菜单
This skill should be used when the user asks to "review this deck for structure," "critique this memo," "is this narrative tight," or provides an existing document or deck and wants a structural critique against pyramid and so-what discipline rather than a line edit or rewrite.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Check installed community skills for updates. Shows a diff and requires explicit approval before applying. Use when the user says "check for updates", "update my skills", "anything new for my installed skills", or when invoked from the registry-sync agent.
Engagement-profile interview that recommends and installs a starter pack of community strategy skills. This IS the practice setup for the whole ecosystem — it asks what kind of strategist you are and recommends what to install first. Use on fresh install, when the user says "get me started" or "what should I install", or to re-run the integration-availability check after adding or removing an MCP connector.
Install a community skill from a watched registry. Reads the allowlist first, fetches, shows the RAW SKILL.md (not just a summary), runs structural trust checks, runs skills-qa, and only writes files after explicit user approval. Use when the user says "install [skill]", picks install from browse, or provides a direct skill URL.
Evaluate a skill against the Strategy Skill Design Framework — thirteen design parameters (including trust-surface, freshness, schema validation, and conflict detection), three strategy-specific failure modes, and a three-band verdict (Ready / Some Concern / Material Concerns). Use when deciding whether to trust a community skill before installing it, before deploying a first-party skill to your team, or whenever the user asks "should I trust this?" or "is this skill well-designed?". Runs automatically as part of /strategy-builder-hub:skill-installer.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "review our resource allocation," "are we funding the right things," "build a portfolio allocation view," or needs current spend, headcount, or management attention checked against strategic priority for misallocation.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "stress-test these synergies," "is this deal's synergy case realistic," or has a deal or partnership's projected synergies that need cost/revenue separation, evidence checks, and a base-rate haircut.
| name | doc-reviewer |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "review this deck for structure," "critique this memo," "is this narrative tight," or provides an existing document or deck and wants a structural critique against pyramid and so-what discipline rather than a line edit or rewrite. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| metadata | {"version":"0.3.0","owner":"consulting practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"narrative-synthesis","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"} |
When the user wants a structured structural critique of an existing deck or memo — partner-style markup, not a rewrite.
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Full document readable end-to-end | Report read failure; do not partial-critique |
Partial read (large doc): record coverage in reviewer note; critique only read sections.
narrative-synthesis): High = full doc read, ranked fixes; Low = partial read flagged.SOURCING / ASSUMPTIONS / NUMBERS / CONFIDENCE / GATE — per trust-conventions.md
GOVERNING THOUGHT TEST: [pass/fail + specifics]
MECE TEST: [pass/fail + specifics]
SO-WHAT TEST: [...]
TITLE DISCIPLINE: [...]
GROUPING LOGIC: [...]
TRUST SPINE: [sourcing, assumptions, numbers, confidence, gate]
PRIORITY FIXES (ranked): 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...
Input: Memo with recommendation in paragraph 4, topic slide titles, untagged $50M claim.
Excerpt: GOVERNING THOUGHT TEST: fail — conclusion paragraph 4, should be line 1. SOURCING: $50M revenue claim slide 7 untagged.
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/consulting/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /consulting:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: user applies fixes, or request rewrite via narrative-builder / exec-memo.