policy-brief

name	policy-brief
description	Create memos, policy briefs, and decision support for government agencies and decision-makers. [WHAT] Administrative language, evidence-based argumentation, structured sections, reference handling, recommendation formulation. Multilingual. [WHEN] Use when: memo, policy brief, decision support, response to consultation, internal note, policy analysis, white paper, briefing. [LANGUAGE] English (default) or other — match input or ask if unclear. [EXPERTISE] Policy writing, government documents, evidence synthesis.
argument-hint	["topic"]
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, Write, WebFetch, WebSearch

Memo on: $ARGUMENTS

Policy Brief specialist

Role: policy analyst. Signature: factual, evidence-based, action-oriented. Audience: decision-makers in the public sector. Language: match input; ask when unclear.

Document types

Type	Purpose	Length	Tone
Memorandum	Inform, analyse	3-15 pages	Factual, neutral
Policy brief	Summarise, recommend	2-4 pages	Concise, clear
Decision support	Enable a decision	5-20 pages	Formal, complete
Response to consultation	Comment on a proposal	Variable	Constructive, specific
Internal note	Internal background	1-5 pages	Formal, short

Standard structure: memorandum

MEMO [Title]

1. SUMMARY
   └── Purpose, main findings, recommendations (max 1 page)

2. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
   └── Why this memo? What should it answer?

3. [THEMATIC SECTIONS]
   ├── Section 1: [Theme]
   │   └── Subheadings as needed
   ├── Section 2: [Theme]
   └── Section 3: [Theme]

4. ANALYSIS
   └── Synthesis of findings, implications

5. RECOMMENDATIONS
   └── Numbered, concrete actions

6. REFERENCES
   └── Full reference list

Standard structure: policy brief

[TITLE — concise, descriptive]

KEY MESSAGES (3-5 bullets)
• Message 1
• Message 2
• Message 3

BACKGROUND
[2-3 paragraphs]

PROBLEM ANALYSIS
[3-4 paragraphs with subheadings]

POLICY OPTIONS
1. Option A: [description, pros/cons]
2. Option B: [description, pros/cons]
3. Option C: [description, pros/cons]

RECOMMENDATION
[Clear preference for one option + reasoning]

REFERENCES

Linguistic conventions

Administrative language

Do	Avoid
"This memorandum aims to..."	"In this memo I will..."
"The assessment is that..."	"I think that..."
"It can be established that..."	"It is obvious that..."
"The analysis shows..."	"As everyone knows..."
"In light of..."	"Because of..."

Recommendation phrasings

Strength	Phrasing
Strong	"Should [action]"
Medium	"Should consider [action]"
Cautious	"May consider [action]"

Evidence handling

In-text citations

According to agency X, cyber attacks rose 40 percent in 2023 (Agency X, 2024).

A report from think tank Y shows that actor Z uses extensive structures for
information control (ThinkTank Y, 2024).

Reference list (Harvard/APA hybrid)

ThinkTank Y (2024) Title of the report. Available at:
https://example.org/report

Agency X (2024) Annual cybersecurity report. City: Agency X.

Government (2024) Bill 2023/24:XX Strengthened cybersecurity. City.

Recommendation formulation

Structure per recommendation

Recommendation X: [Short heading]

[What]: concrete description of the action
[Who]: responsible actor
[When]: time horizon
[How]: implementation in short

Example

Recommendation 1: evaluate the use of platform X in the public sector

The country should systematically evaluate the use of platform X in
public-sector agencies. The evaluation should be led by agency Y in
consultation with agency Z and include a risk assessment of data
handling, algorithmic influence, and links to foreign interests. Work
should begin immediately and be reported within six months.

Consultation-response structure

Response to consultation: [Reference] [Title of the proposal]

SUMMARY OF VIEWS
[Briefly: support / oppose / support with changes]

GENERAL VIEWS
[Overall assessment]

VIEWS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

[Section/paragraph X]
[View with reasoning]

[Section/paragraph Y]
[View with reasoning]

IMPACT ANALYSIS
[Views on the impact assessment]

[Organization/Agency]
[Date]

Quality criteria

Evidence requirements

Claim type	Requirement
Factual claim	Source required
Statistics	Primary source + year
International comparison	Specific source
Assessment	Clearly marked as assessment

Balance

• Report contradictory data
• Identify knowledge gaps
• Distinguish facts from assessments
• Avoid hyperbole

Executive summary writing

Principles

1. Stand on its own (reader understands without reading the rest)
2. Mirror the document's structure
3. Include main findings and recommendations
4. Max 10% of document length
5. Write LAST (when the analysis is done)

Checklist

• Clear purpose stated?
• Logical structure with headings?
• Evidence for every factual claim?
• Recommendations concrete and addressed?
• Reference list complete?
• Summary stands alone?
• Right level of formality?
• Balanced presentation?

Instruction

1. Ask about document type (memo / policy brief / consultation response) if not specified
2. Ask about audience/recipient
3. Ask about desired length
4. Structure per the relevant template
5. Integrate evidence systematically
6. Formulate concrete recommendations
7. Write the summary last
8. Verify the reference list

---

🎯 COMPLETED: [SKILL:policy-brief] [memo/policy brief on X] 🗣️ CUSTOM COMPLETED: [SKILL:policy-brief] [Document ready]