (5-10 minutes)

Goal: Present 2-3 best-fit frameworks with clear reasoning.

Structure your recommendation:

# Recommended Frameworks for Your Situation

## Your Situation Summary
[2-3 sentences capturing key dimensions]

---

## 1. [Framework Name] - PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION

**Why it fits:**
- [Reason 1 based on problem type]
- [Reason 2 based on situation context]
- [Reason 3 based on constraints]

**What you'll gain:**
- [Concrete benefit 1]
- [Concrete benefit 2]
- [Concrete benefit 3]

**What it requires:**
- [Time commitment]
- [Data/information needed]
- [Who should be involved]

**Next step:**
Use `/use-framework [framework-name]` to apply it to your situation.

---

## 2. [Framework Name] - STRONG ALTERNATIVE

**Why it fits:**
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]

**When to choose this over #1:**
[Specific conditions where this is better]

**Next step:**
Use `/use-framework [framework-name]` if this resonates more.

---

## 3. [Framework Name] - WORTH CONSIDERING

**Why it might be useful:**
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]

**Best for:**
[Specific scenario or phase where this helps]

---

## ⚠️ Considerations

[Any warnings or important notes about framework application]

## What We Explored

- **Problem Type:** [Strategic/Operational/Innovation/Decision]
- **Context:** [Stable/Changing/Uncertain/Complex]
- **Timeline:** [Immediate/Short/Long-term]
- **Stakeholders:** [Who's involved]
-  [Rich/Moderate/Limited]
  [Simple/Moderate/Complex]

Follow-up: "Which framework resonates most with your situation? I can guide you through applying it with /use-framework [name], or we can explore alternatives if none of these feel right."

Phase 4: Wrap-up and Next Steps (2-5 minutes)

Goal: Create selection brief and offer next actions.

Steps:

1. Propose session name based on situation

   • Use kebab-case: competitive-strategy-analysis, product-prioritization-decision
   • Keep it descriptive

2. Create framework selection brief:

   .frameworks-output/[session-name]/
   └── framework-selection.md
   

3. Document structure:

   • Situation analysis (all 6 dimensions)
   • Recommended frameworks (with reasoning)
   • Alternative frameworks considered
   • Selection criteria applied
   • Warnings and considerations
   • Next steps

4. Offer transition:

   • "Ready to apply [Framework]? Let's use /use-framework [name]"
   • "Want to explore a different framework? I can explain the alternatives"
   • "Need to refine understanding first? Let's talk more about [dimension]"

---

Framework Matching Logic

By Problem Type

Strategic (long-term direction):

• Blue Ocean Strategy, Porter's Five Forces, Wardley Mapping, Scenario Planning, Ansoff Matrix, BCG Matrix

Operational (execution, processes):

• Theory of Constraints, Pareto Principle, OKR Framework, Systems Thinking, OODA Loop

Innovation (new products/services):

• Design Thinking, Lean Startup, Jobs-to-be-Done, First Principles, Blue Ocean Strategy

Decision (choosing between options):

• Mental Models, Regret Minimization, Pre-Mortem, Second-Order Thinking, Cynefin Framework

By Situation Context

Stable (clear environment):

• SWOT Analysis, Porter's Five Forces, Eisenhower Matrix, Pareto Principle

Changing (competitive, evolving):

• OODA Loop, Wardley Mapping, Blue Ocean Strategy, Scenario Planning

Uncertain (many unknowns):

• Lean Startup, Pre-Mortem Analysis, Scenario Planning, Inversion Thinking

Complex (interconnected):

• Cynefin Framework, Systems Thinking, Mental Models, First Principles

By Time Horizon

Immediate (days/weeks):

• OODA Loop, Eisenhower Matrix, Pareto Principle, Six Thinking Hats

Short-term (months):

• Design Thinking, Lean Startup, RICE Framework, OKR Framework

Long-term (years):

• Regret Minimization, Wardley Mapping, Scenario Planning, Business Model Canvas

By Role

CEO / Founder:

• Regret Minimization, Mental Models, First Principles, Porter's Five Forces, Blue Ocean Strategy

Product Manager:

• Jobs-to-be-Done, Design Thinking, Lean Startup, RICE Framework, Kano Model

Strategist:

• Porter's Five Forces, Wardley Mapping, Scenario Planning, BCG Matrix, McKinsey 7S

Operations Manager:

• Theory of Constraints, Pareto Principle, OKR Framework, Systems Thinking

Tech Leader / CTO:

• Wardley Mapping, First Principles, Systems Thinking, Theory of Constraints

---

Special Cases

User Knows Framework They Want

If user asks for specific framework (e.g., "I want to use Design Thinking"):

1. Validate fit: "Let me understand your situation first to make sure Design Thinking is the best fit"
2. Quick assessment: Ask 2-3 key questions about context
3. Confirm or suggest alternative:
   • If good fit: "Yes, Design Thinking is perfect for this because [reasons]. Let's use it."
   • If poor fit: "Design Thinking could work, but [Framework X] might be better because [reasons]. Which do you prefer?"

No Framework Fits Well

If none of the 48 frameworks seem right:

1. Offer closest match: "The closest fit is [Framework], though it's not perfect"
2. Suggest combination: "This might need combining [Framework A] for [aspect] and [Framework B] for [aspect]"
3. Offer discover-framework: "I don't have a perfect framework for this. Want to use /discover-framework to research and add one?"

User Wants Multiple Frameworks

If user asks "Should I use multiple frameworks?":

Answer: "It depends on complexity. Generally:

• Start with ONE framework to avoid confusion
• Apply it fully first
• Then consider complementary framework for different aspect
• Example: Porter's Five Forces (competitive analysis) → Blue Ocean Strategy (positioning)"

---

Output Quality Checklist

Before finalizing recommendation, verify:

• Explored all 6 dimensions (problem, context, time, stakeholders, data, complexity)
• Recommended 2-3 frameworks (not just 1)
• Explained WHY each framework fits (not just what it is)
• Considered alternatives and explained trade-offs
• Identified potential warnings or mismatches
• Created framework-selection.md with full reasoning
• Offered clear next step (use-framework)

---

Key Reminders

1. Don't rush to recommendation - Explore situation deeply first
2. Match evidence-based - Use selection criteria, not popularity
3. Explain reasoning - Always say WHY framework fits
4. Offer alternatives - Give user choice, not just one answer
5. Warn about mismatches - If framework is imperfect fit, say so
6. Natural dialogue - Conversational exploration, not interrogation
7. Document reasoning - Save selection process to framework-selection.md
8. Transition smoothly - Offer to apply framework via use-framework

---

References

• references/frameworks-index.md - All 48 frameworks with descriptions, categories, keywords
• references/framework-selection-guide.md - Deep dive on selection dimensions and criteria
• references/discovery-questions.md - Question library for exploring situation
• references/framework-warnings.md - Warning signs for mismatches and poor fits