universal-case-study-solver

name	universal-case-study-solver
description	Solves ANY case study type for ANY university worldwide. Covers business, engineering, medical, legal, ethical, social science, and technical case studies. Uses structured frameworks (SWOT, PESTEL, 5 Whys, Root Cause Analysis, Ethical Matrix, Fishbone, etc.) with per-section marking allocation.

Universal Case Study Solver

Overview

Provides a structured methodology for analyzing and answering any case study question. Each solution follows a framework appropriate to the case type, with clear sectioning, evidence-based reasoning, and actionable conclusions.

How This Skill Works

1. User provides: Case study text or description, questions asked, subject/discipline, university, marks allocation
2. System identifies: Case type, appropriate framework, question type mapping
3. System analyzes: Key facts, stakeholders, problems, constraints
4. System generates: Structured solution with framework application, analysis, and recommendations

1. Case Study Types & Frameworks

Case Type	Recommended Framework	Best For
Business / Management	SWOT + PESTEL + Porter's Five Forces	Strategy, marketing, operations
Engineering Design	Problem Definition -> Constraints -> Alternatives -> Selection -> Implementation	Design problems, system choices
Medical / Clinical	History -> Examination -> Diagnosis -> Treatment -> Follow-up	Patient cases, clinical scenarios
Legal	Facts -> Issue -> Rule -> Application -> Conclusion (IRAC)	Law case briefs, moot court
Ethical	Facts -> Stakeholders -> Principles -> Options -> Decision	Bioethics, business ethics, AI ethics
Social Science	Context -> Theory -> Analysis -> Implications	Sociology, political science, economics
Technical / Systems	Problem -> Root Cause -> Solution Options -> Trade-off Analysis -> Recommendation	IT systems, engineering failures
Environmental	Issue -> Impact Assessment -> Stakeholders -> Solutions -> Sustainability Check	Climate, ecology, sustainability
Research / Data	Question -> Data -> Methodology -> Findings -> Limitations -> Implications	Research papers, data analysis

2. Universal Case Study Answer Structure

Q1: [Question text] [Marks: X]

Framework: [Selected framework name]

Step 1: Identify Key Facts
- Fact 1 from case
- Fact 2 from case
- ...

Step 2: Stakeholder Analysis
| Stakeholder | Interest | Impact | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|

Step 3: Problem Definition
Core problem: [Single clear statement]
Sub-problems:
  - Sub-problem 1
  - Sub-problem 2

Step 4: Analysis (using chosen framework)
[Framework-specific analysis with case evidence]

Step 5: Alternatives / Options
| Option | Pros | Cons | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ... | ... | High/Med/Low |
| B | ... | ... | High/Med/Low |

Step 6: Recommendation
[Clear, justified choice with implementation steps]

Step 7: Conclusion
[Summary and expected outcomes]

3. Case Analysis Techniques

Technique	Use	Output
5 Whys	Root cause analysis	Chain of causality
Fishbone / Ishikawa	Multi-factor causation	Visual cause map
SWOT	Strategic position	Matrix of 4 quadrants
PESTEL	External environment	6-dimension analysis
Porter's Five Forces	Industry competition	5-force assessment
IRAC	Legal reasoning	Issue -> Rule -> Application -> Conclusion
Ethical Matrix	Ethical decision-making	Principles x Stakeholders grid
Cost-Benefit Analysis	Economic evaluation	Quantified pros/cons
Decision Tree	Multi-path decisions	Branched outcomes with probabilities

4. Sample Case Solution

Case: "A manufacturing company faces declining profits due to rising raw material costs and increased competition. The CEO must decide whether to automate production (costly upfront, long-term savings) or outsource to a cheaper supplier (lower quality, faster implementation)." [15 marks, MBA, Mumbai University]

Q: Analyze the situation and recommend the best course of action. [15]

Framework: SWOT + Cost-Benefit Analysis

Step 1: Key Facts
- Manufacturing company, declining profits
- Rising raw material costs
- Increased competition
- Two options: automation or outsourcing

Step 2: Stakeholder Analysis
| Stakeholder | Interest | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Shareholders | Profitability | High |
| Employees | Job security | High (automation reduces jobs) |
| Customers | Quality + price | Medium |
| Suppliers | Business relationship | Medium |

Step 3: SWOT Analysis

Strengths:
- Existing production infrastructure
- Skilled workforce

Weaknesses:
- High operational costs
- Aging equipment

Opportunities:
- Automation tax incentives
- New market segments

Threats:
- Competitors may also automate
- Quality-sensitive customers may leave

Step 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis
| Factor | Automation | Outsourcing |
|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | High (₹2 Cr) | Low (₹10L setup) |
| Monthly Savings | ₹15L/month | ₹8L/month |
| Breakeven | ~13 months | ~1.5 months |
| Quality | Maintained | Risk of decline |
| Employee Impact | Layoffs needed | Minimal |
| Long-term Viability | High | Medium |

Step 5: Recommendation
Hybrid approach: Automate critical production line (high-value products) while outsourcing non-core components. This balances cost savings with quality control and minimizes employee disruption.

Step 6: Implementation
1. Month 1-2: Identify critical vs non-critical product lines
2. Month 3-6: Implement automation on critical line
3. Month 3: Outsource non-critical components with strict quality agreements
4. Month 7+: Monitor quality metrics and cost savings

Conclusion: The hybrid approach provides the best risk-reward profile, achieving significant cost reduction while maintaining quality control and managing stakeholder impact.

Error Handling

Situation	Action
Incomplete case text	Ask user to provide full case text; extract key facts from what is available and note gaps
Multiple frameworks applicable	Select the framework best matching the question type; note alternative frameworks in analysis
Missing stakeholder info	Infer stakeholders from case context; flag assumptions in the analysis
No marks given	Default to 10-mark depth (substantial); note the assumed mark allocation

Quality Gate — Check Before Output

• Framework selection is justified and matches the case type
• All key facts from the case text are addressed in the analysis
• Recommendations are specific, actionable, and linked to the analysis
• Stakeholder analysis covers all relevant parties
• Alternatives include pros, cons, and feasibility assessment

---

Session Config

This skill integrates with the session config system (deps/session-profile.json). Before executing, check for an existing session profile:

• If deps/session-profile.json exists, read university, subject, pattern, and exam_type fields to auto-configure the skill.
• If the file does not exist, fall back to user-provided context or prompt the user to run setup-exam-prompt (or npm run init) first.
• Session config eliminates redundant context detection — detection happens once and is reused across all skill calls.

---

5. Integration with Other Skills

• universal-session-config: Reads university, subject, and exam pattern for case adaptation
• universal-a-plus-answer-writer: Provides detailed answer writing techniques applied to case study questions
• universal-essay-grader: Evaluates case study answers against rubric criteria
• universal-notes-generator: Supplies theoretical frameworks and models used in case analysis
• universal-flashcard-generator: Creates flashcards for framework steps and analysis techniques