Skip to content This library is free, offered as dana. If it helps your work, donate here →
penguin tree ai
← back to libraryDonate here

This is one of 3,622 free prompts in the penguin tree ai library. Sign up once and the whole library opens, with new prompts by email.

open the library →

Strategic hypothesis framer

Reformulates a loosely defined strategic question into a crisp problem statement, a MECE issue tree with testable hypothesis branches, prioritized workstreams, and the key questions each branch must answer — applying…

download .md

Purpose

Turn a vague strategic question into a rigorously structured problem: a single sharp problem statement, a MECE issue tree, prioritized hypothesis branches, and the specific questions each branch must resolve — so a team can move immediately from "we're not sure what the real question is" to a defensible, analyzable work plan.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Structure or scope an ambiguous strategic problem before analysis begins
  • Turn a board or CEO question ("should we expand into X?") into a work plan
  • Build an issue tree, hypothesis tree, or MECE decomposition
  • Frame a strategy engagement, workstream plan, or diligence scope
  • Sharpen a loosely worded business challenge into a testable set of hypotheses
  • Prioritize where a team should spend analytical effort first

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • The strategic question: The problem or question as currently stated, in the user's words
  • Business context: Company, industry, size, and relevant situation (1–3 sentences)
  • Decision at stake: What decision this analysis will inform, and who makes it
  • Success criteria: What a good answer must satisfy (financial, strategic, risk thresholds)
  • Known constraints: Time, budget, resources, or options already ruled in/out
  • Existing hypotheses or beliefs: Any prior views held by the user or stakeholders
  • Time horizon: Decision deadline and the timeframe the strategy addresses

If decision-maker or success criteria are missing, infer reasonable defaults from context and flag the assumption explicitly.

Instructions

Step 1: Sharpen the Core Question

Restate the loosely defined input as a single, decision-oriented problem statement.

  • Convert open musings into one closed, answerable question with a clear subject, action, and success threshold
  • Apply the SCQ frame (Situation → Complication → Question): establish the stable context, the change that forces a decision, and the resulting question
  • Distinguish the real question from the presenting question — the presenting question is often a symptom
  • Test the statement: it must be specific enough that a "yes/no" or a bounded set of options is conceivable

Output one primary question plus a one-line note on what the original framing missed, if anything.

Step 2: Choose the Decomposition Logic

Select the issue-tree structure that fits the question type:

  • Diagnostic tree (why is X happening?): decompose by cause categories
  • Options tree (should we do A, B, or C?): decompose by mutually exclusive choices
  • Value-driver tree (how do we improve X?): decompose by the levers that move the metric
  • Feasibility tree (can we do X, and how?): decompose by desirability / viability / feasibility

State which structure you chose and why in one sentence.

Step 3: Build the MECE Issue Tree

Decompose the core question into 3–5 first-level branches that are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive.

  • Each branch is a sub-question that, if answered, contributes to answering the parent
  • No overlap between branches; no material gap in coverage
  • Under each first-level branch, add 2–4 second-level sub-branches
  • Run a MECE check on each level: could two branches both claim the same issue? Is anything material uncovered?
  • Keep the tree to 2 levels unless a branch genuinely requires a third

Step 4: Convert Branches to Testable Hypotheses

For each first-level branch, state a falsifiable hypothesis — a claim that could be proven true or false with evidence, not a topic to "explore."

  • Frame as a declarative assertion (e.g., "Margin decline is driven primarily by input-cost inflation, not pricing erosion")
  • For each hypothesis, list the 2–3 key questions that must be answered to confirm or reject it
  • For each key question, name the evidence or analysis that would resolve it (data source, model, or test)

Step 5: Prioritize Workstreams

Rank the branches into a sequenced work plan using two axes:

  • Impact on the decision: how much this branch swings the recommendation (High / Medium / Low)
  • Speed to resolve: how quickly it can be answered with available data (Fast / Moderate / Slow) Prioritize High-impact / Fast-to-resolve branches first — these are the "critical few" that may make later workstreams unnecessary. Flag any branch that is a potential deal-breaker (if false, the whole initiative fails) as a Priority 1 gate regardless of speed.

Step 6: Assemble the Pyramid

Present the answer top-down per the Pyramid Principle:

  • Governing thought at the top: the core question and how it will be answered
  • Key line beneath it: the first-level branches as the supporting argument
  • Supporting detail below: hypotheses, key questions, and evidence Confirm the logic flows: do the branches, taken together, fully support resolving the governing question?

Output Format

  • Structure: Top-down pyramid — sharpened problem statement, then the issue tree, then hypotheses with key questions, then the prioritized workstream plan
  • Length: 800–1,200 words
  • Format: Structured document with a nested/indented issue tree, a hypothesis-and-key-questions table, and a ranked workstream list
  • Sections: Sharpened Problem Statement (with SCQ) → Decomposition Logic Chosen → MECE Issue Tree → Hypotheses & Key Questions → Prioritized Workstreams → One-Page Pyramid Summary
  • Tone: Senior strategy consultant — precise, structured, intellectually honest; flags assumptions and gaps rather than papering over them

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] The problem statement is a single closed question, not an open topic
  • [ ] First-level branches pass a MECE check — no overlap, no material gap (state the check explicitly)
  • [ ] Every branch is expressed as a falsifiable hypothesis, not a "explore X" topic
  • [ ] Each hypothesis has 2–3 key questions and a named evidence source for each
  • [ ] Workstreams are ranked on both impact and speed, with any deal-breaker flagged as a Priority 1 gate
  • [ ] The pyramid summary shows branches collectively supporting the governing question

Notes

  • The most common failure is answering the presenting question when the real question sits one level up — always test whether the stated question is a symptom
  • MECE is a discipline, not a decoration: if two branches could both claim the same finding, the tree will produce double-counted or contradictory conclusions
  • Prioritization exists to avoid boiling the ocean — a well-framed problem usually has 1–2 critical branches that determine the answer; front-load those
  • When a hypothesis is a potential deal-breaker, resolving it early can save the entire downstream effort

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:

  1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
  2. 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