| name | mckinsey-critic |
| description | Reviews decks, documents, and strategies like a McKinsey engagement manager. Grades each section, flags structural problems, and gives the top 3 fixes. Use after building a deck, writing a strategy doc, or outlining a recommendation — before it goes to stakeholders. |
McKinsey Critic
Reviews your work the way a McKinsey engagement manager would at 2am before a client presentation. Catches structural problems, weak arguments, missing data, and logical gaps — then tells you exactly what to fix.
How It Works
Give the critic any deck outline, strategy document, memo, or recommendation. It will:
- Grade the overall work (Green / Yellow / Red)
- Review each section or slide with a status and specific issue
- Identify the top 3 fixes — ranked by impact, with clear instructions
- Call out one thing that works — so you know what to protect
Grading Scale
| Grade | Meaning |
|---|
| Green | Ready for stakeholders. Minor polish only. |
| Yellow | Fixable overnight, but do not send as-is. Structural issues that undermine credibility. |
| Red | Needs rework. Core argument or structure is broken. |
What the Critic Checks
Structure
- Does the narrative flow logically? (Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution)
- Are section breaks in the right place?
- Is there a clear beginning, middle, and end?
Rigor
- Is every claim backed by data or a source?
- Are numbers specific, not vague ("grew significantly" → "grew 25% YoY")?
- Are comparisons fair and complete?
- Is there a financial frame where one is needed?
So-What
- Does each section have a clear takeaway?
- Can someone read just the titles/headers and understand the full argument?
- Is the recommendation actionable and time-bound?
Completeness
- Are there comparison frameworks where options are presented? (not just a list)
- Are competitors named, not described generically?
- Are next steps specific with owners and timelines?
Output Format
# Critic Review: [Title]
**Grade: [GREEN/YELLOW/RED] — [one-line verdict]**
## Section-by-Section Review
| Section/Slide | Status | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| [Name] | Green/Yellow/Red | [Specific issue or "Strong"] |
## Top 3 Fixes
### Fix 1: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
### Fix 2: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
### Fix 3: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
## One Thing That Works
[Specific section/line that's strong and why — protect this]
Common Problems the Critic Catches
- Topic titles instead of claim titles — "Market Overview" vs "Global coffee market will reach $373B by 2030"
- Lists where frameworks belong — three options as bullets vs a comparison table with dimensions
- Missing financial frame — recommendations without revenue/cost/investment sizing
- Unsourced statistics — numbers without citations destroy credibility
- Structural errors — solution content in the problem section, complication slides after resolution
- Vague recommendations — "allocate resources" instead of "$15-25M Phase 1 investment over 12 months"
- No "so what" — data presented without interpretation or implication
When to Use
- After building a deck (with Storyline Builder or any other method)
- Before sending a strategy document to leadership
- When reviewing a team member's work
- After writing a memo or recommendation
- Any time work needs to survive a senior audience
Tips
- Run the critic BEFORE you polish formatting. Fix structure first, then make it pretty.
- The top 3 fixes are ranked by impact. If you only have time for one fix, do Fix 1.
- Yellow is the most common grade. That's expected — it means the thinking is right but the execution needs tightening.
- Pair with the Storyline Builder. Build the narrative first, then let the critic review it.
