菜单
Use when use after the analytical sections exist but before final assembly or presentation. Use the relevant plan-section skill for section drafting.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/peterbamuhigire/business-plan-skills --skill meta-consulting-synthesis命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | meta-consulting-synthesis |
| description | Use when use after the analytical sections exist but before final assembly or presentation. Use the relevant plan-section skill for section drafting. |
| metadata | {"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]} |
meta-critical-thinking-business-logic has exposed assumptions, countercases, achievability gaps, and cross-section contradictions.Do not use before the core sections contain enough substance to synthesise.
Do not use as a substitute for fixing factual weaknesses in the underlying analysis.
Do not use to polish prose before the governing argument is clear.
For meta-consulting-synthesis, route to the relevant plan-section skill instead when the request is section drafting rather than cross-section analysis.
| Input | Source / provider | Required? | If absent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consulting Synthesis brief and decision audience | Client, plan owner, or approved project files | Yes | Stop before making a recommendation; state the missing decision context. |
| Claims, assumptions, and supporting evidence | Source register, model, research notes, interviews, or operating records | Yes | Separate known facts from assumptions and return a qualified gap list. |
| Authority and delivery constraints | Requesting owner and repository instructions | Yes | Remain read-only and produce a draft or review only. |
meta-critical-thinking-business-logic where availableTreating synthesis as copy-editing.
Listing topics instead of building a key line of reasons.
Carrying multiple competing theses through the same document.
Hiding the hardest objections instead of addressing them.
Synthesising around an attractive thesis before the business logic has survived the achievability gate.
Applying the wrong neighbouring route to meta consulting synthesis. Correction: confirm the decision and route to the named neighbour before analysis.
Treating an assumption as verified evidence. Correction: label it, cite its source or owner, and assign a verification action.
Recommending action without a decision threshold. Correction: state the measurable acceptance condition and review trigger.
Recording an unavailable check as passed. Correction: mark it not assessed and state the consequence for the decision.
Mutating or publishing during an analysis-only task. Correction: remain read-only until the owner gives explicit authority.
| Artefact | Consumer | Observable acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Consulting Synthesis deliverable | Named decision-maker or plan author | The recommended choice, assumptions, countercase, and next action are explicit. |
| Evidence and exception register | Reviewer, funder, board, or implementation owner | Every load-bearing claim is sourced or labelled as an assumption; missing checks are not shown as passes. |
Use this skill after the analytical sections are drafted and before final assembly, presentation design, or final executive-summary polishing.
Turn a collection of good sections into one coherent decision document that reads like a top-tier advisory product rather than a stitched draft.
Write the top-line conclusion first:
[Business] is a [bankable / investable / partnerable] opportunity because [reason 1], [reason 2], and [reason 3], provided [critical condition] is managed.
If that sentence is weak, the plan is not ready. Fix the thinking before polishing prose.
Break the decision into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive branches:
Use yes/no or pass/fail questions under each branch. Each branch must lead to a conclusion, not a topic summary.
For each branch, state:
Do not leave unresolved claims hidden in narrative paragraphs.
Use this progression:
If any section does not move that sequence forward, cut it or move it to appendices.
Every major paragraph or slide should follow:
Do not use topic headings that merely label content. Prefer conclusion headings.
Adjust the final framing by audience:
Before finalising, confirm:
Produce these artifacts in order:
One sentence only.
Three to five bullets only. Each bullet must be a stand-alone reason to proceed.
List the top issues blocking a decision-grade draft.
Use this sequence:
Write the exact closing recommendation for the target reader.
references/consulting-synthesis-framework.md - issue trees, hypothesis-driven problem solving, key-line logic, storyline construction, and assertion-evidence rewriting distilled from McKinsey Mind, The McKinsey Edge, and Strategic Storytelling../meta-critical-thinking-business-logic/references/reasoning-achievability-gate.md - serious-analysis, mental-model, business-sense, and achievability checks that should precede synthesis../01-executive-summary/references/pyramid-principle.md - SCQA and top-down structure../meta-presentation-design/references/data-storytelling.md - visual and narrative rules for turning analytical output into decision-ready exhibits| Evidence | Format | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-grade investment storyline decision trace | Sources, calculations, assumptions, countercase, and selected action | A reviewer can trace the selected action and rejected alternatives to the cited inputs. |
| Exception record | Failed and not-assessed checks with owner and due action | The register exposes every unresolved exception that could lead to creating a polished narrative that leaves cross-section contradictions intact. |
Read supplied records and use non-mutating checks to produce the decision-grade investment storyline; restructuring the supplied narrative without changing source facts is permitted when requested. Do not publish, contact third parties, alter live systems, commit funds, or claim legal, tax, audit, valuation, ESG, or investment assurance without the owner's explicit authorisation and the appropriate reviewer.
If completed sections, governing question, and contradiction list cannot be obtained, return a qualified decision-grade investment storyline covering only the checks that remain supportable. Leave this decision unresolved: the governing thesis and evidence sequence. Record the evidence owner and next check; an inaccessible source, tool, or reviewer is never a pass.
| Decision condition | Action | Failure or risk avoided |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence is sufficient to decide: the governing thesis and evidence sequence | Record the conclusion, source trail, owner, and review trigger in the decision-grade investment storyline. | Risk of creating a polished narrative that leaves cross-section contradictions intact |
| Material evidence conflicts or remains uncertain | Draft competing theses against the same evidence and retain the one that explains the countercase and cross-section economics with fewer exceptions. | Selecting an option without resolving the decision-relevant uncertainty |
| Required evidence is missing: completed sections, governing question, and contradiction list | Mark the decision on the governing thesis and evidence sequence not assessed in the decision-grade investment storyline, and send it to the plan owner and executive sponsor. | Otherwise, the work risks creating a polished narrative that leaves cross-section contradictions intact |
Accept the decision-grade investment storyline only when evidence is sufficient for this decision: the governing thesis and evidence sequence. Assumptions and countercases remain visible, calculations and cross-references reconcile, and the reviewer can see how the recommendation addresses the risk of creating a polished narrative that leaves cross-section contradictions intact.
Market demand appears attractive, but capacity and working capital cap first-year sales. Build the thesis around the staged, financeable entry rather than repeating the market-size claim.