Menú
Translate analysis findings into an actionable insight using three labeled sections (Process, Result, Insight). Use when the user has data but needs a recommendation, when an analysis ends without action, or step 5 of a strategic analysis.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Apply the 5 Whys technique to drill from a surface problem to a root cause. Outputs five sequentially numbered "Why?" lines with brief answers, ending in a root-cause statement. Use after an issue tree to drill the critical branch deeper, or any time the user wants to test whether the apparent cause is the actual cause.
Structure a recommendation top-down — Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle. Outputs a single-sentence top-line answer, three to five supporting arguments, and one layer of evidence under each. Use to convert analysis into executive communication, or to structure a board-meeting talk track.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis using seven frameworks in sequence — MECE, Issue Trees, 5 Whys, Hypothesis-Driven, Pareto, So What?, and Pyramid Principle. Use when the analysis needs both deeper root-cause drilling AND executive-ready communication structure. Heavier than the 5-framework master; reach for it on high-stakes work.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for edtech / online-learning problems — activation, completion, learning outcomes, monetization. Same five frameworks with edtech-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for fintech / payments / lending / fraud problems — approval rates, fraud loss, delinquency, regulatory friction. Same five frameworks with fintech-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for public-sector / civic-ops problems — backlogs, processing cycle time, citizen satisfaction, procurement. Same five frameworks with government-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
| name | so-what-test |
| description | Translate analysis findings into an actionable insight using three labeled sections (Process, Result, Insight). Use when the user has data but needs a recommendation, when an analysis ends without action, or step 5 of a strategic analysis. |
Most analyses fail at the last step. People surface findings, lay out data, and stop — leaving the reader to figure out what it means and what to do. The "So What?" test forces you to close the loop: every finding must lead to an action specific enough to assign.
A finding without a "so what" is trivia. A finding with a "so what" is a recommendation.
Three explicitly labeled sections, in this order:
**Process:** [What specific data, workflow, or factor was analyzed.]
**Result:** [The objective outcome — numbers, signals, observations.]
**Insight:** [The underlying reason this matters + the immediate action. Specific enough to assign to a person with a deadline.]
| Default | When to flex |
|---|---|
| Process is one or two clauses | Don't flex — long preamble buries the answer. |
| Result has numbers or specific observations | Don't flex — vague Results undermine the Insight. |
| One Insight per block | If multiple actions are warranted, write multiple So What blocks rather than one Insight with three bullets. |
| Insight names who, what, and by when | Don't flex — that's the test. |
The assignability test: could you copy your Insight into an assignment to a named person with a deadline, and would they know what to do? If not, rewrite it.
Problem: Mid-level engineering attrition has risen for three consecutive quarters. The VP of Engineering wants to know why and what to do.
Process: Looked at attrition data.
Result: Attrition went up.
Insight: We should focus on retention.
(Process is too vague. Result has no number. Insight is unassignable. Three failures.)
Process: Joined exit-interview transcripts (n=24) with promotion-cycle data, comp-band placement, and manager-tenure data for all mid-level engineers (L4–L5) who left between Q2 of last year and Q1 of this year. Compared to a control cohort of L4–L5 engineers who stayed.
Result: 18 of the 24 leavers (75%) cited "no clear path to promotion" as a top-3 reason in their exit interview. Of those 18, 14 had been at level for >24 months — twice the median tenure-at-level (12 months) for the staying cohort. Comp-band placement was median or above for 17 of 18, ruling out pay as a primary driver.
Insight: This is a promotion-velocity problem, not a comp problem. The mid-level leavers we lost most often had been stuck at level for 24+ months — well beyond the band's expected tenure — without a clear path forward. Action: by end of next month, the VPE and Head of People run a calibration review of every L4–L5 engineer at level for >18 months (estimated 31 people); identify which are promotion-ready, which need a stretch project to close gaps, and which are genuinely capped. Communicate outcomes to managers by mid-quarter, then track 6-month retention of the cohort. Owner: VPE, with People partnering. Target: cut mid-level attrition from 18% to below 11% by year-end.
(Process is specific. Result has numbers, comparisons, ruled-out alternatives. Insight is assignable: who, what, by when, what success looks like.)
strategy-consultant — the So What? test is step 5 of 5, where everything lands.Adapted from Analyst Academy on YouTube — 5 Consulting Frameworks to Solve Any Problem. MIT-licensed; see LICENSE.