Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Frameworks for strategic planning, resource allocation, and organizational an...
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-strategic-management-guide/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 30% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 37% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -29% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 97% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 84% | 0% |
A research-oriented skill for applying strategic management theories and frameworks to academic case studies, organizational analysis, and business research. Covers classical and contemporary strategy frameworks with rigorous analytical methods.
The RBV framework (Barney, 1991) evaluates competitive advantage through internal resources and capabilities. Apply the VRIO test:
| Criterion | Question | If "No" | |-----------|----------|---------| | Valuable | Does it exploit opportunity or neutralize threat? | Competitive disadvantage | | Rare | Is it controlled by few firms? | Competitive parity | | Inimitable | Is it costly to imitate? | Temporary advantage | | Organized | Is the firm organized to capture value? | Unrealized advantage |
All four "Yes" answers indicate a sustained competitive advantage.
python# VRIO analysis scoring framework def vrio_analysis(resources: list[dict]) -> dict: results = {} for r in resources: name = r['name'] v, r_score, i, o = r['valuable'], r['rare'], r['inimitable'], r['organized'] if not v: results[name] = 'competitive_disadvantage' elif not r_score: results[name] = 'competitive_parity' elif not i: results[name] = 'temporary_advantage' elif not o: results[name] = 'unrealized_advantage' else: results[name] = 'sustained_advantage' return results # Example usage resources = [ {'name': 'proprietary_algorithm', 'valuable': True, 'rare': True, 'inimitable': True, 'organized': True}, {'name': 'office_space', 'valuable': True, 'rare': False, 'inimitable': False, 'organized': True}, ] print(vrio_analysis(resources)) # {'proprietary_algorithm': 'sustained_advantage', 'office_space': 'competitive_parity'}
A structured approach to strategy formulation for research purposes:
Apply Ansoff's Growth Matrix to map strategic options:
Existing Products New Products
Existing Markets Market Penetration Product Development
New Markets Market Development DiversificationFor academic research, operationalize each quadrant with measurable indicators: market share growth rate, R&D investment ratio, geographic expansion metrics, and portfolio diversification index.
Use the SAFe criteria (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes):
Translate strategy into measurable objectives across four perspectives:
yamlfinancial: objectives: - "Increase revenue by 15% YoY" - "Reduce cost-to-serve by 10%" kpis: ["revenue_growth_rate", "operating_margin"] customer: objectives: - "Achieve NPS > 50" - "Reduce churn below 5%" kpis: ["net_promoter_score", "monthly_churn_rate"] internal_process: objectives: - "Reduce cycle time by 20%" - "Achieve 99.9% uptime" kpis: ["avg_cycle_time_days", "system_uptime_pct"] learning_growth: objectives: - "Increase training hours per employee" - "Launch 3 new capabilities per quarter" kpis: ["training_hours_per_fte", "new_capabilities_shipped"]
Model competitive interactions using payoff matrices:
pythonimport numpy as np # Prisoner's Dilemma payoff matrix # (Row player payoff, Column player payoff) # Strategies: Cooperate (0), Defect (1) payoffs_row = np.array([[3, 0], [5, 1]]) payoffs_col = np.array([[3, 5], [0, 1]]) # Find Nash equilibria for i in range(2): for j in range(2): row_best = payoffs_row[i, j] >= max(payoffs_row[:, j]) col_best = payoffs_col[i, j] >= max(payoffs_col[i, :]) if row_best and col_best: print(f"Nash Equilibrium at ({i}, {j})")
Structure scenario analysis with two critical uncertainties on perpendicular axes. Develop four internally consistent narratives, assign probability weights, and compute expected values for key decision variables. This approach enables robust strategy under deep uncertainty.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 11,429 | 13,190 | +15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,295 | 2,987 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 18,119 | 20,204 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,624 | 5,335 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 6,946 | 5,626 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,224 | 2,183 | +78% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 6,606 | 6,530 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,240 | 2,364 | +91% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 3,343 | 4,412 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 555 | 1,997 | +260% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 5,289 | 4,198 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 758 | 1,980 | +161% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 11,177 | 6,500 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,754 | 2,409 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 12,622 | 7,212 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,107 | 2,443 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 4,493 | 3,684 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 750 | 1,895 | +153% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 17,456 | 4,835 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,861 | 2,040 | -29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 9,568 | 3,931 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,496 | 1,861 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 11,042 | 8,497 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,217 | 3,027 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 6,371 | 5,000 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,110 | 2,183 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 24,330 | 30,477 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,539 | 6,517 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 4,592 | 2,248 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 739 | 1,669 | +126% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 20,842 | 22,140 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,347 | 5,132 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,525 | 4,647 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,490 | 2,023 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→fail | 14,205 | 17,232 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,421 | 4,119 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 12,353 | 11,276 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,222 | 3,372 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 13,568 | 19,028 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,947 | 5,468 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 6,236 | 8,394 | +35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,374 | 2,974 | +116% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 16,456 | 17,265 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,630 | 3,722 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.