菜单
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.
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
Multi-agent pipeline that builds a polished presentation deck from a single topic. Four agents work in sequence — Strategist defines the narrative, Builder creates the deck, Critic reviews it like a McKinsey EM, Fixer applies the top fixes. Use when you need a presentation that survives senior audiences.
Build a Day-1 hypothesis tree — your best-guess answer to the governing question, broken into 2–3 supporting sub-hypotheses, with the test that would prove or kill each one. Different from an issue tree (which decomposes the problem space). This commits to an answer before you do the work, so the work targets what would actually change your mind. Use at the start of any analysis where you'd otherwise "boil the ocean."
Generate McKinsey-style consulting charts as native python-pptx objects (editable inside PowerPoint). Three workhorse types — bar+callout for TAM/single-number stories, stacked column over time for revenue/usage mix, and waterfall for drivers/bridge analysis. Use when you need a chart that looks like it came from an EM-reviewed deck, not from Excel defaults.
Map the people who can make or break a decision onto a Power/Interest grid, with each named stakeholder's stance (champion / skeptic / blocker / unknown), what they care about, and the single influence move you'll make for them. Use before any cross-functional decision, big launch, reorg, or executive ask — anywhere the politics will decide the outcome more than the merits.
Force the "so what" out of a messy pile of raw inputs — interview notes, customer transcripts, survey results, research dumps, meeting recordings — into 3 insights with evidence and implication. Use when you have more data than you have meaning, and someone is about to ask "ok, so what does this mean?" Different from summarization; output must change how the reader acts.
Answer-first writing using the Minto Pyramid Principle. Lead with the conclusion, then 2–4 MECE supporting arguments, then evidence under each. Use whenever you have a recommendation, finding, or assessment to communicate in writing — memos, emails to execs, Slack updates that need to land, briefing docs. Different from the Decision Memo Builder (which is a specific 1-page decision artifact); this is the general writing method.
| 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. |
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.
Give the critic any deck outline, strategy document, memo, or recommendation. It will:
| 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. |
# 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]