菜单
Write ENAC case studies with challenge, approach, outcome, and proof-first storytelling. Use for client stories, success stories, testimonials, proof points, and marketing case narratives.
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
| name | case-study |
| description | Write ENAC case studies with challenge, approach, outcome, and proof-first storytelling. Use for client stories, success stories, testimonials, proof points, and marketing case narratives. |
A case study is proof. Not a success story. Not a testimonial. Proof that ENAC's approach worked in a specific situation with a specific result.
Specific, not generic. Named client (or named type if confidential). Named challenge. Named outcome with numbers.
"We've done this before" is not proof. "$1 billion in two years" is proof.
What was actually happening. Not the polished version: the real one. Include: the constraint, the tension, what had already been tried and failed.
What ENAC saw that others missed. The reframe that changed the approach. This is the most differentiating section. If it sounds generic, it is.
What the engagement looked like. Which phases of the methodology. Who was in the room. Name the Confront/Co-Create/Copilot phases explicitly.
Specific. Numbers where possible. Named results. Include: what changed, what was produced, what happened next.
The principle the case study illustrates. One sentence that makes it applicable to the next client.
Read only the Insight section. Ask: could this be applied to any client in this industry?
If yes: it's not a real insight. A real insight is specific to this client's situation.
Every case study should include at least one:
If none of these exist: the outcome section is not done.
If the client cannot be named:
| Test | Question | If No |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | Is there a real number or named result? | Add proof |
| Insight | Is the reframe specific to this client? | Rewrite it |
| Voice | Does it sound like ENAC talking, not marketing? | Remove superlatives |
| Challenge | Is the real challenge named, not a polished version? | Be more honest |
| Methodology | Are the three phases visible? | Make them explicit |
UI Designer for software interfaces. Use for visual direction, hierarchy, typography, color, spacing, component composition, design systems, visual critique, and making an interface feel intentional before UI implementation.
UX Designer for software workflows. Use for interaction design, task flows, information architecture, page states, usability, accessibility flow, form behavior, empty/loading/error/success states, and making a service concept usable before visual design or implementation.
Use when you need the Codex Copilot equivalent of Claude Copilot /update-project: refresh a project-local Codex Copilot setup from the shared framework.
Use when you need specialist role guidance for architecture, engineering, QA, security, docs, devops, service design, UX, UI design, UI implementation, or industrial design in a Codex session or delegated subagent.
Use when you need the Codex Copilot equivalent of Claude Copilot /config: inspect or explain cc configuration, known references, paths, and environment hydration.
Use when you want to invoke codex-copilot specialist agents natively in Codex, either by selecting the right specialist skill for the main session or by mapping specialists onto real Codex spawned-agent roles for delegated work.
