메뉴
Use when drafting the proposal's interpretation of context, objectives, scope, constraints, stakeholders, or ToR gaps. Unlike 06-methodology, this skill proves understanding of the problem before prescribing the delivery approach.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/peterbamuhigire/proposal-skills --skill 03-understanding-of-assignment명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SKILL.md 표시 중
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | 03-understanding-of-assignment |
| description | Use when drafting the proposal's interpretation of context, objectives, scope, constraints, stakeholders, or ToR gaps. Unlike 06-methodology, this skill proves understanding of the problem before prescribing the delivery approach. |
| metadata | {"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]} |
Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.
| Artefact | Source | Required? | If absent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete ToR, criteria, clarifications, and verified context | Official tender sources | required | Return questions and a bounded interpretation; do not fill gaps as fact. |
Stop or block the workflow when a required input, permission, or acceptance basis is missing. Recover by revising the scope, obtaining evidence, or returning the narrowest qualified draft before proceeding.
| Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding and ToR-comment section | Evaluator and methodology writer | Distinguishes facts, interpretation, assumptions, constraints, stakeholders, and delivery implications. |
| Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement and assumption map | Traceability table | Each interpretation points to ToR evidence or is explicitly labelled. |
Read and search are required; any edit or external action remains within the explicit authority and permission boundary stated below. Default to read-only analysis. Do not alter official requirements or submit clarifications without authority.
Without the complete ToR or clarification record, provide a qualified interpretation and missing-evidence register. Never treat ambiguity as agreement.
| Finding | Action | Risk avoided |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement is explicit | Explain its implication | Mechanical paraphrase |
| Ambiguity changes scope or price | Raise clarification or assumption | Hidden exposure |
| Insight has no method response | Remove it or repair methodology | Orphan diagnosis |
If national rollout has no site count, state the planning consequence and request or price a site assumption rather than inventing locations.
references/ files for persuasion, logic structure, and proposal patterns.This section proves the firm has read, analysed, and thought critically about the Terms of Reference. It is not a paraphrase of the ToR — evaluators wrote the ToR and will notice if it is simply copied back at them. The firm must restate the assignment in its own words and add professional insight.
One to two pages. Describe:
Write this in the firm's own words. Demonstrate that the firm understands the environment the client operates in, not just the task list in the ToR.
Half a page. Restate the objectives from the ToR, but frame them in terms of the outcomes the client expects — not just the activities to be performed.
If the ToR lists objectives and expected outcomes separately, synthesise them into a coherent statement. If the ToR is vague on objectives, state what the firm understands the objectives to be and note this as a clarification point.
One page. Describe the full scope in the firm's own language:
Half a page to one page. This is the most valuable part of this section — it shows the firm is thinking critically, not just complying.
For each comment, use this format:
ToR Reference: [Section or clause number] Observation: [What the firm has noticed — an ambiguity, a gap, a risk, or a suggestion] Recommendation: [What the firm proposes — a clarification request, an alternative approach, or an additional activity]
Common types of comments:
If the ToR is well written and has no issues, state this briefly and note that the firm is fully aligned with the stated scope and approach. Never fabricate comments for the sake of appearing thorough.
Every understanding-of-assignment section must walk through a clear logical arc. This arc has three elements:
Describe the client's current situation as stated or implied in the ToR. Three components make up S1:
Describe what will be different at the end of the project. S2 is the result the client is purchasing — not the activities or deliverables, but the changed condition. If the ToR describes expected outcomes, synthesise them into a single coherent picture of the desired end-state. If the ToR is silent on outcomes, infer S2 from the objectives and state the inference explicitly.
State the good things that accrue from achieving S2. Benefits sit beyond the project boundary — they are the lasting value the client and its stakeholders receive. Examples include reduced costs, improved service delivery, enhanced compliance, stronger institutional capacity, or better policy outcomes.
The understanding section should explicitly walk through this arc in its narrative:
"The [institution] currently faces [S1 — overriding problem and its effects, triggered by the triggering event]. The Terms of Reference seek to move toward [S2 — the desired end-state]. Achieving this will [B — the benefits that follow]."
This logic provides the backbone of the narrative. Every sentence in the understanding section should serve this arc. If a sentence does not connect to S1, S2, or B, it is filler and should be removed.
Every assignment has one overriding question that the project must answer. The overriding question is the pivot of the entire proposal — if it is wrong, the objective is wrong; if the objective is wrong, the methodology is wrong; and if the methodology is wrong, the proposal fails regardless of how well it is written.
The overriding question is derived from the overriding problem (identified in S1), not from the ToR's list of tasks. Tasks are activities; the overriding question is the intellectual challenge the firm must resolve.
If the ToR asks for "a review of the procurement function", the overriding question is not "What is the current state of procurement?" — that is merely descriptive. The overriding question might be:
"What specific changes to [institution]'s procurement processes, systems, and capacity would reduce procurement cycle times to within [benchmark] while maintaining compliance with [regulatory framework]?"
This question drives the methodology: it tells the team what data to collect, what to analyse, and what the deliverable must contain.
The understanding section should identify the overriding question explicitly. This signals to the evaluator that the firm has moved beyond surface comprehension to genuine analytical engagement with the assignment. Place it after the S1–S2–B narrative, as a bridge to the methodology.
For website, software, SaaS, AI, service design, support, or transformation assignments, the overriding question should include the operating reality: which users are affected, which service or workflow moments fail today, which data or systems constrain delivery, and which measurable outcome will prove the change worked.
A strong understanding section analyses the client's problem from three facets, based on the Wickham framework. Most proposals address only the first; proposals that address all three demonstrate a mature grasp of organisational consulting.
The logical and economic dimension of the problem. This is the facet most consultants address instinctively:
The rational facet provides the business case. It answers the question: "Why is this worth spending money on?"
How individual managers, staff, and stakeholders perceive the problem. This may differ substantially from the rational reality:
The cognitive facet matters because solutions that ignore how people perceive the problem will face resistance regardless of their technical merit. The understanding section should signal awareness of these perceptual differences.
Who gains and who loses from the proposed change. Every assignment that recommends change creates winners and losers within the client organisation:
The political facet is rarely stated openly in a ToR, but evaluators — particularly senior ones — know it exists. A proposal that acknowledges organisational dynamics (tactfully and professionally) demonstrates that the firm will not produce technically sound but politically naive recommendations.
The understanding section need not label these facets explicitly. Instead, weave them into the narrative:
The effect is an understanding section that reads as organisationally intelligent, not merely technically competent.
The understanding section should read as a compelling narrative of the client's situation, not as a restatement of the Terms of Reference. Evaluators read dozens of proposals; the ones that stay with them tell the client's story in a way that resonates. The Freed framework provides three components for structuring this narrative.
Tell the evaluator where the client is now, from the client's own perspective. This is not the firm's analysis — it is an empathetic rendering of the client's experience:
The story component draws on S1 but goes further — it humanises the situation. It shows the evaluator that the firm has listened, not just read.
State the key questions that must be answered by the assignment. These are not simply the tasks listed in the ToR — they are the analytical questions generated from the methodology logic:
The questions component bridges the understanding section and the methodology. It tells the evaluator: "We know what we need to find out, and our methodology is designed to find it out."
State the project's objectives clearly and concisely, then end with the benefits. The closing ties the narrative back to the S1–S2–B arc:
The closing should leave the evaluator with a clear sense of purpose and value. It should feel like the natural conclusion of a well-told story, not a bureaucratic summary.