Mode d’emploi
- Copiez la commande et examinez le paquet avant de l’installer dans votre environnement agent.
- Consultez le document original pour les outils, identifiants et environnements requis.
- Décrivez les entrées et le livrable souhaité ; comparez la sortie aux sources.
npx skills add https://github.com/jpeetz/agent-skills --skill enterprise-consulting-methodsAvant de commencer
- L’installation n’inclut ni abonnement au modèle, ni quota API, ni accès aux fichiers.
- Étoiles et installations reflètent l’activité, pas un test indépendant de qualité ou de sécurité.
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
Enterprise Consulting Methods
A comprehensive meta-skill package containing 15 battle-tested consulting methodology patterns from a former McKinsey consultant. Each encodes a specific consulting move so you don't reinvent the structure every time. All deck/chart outputs produce native python-pptx objects — editable inside PowerPoint, right-click → Edit Data.
Overview
| Category | Skill | What It Does |
|---|---|---|
| Framing | SCPR Framework | Structure arguments using Situation-Complication-Problem-Recommendation |
| Issue Tree Builder | Break down problems into MECE components | |
| Hypothesis Tree | Commit to a Day-1 answer and design tests that could kill it | |
| Analysis | Synthesis | Turn raw inputs into 3 insights with evidence + so-what |
| Prioritization | Score features using RICE, Impact/Effort, Value/Complexity | |
| AI Use-Case Scorer | Score AI use cases on Value × Feasibility × Safety | |
| Data Insights | Analyze datasets and answer key questions in plain English | |
| Writing | Decision Memo Builder | 1-page memo forcing a yes/no decision |
| Top-Down Memo | Answer-first writing using the Minto Pyramid Principle | |
| Storyline Builder | Build slide narratives where each line = a slide title | |
| Meetings & People | Meeting Prep Kit | Pre-read + agenda + talking points + objections |
| Stakeholder Map | Map the room onto Power/Interest | |
| Workshop Designer | Design sessions that end with committed artifacts | |
| Decks | McKinsey Charts | Three workhorse charts as native python-pptx objects |
| Quality | McKinsey Critic | Review decks/docs like a McKinsey engagement manager |
When to Use
Use this meta-skill whenever you need to apply structured consulting thinking to a business problem. Common triggers:
- Strategic question → recommendation: Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree → run tests → Decision Memo
- Customer research → memo: Synthesis → Top-Down Memo (or Decision Memo) → McKinsey Critic
- Board deck: Issue Tree → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline → McKinsey Critic
- Big decision with politics: Stakeholder Map → Decision Memo → Meeting Prep Kit (for each 1:1)
- Offsite or alignment workshop: Workshop Designer → Meeting Prep Kit (pre-1:1s) → Top-Down Memo (post-send)
- Any high-stakes presentation: Use the 4-agent Deck Pipeline (Strategist → Builder → Critic → Fixer)
- Analysis paralysis: Hypothesis Tree to commit to a Day-1 answer before boiling the ocean
- Exec communication: Top-Down Memo for emails/briefs, Decision Memo for yes/no asks
How to Use
Quick Start — Full Deck Pipeline
Build me a McKinsey-style deck on [topic] for [audience]. Run the full top-down workflow:
1. Use issue-tree-builder to decompose into MECE branches
2. Use storyline-builder to turn it into 8 claim-shaped slide titles
3. Use mckinsey-charts for the data slides (bar+callout, waterfall)
4. Use deck-pipeline (strategist → builder → critic → fixer) to produce the final .pptxIndividual Method Calls
Each of the 15 methods below can be invoked individually. Pick the pattern that matches your current stage of work:
- Framing the problem: SCPR Framework → Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree
- Understanding the data: Synthesis → Data Insights
- Deciding what to do: Prioritization → Decision Memo
- Communicating the answer: Top-Down Memo → Storyline Builder → Charts → Pipeline
- Getting buy-in: Stakeholder Map → Meeting Prep Kit → Workshop Designer
- Quality gate: McKinsey Critic on any draft before it ships
Workflow: Full Strategic Engagement
This is the canonical top-down workflow for turning a fuzzy strategic question into an actionable recommendation:
Phase 1: FRAME
SCPR Framework → Issues Tree → Hypothesis Tree
(Structure the problem, commit to a Day-1 answer)
Phase 2: ANALYZE
Synthesis / Data Insights → Prioritization
(Process raw data, rank what matters)
Phase 3: RECOMMEND
Decision Memo Builder → Top-Down Memo
(Force a yes/no, communicate answer-first)
Phase 4: COMMUNICATE
Storyline Builder → McKinsey Charts → Deck Pipeline
(Build narrative, create charts, produce deck)
Phase 5: STRESS-TEST
Stakeholder Map → Meeting Prep Kit → McKinsey Critic
(Map politics, prep meetings, get EM-level review)
Phase 6: EXECUTE
Workshop Designer
(Align the team, leave with committed artifacts)Methodology Reference
1. SCPR Framework (Situation-Complication-Problem-Recommendation)
Purpose: Structure arguments for executive summaries, memos, and strategic recommendations.
Structure:
- Situation: Current state of the market/business (baseline context)
- Complication: Recent shift or change creating urgency (new dynamics, competitive threats)
- Problem: Crisp answerable question to solve
- Recommendation: Proposed actions that are MECE, specific, and time-bound
Core Principles: MECE at recommendation level, clarity, actionability. The Complication must be distinct from the Problem — Complication is "what changed," Problem is "what question to solve."
2. Issue Tree Builder (MECE Decomposition)
Purpose: Break down complex problems into MECE components for structured analysis.
Structure: Top-down, 2 levels max (Governing Question → 3 Branches → 2-3 Sub-Branches each).
- Level 0: Governing Question (specific, answerable)
- Level 1: Major branches — decompose to fundamentals (not actions)
- Level 2: Testable hypotheses
Common Decompositions:
- Revenue = Price × Quantity × Pipeline
- Profit = Revenue - Cost
- Growth = New customers + Expansion + New products
- Market entry = Attractiveness + Competitive position + Capability
Prioritization: After building the tree, rank branches by Impact × Effort. Start with High Impact + Low Effort.
3. Hypothesis Tree (Day-1 Hypothesis)
Purpose: Commit to a best-guess answer before analysis, so the work targets what would change your mind.
Structure: Top = Day-1 answer → 3 sub-claims (if all true, top is proven) → Tests that could kill each sub-claim.
Key Rules:
- You MUST commit to a Day-1 answer (even a weak guess beats no guess)
- 3 sub-hypotheses max
- Every leaf is a test that could kill the branch
- State conviction (High/Med/Low) — test low-conviction first
- Disconfirmation > confirmation: design tests to kill the hypothesis
Issue Tree vs. Hypothesis Tree:
| Issue Tree | Hypothesis Tree | |
|---|---|---|
| Top | The question | The answer (your guess) |
| Branches | Sub-questions (MECE) | Sub-claims proving the top |
| Bottom | Areas to investigate | Tests that would kill the claim |
| Use when | You don't know what matters | You have a strong prior |
4. Synthesis (Insight Extraction)
Purpose: Turn raw inputs (interviews, surveys, research) into 3 actionable insights with evidence and implication.
Process:
- Cluster — let themes emerge from data (induction, not deduction)
- Force-rank to 3 by frequency, severity, surprise
- Name each insight as a claim (falsifiable, specific)
- Stack evidence (2-3 bullets with direct quotes, exact numbers, named sources)
- Write the so-what (one-line implication: "Because this is true, the reader should ___")
- Anti-summary check: would the reader know what to do next?
The test: "Did the output change how the reader will act?" If no, you summarized — rewrite.
5. Prioritization Frameworks
Purpose: Score and rank features, initiatives, and tasks using proven frameworks.
| Framework | When to Use | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| RICE | Quantitative data available | (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort |
| Impact/Effort Matrix | Quick decisions, limited data | 2×2 grid |
| Value vs. Complexity | Engineering-heavy decisions | 2×2 grid |
| Weighted Scoring | Custom business criteria | Σ (Score × Weight) |
When data is missing: Provide baseline estimates based on industry patterns, mark clearly as estimates, use ranges (not false precision), and flag high-uncertainty items for validation.
6. AI Use-Case Scorer
Purpose: Score personal AI use cases on Value × Feasibility × Safety to tier them: Do Now / Do This Quarter / Park / Avoid.
Scoring (1–5 each axis, final = V × F × S):
- Value: Time saved + Quality lift + Strategic fit
- Feasibility: Tool maturity + Your skill/time
- Safety: Quality risk + Data risk + Trust risk (inverted: higher = safer)
Tiers: ≥60 Do Now, 30–59 This Quarter, 10–29 Park, <10 Avoid.
7. Data Insights
Purpose: Analyze any dataset and answer key questions in plain English. Best for quick analysis without being a data scientist. Ask for CSV/JSON data, specify the questions, and get structured analysis back.
8. Decision Memo Builder
Purpose: 1-page memo forcing a yes/no decision with specific owner and date.
Memo DNA — four non-negotiables:
- Brutal brevity (~400 words max)
- Storyline clarity (Situation → Complication → Resolution)
- Decision-forcing (last line = yes/no ask with owner and date)
- Evidence density (every claim backed by number, quote, or source)
Structure: Title (≤10 words) → Context (3-4 sentences) → Complication (2-3 sentences) → Options (2-3, 1-2 lines each) → Recommendation (1 paragraph) → Risks & Mitigations (≤3 bullets) → The Ask (1 line).
9. Top-Down Memo (Minto Pyramid)
Purpose: Answer-first writing — lead with the conclusion, then MECE arguments, then evidence.
Structure: LEAD (one sentence answer) → ARG 1 (claim + evidence) → ARG 2 → ARG 3 → (optional) Risks/Open Questions.
The test: Can the reader stop after the first paragraph and know what you think? If they need to read to the end, you wrote a story, not a memo.
10. Storyline Builder
Purpose: Build presentation storylines where each line = one slide title, creating logical narrative flow.
Key characteristics:
- Each line = action-oriented message (not topic label)
- Logical flow: Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution → Roadmap
- Reader must understand the full story from titles alone
Templates by situation:
- Market Strategy/Pitch Deck: Market opportunity → Competitive position → Product strategy → Roadmap
- Internal Problem-Solving: Problem framing → Root cause → Solution options → Prioritization → Next steps
- Project Roadmap: Approach → Phases → Activities → Timeline → Success criteria
11. Meeting Prep Kit
Purpose: Personal prep tool for meetings where YOU are driving an outcome.
Output sections:
- Pre-read (3 bullets, ≤30 words each) — minimum context needed
- Time-boxed agenda (adds up to meeting length, decision time reserved at end)
- Talking points (top 3, in spoken language) — lead with strongest, address elephant, make ask
- Anticipated objections (top 3 with rebuttals per person)
Design rules: Outcome-first, top 3 not all 12, speakable not slidable.
12. Stakeholder Map
Purpose: Map people onto Power/Interest grid with stance (Champion / Supporter / Neutral / Skeptic / Blocker / Unknown) and one influence move per person.
Quadrants:
- Manage Closely (High Power, High Interest) — deciders, most time goes here
- Keep Satisfied (High Power, Low Interest) — pre-brief so they're never surprised
- Keep Informed (Low Power, High Interest) — give them a role
- Monitor (Low Power, Low Interest) — quarterly update enough
Key Rules: Real names not roles. Honest stances. Coalition sequence (who to align first).
13. Workshop Designer
Purpose: Design half-day or full-day workshops that end with committed artifacts and named owners.
Design rules:
- One outcome (not three)
- Diverge then converge (never both at once)
- Breakouts < 4 people
- Energy curve: heavy thinking morning, decisions afternoon (never right after lunch)
- Pre-build the artifact template
- Facilitator plays referee, not participant
Output: Workshop charter → Hour-by-hour agenda → Breakout playbook → Facilitator "what if" notes → Artifact template → Post-workshop send (24-hour SLA).
14. McKinsey Charts (Native PowerPoint)
Purpose: Generate McKinsey-style charts as native python-pptx objects (editable in PowerPoint).
Three chart types:
- bar_callout: Single-series column with one highlighted bar + callout textbox. Use for TAM/single-number stories.
- stacked_bar_over_time: Stacked column over time with one series highlighted. Use for composition/mix stories.
- waterfall: Start → adds → subtracts → total bridge. Use for revenue/cost bridge analysis.
Design choices (intentional, not configurable):
- Title is a claim, not a label
- One highlight color (everything else grey)
- No gridlines, no chart border
- Source line bottom-left in grey italic
- Single font (Inter), consistent sizes
Dependencies: Python 3.9+, python-pptx. See references/charts.py for the full implementation.
15. McKinsey Critic (EM Review)
Purpose: Review decks, docs, and strategies like a McKinsey engagement manager at 2am before a client presentation.
Grading: Green (ready) / Yellow (fixable overnight) / Red (needs rework).
What it checks:
- Narrative flow (Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution)
- Data rigor (specific numbers, sources, fair comparisons)
- So-what on every slide
- Claim-based titles vs topic titles
- Frameworks vs bullet lists
- Financial frames where needed
Output format: Grade → Section-by-section table → Top 3 fixes (ranked by impact) → One thing that works.
Common Pitfalls
General Consulting Mistakes
- Skipping the hypothesis tree: The #1 reason strategy work takes 3x longer than it should. Commit to an answer before you start.
- Boiling the ocean: Don't investigate every branch of an issue tree. Prioritize by Impact × Effort and start with the highest-impact, lowest-effort branches.
- Chronological narratives: The way you thought about something is the opposite of how the reader needs to hear it. Lead with the answer.
- Synthesis by list: "Here are 7 themes" is clustering, not synthesis. Cut to 3 with implication.
- Missing the so-what: Every insight/argument needs an explicit implication. If the reader doesn't know what to do next, you haven't finished.
SCPR Mistakes
- Situation too detailed: Keep to essential context only.
- Complication = Problem: They're different. Complication is "what changed," Problem is "what question to solve."
- Overlapping recommendations: Ensure MECE structure.
- No timelines: Always include "by when" in recommendations.
Issue Tree Mistakes
- Actions instead of fundamentals: Level 1 decomposes the problem (Price × Quantity), not solutions.
- Not MECE: Overlapping branches or missing key dimensions.
- Too deep: 2 levels from governing question max.
- Not testable: Terminal branches must be provable/disprovable with data.
Decision Memo Mistakes
- Bullet-point soup with no storyline: Must flow as Situation → Complication → Resolution.
- Decision-averse hedging: "We should consider..." — recommend or don't write the memo.
- Missing numbers: "Significant impact" without specificity.
- Recommendation leaked into options: Options are neutral; recommendation is separate.
- Ask = "discuss next steps": The ask must be a specific yes/no with owner and date.
Top-Down Memo Mistakes
- Burying the lead: Don't start with "Over the last 6 weeks, the team explored..." Lead with the answer.
- Topic-shaped arguments: "Pricing" is a topic. "Pricing is 2.4x the standalone value" is an argument.
- More than 4 arguments: You haven't synthesized.
- Evidence that doesn't defend its argument: Each bullet should clearly serve the headline.
Stakeholder Map Mistakes
- Mapping by title, not by power: The CTO might not care; the staff eng who's been there 8 years might be the blocker.
- Skipping the "unknown" stance: Unknown is honest. "I think they're supportive" without evidence is wishful.
- Over-engaging Monitor quadrant: Don't burn cycles converting people who don't care.
- No coalition sequence: Knowing who matters isn't enough. You need the order of alignment.
Workshop Design Mistakes
- Multi-outcome workshops: "Alignment + brainstorm + decisions" = none of the three. Pick one.
- No artifact template: "We'll write it up" = it doesn't get written up. Pre-build.
- Mixing divergent and convergent: "Let's brainstorm options and pick the best one in 45 min" produces neither good options nor a defensible pick.
- Decision moment right after lunch: Energy nadir. Schedule application work there, not commitment.
- The sponsor facilitates: They have a stake. Pick a neutral facilitator.
McKinsey Charts Mistakes
- No python-pptx installed: The chart code requires
pip install python-pptx. Run this before calling chart functions. - Using images instead of native charts: The whole point is editable charts. Never paste screenshots of charts — use the python-pptx functions.
- More than 5 series stacked: Split into small multiples instead.
- Rainbow charts: One highlight color, everything else grey. No rainbow.
Deck Pipeline Mistakes
- Running the pipeline without a clear audience: The Strategist needs to know who the deck is for.
- Skipping stages: Each agent in the pipeline serves a distinct purpose. Skipping the Critic means shipping an un-reviewed deck.
- Missing the critic's top 3 fixes: The Critic identifies the highest-impact problems. Fix those and only those before polish.
Verification
For Any Consulting Output
- Memo/Top-Down Memo: Can the reader stop after the first paragraph and know the answer? Is every claim backed by a number, quote, or source?
- Issue Tree: Is the governing question specific and answerable? Are branches MECE? Are terminal branches testable with data?
- Hypothesis Tree: Is there a clear Day-1 answer? Can each test kill its branch? Is there an overall kill-criterion?
- Storyline: Can you understand the full argument from slide titles alone? Are titles claims, not topics?
- Synthesis: Did the output change how the reader will act? Are insights claims (not topics) with evidence and so-what?
- Decision Memo: ~400 words max? Last line is a yes/no ask with owner and date?
- Stakeholder Map: Are stances honest? Is there a coalition sequence? Is each stakeholder mapped by power (not title)?
- Meeting Prep: Do talking points ladder to the outcome? Are objections specific per person?
- Workshop: Is there one outcome? Pre-built artifact template? Facilitator "what if" playbook?
- McKinsey Charts: Are charts native pptx objects (right-click → Edit Data)? Is there a source line? One highlight color?
- Deck Pipeline: Check the Critic's grade. If Yellow/Red, apply all top 3 fixes before shipping.
- McKinsey Critic: Run the output through the critic before it reaches stakeholders. Fix structure before polish.
Python Charts Verification
pip install python-pptx
python references/charts.py # Generates test_output.pptx with all 3 chart typesOpen test_output.pptx in PowerPoint and right-click any chart → Edit Data to confirm it's a native chart object.
Composition Patterns
Most real work uses 2–3 of these together:
| Need | Stack |
|---|---|
| Customer research → memo | Synthesis → Top-Down Memo → McKinsey Critic |
| Strategic question → recommendation | Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree → run tests → Decision Memo |
| Big decision with politics | Stakeholder Map → Decision Memo → Meeting Prep Kit |
| Board deck (production) | Issue Tree → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline → Critic |
| Offsite / alignment workshop | Workshop Designer → Meeting Prep Kit → Top-Down Memo |
| Pricing or feature analysis | Issue Tree → Prioritization → Decision Memo |
| Weekly exec update | Synthesis (of week's data) → Top-Down Memo (the ask) |
| Product launch proposal | SCPR Framework → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline |
| Quarterly planning | Workshop Designer → Prioritization → Top-Down Memo (post-send) |

