strategy-document by jezweb/claude-skills
npx skills add https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skills --skill strategy-document生成具体到足以付诸行动的战略文档。质量标准:每项陈述都应具备可证伪性(例如"我们拥有3名具有10年以上经验的React开发人员"对比"我们拥有一支强大的团队"),每项建议都应能在规定时间范围内实施。
询问用户需要哪种文档类型:
如果用户不确定,询问他们试图做出什么决策。这通常能揭示正确的模式:
询问:
受众决定了详细程度。银行需要财务预测。创始人需要清晰度。团队需要方向。
撰写文档,然后根据具体性测试审查每个条目:该陈述是否适用于行业内的任何企业?如果是,则过于模糊。请根据用户的具体背景重写。
以2x2网格呈现,每个象限包含3-5个要点。每个要点为一句话 — 具体且可操作。
有利的 有害的
(对实现目标) (对实现目标)
内部 优势 劣势
(来源) - ... - ...
- ... - ...
外部 机会 威胁
(来源) - ... - ...
- ... - ...
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
内部(优势、劣势)= 企业可控的事项:团队技能、流程、技术、财务、文化、知识产权。
外部(机会、威胁)= 企业不可控的事项:市场趋势、竞争对手、法规、经济状况、技术变革。
| 过于模糊 | 具体且有用 |
|---|---|
| "强大的团队" | "3名具有10年以上React经验的开发人员;仅1人具备后端技能" |
| "良好声誉" | "来自127条评论的4.8分Google评分;3年内94%的客户留存率" |
| "增长的市场" | "澳大利亚中小企业SaaS市场年增长率为12%(IBISWorld 2025)" |
| "竞争" | "竞争对手X在2025年第四季度推出了免费套餐,吸引了200多名我们的目标客户" |
| "现金流问题" | "平均应收账款天数:58天;目标:30天。超过60天未收回的款项为12万美元" |
每个条目都应通过"那又怎样?"测试 — 必须清楚为什么这一点对战略决策很重要。
在网格之后,添加一个将发现转化为行动的部分:
战略影响:
这是SWOT分析中最有价值的部分。没有影响的网格只是分类练习,而非战略。
当受众是创始人或需要清晰度的小团队时使用。每部分一段,不添加冗余内容。
| 部分 | 撰写内容 |
|---|---|
| 问题 | 存在什么痛点?谁感受到它?他们目前如何应对? |
| 解决方案 | 企业提供什么?用一句话描述。 |
| 关键指标 | 3-5个表明健康状况的数字(月度经常性收入、客户流失率、客户获取成本、客户终身价值、净推荐值) |
| 独特价值主张 | 为什么选择这家企业而非其他选择?一句话。 |
| 渠道 | 客户如何找到你?按有效性排序。 |
| 收入来源 | 资金如何流入?列出每个来源及其占总收入的近似百分比。 |
| 成本结构 | 前5大成本类别及其近似的月度/年度数字。 |
| 不公平优势 | 什么不容易被复制?(团队专业知识、专有数据、网络效应、监管地位) |
每个部分的测试:如果你不能用一段话说明,说明你还不够理解。重写直到你能做到。
在精简格式基础上增加:
目标:[定性的、鼓舞人心的、有时限的]
关键结果1:[定量的、可衡量的、有数字]
关键结果2:[定量的、可衡量的、有数字]
关键结果3:[定量的、可衡量的、有数字]
通常每季度3-5个目标,每个目标有3-5个关键结果。
| 过于模糊 | 具体 |
|---|---|
| "改进我们的营销" | "在第二季度末建立可预测的入站潜在客户渠道" |
| "发展业务" | "在第三季度前以可重复的销售流程拓展布里斯班市场" |
| "提高效率" | "在第二季度前消除所有客户账户中的手动报告瓶颈" |
| 任务(错误) | 结果(正确) |
|---|---|
| "启动新网站" | "新网站每月实现1000名自然访问者" |
| "招聘2名开发人员" | "将平均功能交付时间从3周减少到1周" |
| "运行Google广告活动" | "以低于30美元的客户获取成本产生50个合格潜在客户" |
| "撰写12篇博客文章" | "将自然流量增长40%(从每月800次会话到1120次)" |
任务是实现关键结果的活动。它们属于项目计划,而非OKR。
季度末,为每个关键结果评分,范围从0.0到1.0:
如果每个OKR都得1.0分,说明目标不够有雄心。如果每个OKR得分都低于0.3,说明它们不切实际或优先级错误。
从比较矩阵开始,然后进行解读。
比较矩阵:
| 因素 | 你的企业 | 竞争对手A | 竞争对手B | 竞争对手C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 价格点 | $X/月 | $Y/月 | $Z/月 | 免费套餐 + $W/月 |
| 关键功能1 | 是 | 是 | 否 | 部分 |
| 关键功能2 | 否 | 是 | 是 | 是 |
| 目标市场 | 澳大利亚中小企业 | 企业 | 初创公司 | 所有细分市场 |
| 优势 | 个性化服务 | 规模 | 价格 | 品牌知名度 |
| 劣势 | 小团队 | 非个性化 | 功能有限 | 支持缓慢 |
你的优势所在: 具有证据的具体优势。"更快的上手时间(3天对比行业平均2周)"而非"更好的服务"。
你的劣势所在: 诚实的评估。"竞争对手A的开发团队规模是我们的10倍;我们无法匹配他们的功能开发速度"比假装差距不存在更有用。
你的差异化所在: 你做的其他人在结构上无法或选择不做的事情。这是战略黄金 — 它指导定位、信息传递和产品决策。
建议行动: 基于分析,应该改变什么?需要构建的新功能、要瞄准或避免的细分市场、价格调整、合作伙伴机会。
如果用户能够接触到竞争对手的实际客户(通过行业网络、论坛、社交媒体),第一手反馈比任何已发布的报告都更有价值。
具体优于模糊。 每个主张都需要数字、名称或具体例子。"强劲增长"不是战略 — "收入从85万美元增长到119万美元,增长40%"是战略。
证据优于观点。 "我们相信市场正在增长"对比"澳大利亚SaaS市场在2025年增长了12%(来源)。"如果找不到证据,如实说明 — 诚实的空白比捏造的主张更好。
可操作优于抱负性。 每个部分都应回答"我们如何处理这些信息?"如果SWOT条目或竞争洞察没有导致决策或行动,就不值得包含。
诚实地面对劣势。 只列出优势的战略文档是无用的。价值在于看到全貌 — 包括令人不适的部分。投资者、合作伙伴和团队都更信任诚实而非粉饰。
长度适当。 精简版商业计划是一页。SWOT分析是一页加影响部分。OKR最多几页。竞争分析随竞争对手数量而扩展。不要为了长度而填充内容 — 每个句子都必须有其存在的价值。
过于模糊:
强大的数字影响力和良好的在线声誉。
正确方法:
来自127条评论的4.8分平均Google评分(纽卡斯尔网络机构中最高)。网站每月自然产生35个合格潜在客户,付费客户转化率为12%。在LinkedIn和Instagram上拥有2400名社交媒体关注者,案例研究帖子的平均参与率为6.2%。
第二个版本为读者提供了三个数据点,他们可以将其与竞争对手进行比较,与行业平均水平进行基准测试,并随时间跟踪。
每周安装量
115
仓库
GitHub星标数
643
首次出现
11天前
安全审计
安装于
opencode111
kimi-cli110
gemini-cli110
amp110
cline110
github-copilot110
Produces strategic documents that are specific enough to act on. The quality bar: every statement should be falsifiable ("We have 3 React developers with 10+ years experience" vs "We have a strong team") and every recommendation should be implementable within a defined timeframe.
Ask the user which document type they need:
If the user is unsure, ask what decision they are trying to make. That usually reveals the right mode:
Ask for:
The audience determines the level of detail. A bank wants financial projections. A founder wants clarity. A team wants direction.
Write the document, then review every entry against the specificity test: could this statement apply to any business in the industry? If yes, it is too vague. Rewrite with the user's specific context.
Present as a 2x2 grid with 3-5 points per quadrant. Each point is one sentence — specific and actionable.
HELPFUL HARMFUL
to achieving objectives to achieving objectives
INTERNAL STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
(origin) - ... - ...
- ... - ...
EXTERNAL OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
(origin) - ... - ...
- ... - ...
Internal (Strengths, Weaknesses) = things the business controls: team skills, processes, technology, finances, culture, IP.
External (Opportunities, Threats) = things the business does not control: market trends, competitors, regulation, economic conditions, technology shifts.
| Too vague | Specific and useful |
|---|---|
| "Strong team" | "3 developers with 10+ years React experience; only 1 has backend skills" |
| "Good reputation" | "4.8 Google rating from 127 reviews; 94% client retention over 3 years" |
| "Growing market" | "Australian SME SaaS market growing 12% annually (IBISWorld 2025)" |
| "Competition" | "Competitor X launched a free tier in Q4 2025, capturing 200+ of our target segment" |
| "Cash flow issues" | "Average debtor days: 58; target: 30. $120K outstanding beyond 60 days" |
Every entry should pass the "so what?" test — it must be clear why this point matters for strategic decisions.
After the grid, add a section that translates findings into actions:
Strategic implications:
This is the most valuable part of a SWOT. The grid without implications is an exercise in categorisation, not strategy.
Use when the audience is the founder or a small team needing clarity. One paragraph per section, no padding.
| Section | What to write |
|---|---|
| Problem | What pain exists? Who feels it? How do they cope today? |
| Solution | What does the business offer? In one sentence. |
| Key Metrics | 3-5 numbers that indicate health (MRR, churn, CAC, LTV, NPS) |
| Unique Value Prop | Why this business over alternatives? One sentence. |
| Channels | How do customers find you? Rank by effectiveness. |
| Revenue Streams | How does money come in? List each stream with approximate % of total. |
| Cost Structure | Top 5 cost categories with approximate monthly/annual figures. |
| Unfair Advantage | What cannot be easily copied? (team expertise, proprietary data, network effects, regulatory position) |
The test for each section: if you cannot say it in one paragraph, you do not understand it well enough yet. Rewrite until you can.
Adds to the lean format:
OBJECTIVE: [Qualitative, inspiring, time-bound]
KR1: [Quantitative, measurable, has a number]
KR2: [Quantitative, measurable, has a number]
KR3: [Quantitative, measurable, has a number]
Typically 3-5 Objectives per quarter, each with 3-5 Key Results.
| Too vague | Specific |
|---|---|
| "Improve our marketing" | "Establish a predictable inbound lead pipeline by end of Q2" |
| "Grow the business" | "Expand into the Brisbane market with a repeatable sales process by Q3" |
| "Be more efficient" | "Eliminate manual reporting bottlenecks across all client accounts by Q2" |
| Task (wrong) | Outcome (right) |
|---|---|
| "Launch the new website" | "Achieve 1,000 monthly organic visitors to the new site" |
| "Hire 2 developers" | "Reduce average feature delivery time from 3 weeks to 1 week" |
| "Run Google Ads campaign" | "Generate 50 qualified leads at under $30 CAC" |
| "Write 12 blog posts" | "Grow organic traffic 40% (800 to 1,120 monthly sessions)" |
Tasks are the activities you do to achieve Key Results. They belong on a project plan, not in OKRs.
At quarter end, score each KR from 0.0 to 1.0:
If every OKR scores 1.0, the goals were not ambitious enough. If every OKR scores below 0.3, they were unrealistic or the wrong priorities.
Start with a comparison matrix, then interpret it.
Comparison matrix:
| Factor | Your Business | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price point | $X/mo | $Y/mo | $Z/mo | Free tier + $W/mo |
| Key feature 1 | Yes | Yes | No | Partial |
| Key feature 2 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Target market | AU SMEs | Enterprise | Startups | All segments |
| Strength | Personal service | Scale | Price | Brand recognition |
| Weakness | Small team | Impersonal |
Where you win: Specific advantages with evidence. "Faster onboarding (3 days vs industry average of 2 weeks)" not "better service".
Where you lose: Honest assessment. "Competitor A has 10x our development team; we cannot match their feature velocity" is more useful than pretending the gap does not exist.
Where you differentiate: What you do that others structurally cannot or choose not to. This is the strategic gold — it informs positioning, messaging, and product decisions.
Recommended actions: Based on the analysis, what should change? New features to build, segments to target or avoid, pricing adjustments, partnership opportunities.
If the user has access to competitors' actual customers (through industry networks, forums, social media), first-hand feedback is more valuable than any published report.
Specific over vague. Every claim needs a number, a name, or a concrete example. "Strong growth" is not strategy — "40% revenue increase from $850K to $1.19M" is strategy.
Evidence over opinion. "We believe the market is growing" vs "The AU SaaS market grew 12% in 2025 (source)." If you cannot find evidence, say so — an honest gap is better than a fabricated claim.
Actionable over aspirational. Every section should answer "what do we do with this information?" If a SWOT entry or competitive insight does not lead to a decision or action, it is not worth including.
Honest about weaknesses. Strategy documents that only list strengths are useless. The value is in seeing the full picture — including the uncomfortable parts. Investors, partners, and teams all trust honesty more than polish.
Appropriate length. A lean business plan is one page. A SWOT is one page plus implications. OKRs are a few pages at most. Competitive analysis scales with the number of competitors. Do not pad for length — every sentence must earn its place.
Too vague:
Strong digital presence and good online reputation.
Right approach:
4.8 average Google rating from 127 reviews (highest among Newcastle web agencies). Website generates 35 qualified leads per month organically, with a 12% conversion rate to paying clients. Social media following of 2,400 across LinkedIn and Instagram, with 6.2% average engagement rate on case study posts.
The second version gives the reader three data points they can compare against competitors, benchmark against industry averages, and track over time.
Weekly Installs
115
Repository
GitHub Stars
643
First Seen
11 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykWarn
Installed on
opencode111
kimi-cli110
gemini-cli110
amp110
cline110
github-copilot110
竞品拆解分析工具:使用 inference.sh CLI 进行结构化竞品研究与截图
7,800 周安装
Core Data专家指南:构建高性能iOS数据栈,修复崩溃与迁移问题
1,000 周安装
AI 驱动的 PowerPoint 自动化工具:从文章/博客自动生成 PPTX 演示文稿
1,000 周安装
GitHub PRD 撰写与提交指南:15分钟完成产品需求文档和Pull Request
1,000 周安装
Slack GIF制作工具包:创建符合Slack要求的动画GIF,支持消息和表情符号
1,100 周安装
抽奖赢家选取器 - 随机选择工具,支持CSV、Excel、Google Sheets,公平透明
1,000 周安装
Tailwind CSS 实用指南:快速构建响应式设计、深色模式与组件化开发
1,000 周安装
| Limited features |
| Slow support |