Purpose
Produce four decision-grade geopolitical scenarios built on a defensible 2x2 matrix — each with a named narrative, probability weight, leading indicators to monitor, and a direct mapping to business impact vectors — so strategy and risk teams can plan against uncertainty instead of guessing at a single forecast.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Build scenarios for a specific region, country, or geopolitical flashpoint
- Stress-test a market entry, expansion, or exit decision against political risk
- Prepare a scenario briefing for the board, ExCo, or a risk committee
- Assess how a specific event (election, sanctions, conflict, trade dispute) could unfold and hit the business
- Develop contingency or early-warning plans tied to observable indicators
- Compare exposure across two or more regions using a consistent framework
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Region or situation: The country, region, or specific geopolitical dynamic in focus
- Time horizon: Planning window (e.g., 12 months, 3 years, 5 years)
- Business footprint: Nature of exposure — operations, suppliers, customers, assets, or personnel in the region
- Primary impact concern: What the team most worries about (supply continuity, market access, regulatory shifts, currency, security)
- Key uncertainties: 2-4 forces the team is unsure about (leadership succession, sanctions trajectory, alliance shifts, commodity prices)
- Risk appetite: How much downside exposure the organization can tolerate
- Existing view: Any current internal assumption or house view to test against
If key uncertainties are not provided, select the two most consequential and least predictable drivers for the region and note the choice. If time horizon is missing, default to 3 years.
Instructions
Step 1: Define the Two Critical Axes
Select the two drivers that are both high-impact and high-uncertainty — these become the axes of the 2x2 matrix.
- Each axis must be a genuine uncertainty, not a foregone conclusion (avoid axes where one outcome is 90%+ likely)
- The two axes must be independent — not two versions of the same driver
- Frame each axis as a spectrum with two defined poles (e.g., "Escalation ↔ De-escalation," "Open trade regime ↔ Protectionist regime")
- State explicitly why these two axes matter most for this business footprint
Step 2: Construct the 2x2 Scenario Matrix
Map the four quadrants formed by the axes. Each quadrant is one scenario.
- Give each scenario a memorable, descriptive name (not "Scenario A") — e.g., "Managed Détente," "Fortress Economy," "Cold Fracture," "Open Reset"
- Assign each quadrant to a strategic archetype: Base Case (most probable), Upside, Downside, Tail Risk (low probability, high consequence)
- The archetype assignment must follow logically from the axes — do not force a quadrant into an archetype it doesn't fit
Step 3: Write Each Scenario Narrative
For all four scenarios, produce:
- Name and one-line summary: The scenario in a sentence
- How we get here: The chain of events and conditions that produce this outcome (3-5 sentences)
- Probability weight: A percentage — the four must sum to 100%
- Leading indicators: 3-4 observable, early signals that this scenario is materializing (specific enough to monitor — named institutions, thresholds, event types, not "tensions rise")
- Time-to-impact: How quickly consequences would reach the business (immediate / months / years)
Step 4: Map Each Scenario to Business Impact Vectors
For each of the four scenarios, assess impact across these vectors, rating each High / Medium / Low / Positive with a one-line rationale:
- Supply chain & sourcing: Continuity, cost, and single-point-of-failure exposure
- Market access & demand: Ability to sell, tariffs, boycotts, local content rules
- Regulatory & legal: Sanctions, ownership restrictions, nationalization, compliance burden
- Currency & capital: FX volatility, capital controls, repatriation of profits
- Physical & personnel security: Asset safety, expatriate risk, operational disruption
- Reputation & stakeholder: Investor, customer, and ESG scrutiny tied to presence in the region
Step 5: Identify No-Regret and Contingent Moves
Close with two action categories:
- No-regret moves: Actions that make sense across all four scenarios (worth doing now)
- Contingent moves: Actions triggered only if a specific scenario's leading indicators fire — pair each with the indicator that activates it
Step 6: State the Planning Recommendation
Give an opinionated bottom line: which scenario to plan against as the primary case, which tail risk warrants a dedicated contingency plan, and the single most important indicator to watch this quarter.
Output Format
- Structure: Axis definition → 2x2 matrix → four scenario narratives → impact vector mapping (table per scenario or one consolidated table) → no-regret/contingent moves → planning recommendation
- Length: 1,100–1,500 words
- Format: Structured document — matrix described clearly, scenarios as labeled sections, impact vectors in tables
- Sections: Critical Axes → Scenario Matrix → Scenario Narratives (×4) → Business Impact Mapping → No-Regret & Contingent Moves → Planning Recommendation
- Tone: Strategy-and-risk director — measured, evidence-oriented, decisive without alarmism; probabilities and indicators over adjectives
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Two axes are named, independent, and each represents a genuine uncertainty (not a near-certain outcome)
- [ ] All four scenarios have distinct names and are assigned to base/upside/downside/tail-risk archetypes
- [ ] Probability weights are assigned to all four scenarios and sum to exactly 100%
- [ ] Every scenario has 3-4 leading indicators that are observable and specific — not vague sentiment statements
- [ ] All six impact vectors are rated for all four scenarios with a rationale each
- [ ] No-regret moves are genuinely robust across all four scenarios, and each contingent move is tied to a named trigger indicator
Notes
- The value of scenario planning is in the axes, not the narratives — if the two axes are wrong, the four scenarios will be too. Spend the effort on Step 1.
- The base case should rarely exceed 45% probability; if it does, the axes probably aren't uncertain enough to warrant scenario work.
- Tail-risk scenarios are the most commonly under-planned — even at 5–10% probability, high-consequence outcomes deserve a named contingency plan.
- Leading indicators are the actionable output: a scenario without monitorable indicators is a story, not a plan.
- When comparing multiple regions, hold the impact vectors constant across analyses so exposure can be ranked apples-to-apples.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills