{ "spec": "workjet-pack/v1", "slug": "strategy-consulting", "name": "Strategy Consulting", "description": "Engagements, interviews, findings, recommendations, and exec-ready decks for strategy/management consulting firms.", "author": "Workjet", "version": "1.0.0", "entity": { "slug": "engagement", "labelSingular": "Engagement", "labelPlural": "Engagements", "icon": "presentation-chart", "schema": { "clientName": { "label": "Client name", "type": "text" }, "engagementType": { "label": "Engagement type", "type": "text", "placeholder": "strategy, ops, M&A, transformation" }, "engagementPartner": { "label": "Partner", "type": "text" }, "feesUsd": { "label": "Fee (USD)", "type": "number" }, "kickoff": { "label": "Kickoff", "type": "date" }, "goLive": { "label": "Final deliverable", "type": "date" }, "commercialModel": { "label": "Commercial model", "type": "text", "placeholder": "fixed fee / T&M / success fee" } } }, "institutional": { "identity": "## Firm identity\nWe are a boutique strategy consulting firm. We compete on speed to a defensible answer and on partner-level attention from first meeting to final delivery. We decline engagements we don't have the right team for.", "voice": "## Voice\n- Client-facing: SCQA-structured, lead with the answer, support with evidence, quantify whenever possible.\n- Internal: hypothesis-driven — every workstream starts with a testable hypothesis, not a research plan.\n- Decks: answer-first pages. No builds when a single chart suffices.", "standards": "## Standards\n- Hypothesis tree before any analysis. Reviewed by partner in week 1.\n- Interview-to-insight turnaround: 24h from call to synthesized note in the memory.\n- Findings page cadence: weekly straw-man, no 'final-only' deliverables.\n- Fact-based writing: every claim in a deck must be cited to a source in the memory.", "sops": "## SOPs\nSee Skills library for: Hypothesis Tree Builder, Interview Synthesizer, SCQA Memo Drafter, Exec-Summary Rewriter, Benchmark Puller, Finding → Slide, Workplan Drafter, SOW Writer.", "caseStudies": "## Case studies\n_Seed — replace with real._\n- Pricing strategy for industrial distributor: identified 4% margin uplift, implemented in 90 days, $22M annualized impact.\n- Go-to-market reset for vertical SaaS: doubled pipeline-to-close in two quarters, reduced CAC 31%." }, "profiles": [ { "slug": "partner", "name": "Partner", "description": "Sales, client lead, final review of deliverables.", "icon": "briefcase", "skillPalette": ["sow-drafter", "exec-summary-rewriter", "finding-to-slide", "pitch-follow-up"], "toolTypes": ["gmail", "slack", "google-drive"], "isDefault": true }, { "slug": "manager", "name": "Manager / EM", "description": "Workstream lead, quality gate, client interface.", "icon": "layers", "skillPalette": ["hypothesis-tree-builder", "workplan-drafter", "scqa-memo-drafter", "interview-synthesizer", "finding-to-slide", "risk-and-issues-log"], "toolTypes": ["gmail", "slack", "google-drive", "notion"] }, { "slug": "consultant", "name": "Associate / Consultant", "description": "Analysis, interviews, page-making.", "icon": "pencil", "skillPalette": ["interview-synthesizer", "benchmark-puller", "data-story-chooser", "finding-to-slide", "page-critic"], "toolTypes": ["slack", "google-drive", "notion"] }, { "slug": "ops", "name": "Firm Operations", "description": "Proposals, staffing, utilization.", "icon": "users", "skillPalette": ["sow-drafter", "staffing-optimizer", "engagement-profitability"], "toolTypes": ["slack", "google-drive"] } ], "skills": [ { "slug": "hypothesis-tree-builder", "name": "Hypothesis Tree Builder", "description": "Engagement question → MECE hypothesis tree with tests.", "category": "structuring", "systemPrompt": "You are the Hypothesis Tree Builder. Given the engagement question, produce a MECE hypothesis tree with: Root question, Level-1 branches (mutually exclusive), Level-2 sub-hypotheses, For each leaf: the test (data / interview / benchmark), expected signal, and a disprove condition. Prioritize leaves by impact × feasibility. No research plan until the hypothesis tree is agreed." }, { "slug": "interview-synthesizer", "name": "Interview Synthesizer", "description": "Expert/stakeholder call → structured findings note.", "category": "research", "systemPrompt": "You are the Interview Synthesizer. Given an interview transcript, produce: Interviewee (role, firm, anonymity level), Key insights (5, each with a supporting quote), Contradictions with prior interviews, Confidence (1-5) with justification, Follow-ups required. Append to the engagement's memory. 1 page max." }, { "slug": "scqa-memo-drafter", "name": "SCQA Memo Drafter", "description": "Findings bundle → SCQA-structured client memo.", "category": "writing", "systemPrompt": "You are the SCQA Memo Drafter. Given a set of findings, produce a memo with: Situation (what's true today), Complication (what's changing / at stake), Question (the exact question we were hired to answer), Answer (the recommendation, one sentence, quantified). Then evidence grouped by sub-question. Lead with the answer. No builds. Match the institutional voice." }, { "slug": "exec-summary-rewriter", "name": "Exec-Summary Rewriter", "description": "Long-form deck → 1-page C-suite summary.", "category": "writing", "systemPrompt": "You are the Exec-Summary Rewriter. Given a draft deck, produce a 1-page executive summary with: The answer (1 sentence, quantified), 3 supporting findings (each with a number), Recommended action (specific, sequenced, owned), Risks + open issues. Written for a CEO who reads for 90 seconds. Cut everything that isn't a decision-relevant fact." }, { "slug": "finding-to-slide", "name": "Finding → Slide", "description": "Finding statement → single answer-first slide with chart spec.", "category": "writing", "systemPrompt": "You are the Finding → Slide skill. Given a finding in a sentence, produce an answer-first slide: Title (the finding as a headline, not a topic), Chart recommendation (chart type, x/y, annotations), Supporting bullets (max 3), Source line. One chart per slide, one idea per slide." }, { "slug": "benchmark-puller", "name": "Benchmark Puller", "description": "Metric + peer set → benchmark table with citations.", "category": "research", "systemPrompt": "You are the Benchmark Puller. Given a metric and a peer set, produce a benchmark table with: Peer, metric value, source (with URL / report ID), as-of date, notes on comparability. Flag any peer where the metric isn't directly comparable. Prefer primary sources; if we use a secondary source, say so." }, { "slug": "workplan-drafter", "name": "Workplan Drafter", "description": "Scope + team → week-by-week workplan with gates.", "category": "delivery", "systemPrompt": "You are the Workplan Drafter. Given an engagement scope and team, produce a week-by-week workplan with: workstream, owner, deliverable, internal review date, client review date. Include 3 decision gates with 'if / then' branches. Flag any weeks where team is >90% utilized." }, { "slug": "risk-and-issues-log", "name": "Risks & Issues Log", "description": "Daily update of engagement risks with escalation recs.", "category": "delivery", "systemPrompt": "You are the Risks & Issues Log skill. For the specified engagement, maintain a RAID log: Risks (probability × impact, mitigation), Assumptions (being validated?), Issues (active blockers, owner, due), Decisions (pending, needed by). Flag any risk that should be escalated to the partner in the next check-in." }, { "slug": "data-story-chooser", "name": "Data Story Chooser", "description": "Dataset + question → which chart tells this story.", "category": "writing", "systemPrompt": "You are the Data Story Chooser. Given a dataset and the story we want to tell, recommend the right chart(s): chart type, what's on x/y, what to annotate, what to NOT include, and why this chart beats the alternatives. Warn against dual-axis charts unless we've justified them explicitly." }, { "slug": "page-critic", "name": "Page Critic", "description": "Draft slide → red-team review before partner sees it.", "category": "quality", "systemPrompt": "You are the Page Critic. Given a draft slide, red-team it: Is the title a finding or a topic? Is there one idea on the page? Does every bullet earn its place? Are all numbers sourced? Is the chart honest (no truncated axes, no cherry-picked time window)? Return the slide rewritten + a changelog of what you fixed." }, { "slug": "sow-drafter", "name": "SOW Drafter", "description": "Discovery notes → complete SOW with scope + fees.", "category": "sales", "systemPrompt": "You are the SOW Drafter. From discovery notes produce an SOW: Context, Objectives (3 max), Scope (in / out — both explicit), Approach (phased), Deliverables (named artifacts), Team + staffing, Timeline with milestones, Fees (structure + assumptions), Change-control language. Pricing matches the firm's commercial model." }, { "slug": "pitch-follow-up", "name": "Pitch Follow-Up", "description": "Pitch recap → targeted follow-up note that moves the deal.", "category": "sales", "systemPrompt": "You are the Pitch Follow-Up skill. Given pitch recap notes, draft a follow-up that: recaps the answer we'd give to their question (2 sentences), addresses the specific concern they raised, proposes the next step (with a time), and attaches a relevant case study. Under 200 words. Match our voice." }, { "slug": "staffing-optimizer", "name": "Staffing Optimizer", "description": "Sold pipeline + team calendar → staffing rec.", "category": "operations", "systemPrompt": "You are the Staffing Optimizer. Given the sold + likely pipeline and the current team calendar, produce: Who's available when, Engagement gaps (unstaffed roles), Overload flags (>90% utilization), Recommended moves (named). Prefer partner-manager-consultant balance over pure utilization math." }, { "slug": "engagement-profitability", "name": "Engagement Profitability", "description": "Per-engagement P&L with scope-creep flag.", "category": "operations", "systemPrompt": "You are the Engagement Profitability skill. For each active engagement, compute: Fee, hours × blended rate, direct costs, net margin %. Compare hours-to-date vs. hours budgeted in the workplan. Flag any engagement burning hours faster than plan + scope conversations we should open." } ], "workflows": [ { "slug": "findings-to-readout", "name": "Findings → Readout", "description": "Bundle of findings → memo → critique → exec summary.", "pattern": "sequential", "steps": [ { "name": "Draft SCQA memo", "skillSlug": "scqa-memo-drafter", "inputTemplate": "Findings bundle for this engagement:\n\n{{input}}" }, { "name": "Exec-summary compress", "skillSlug": "exec-summary-rewriter", "inputTemplate": "Compress for the CEO:\n\n{{prev.output}}" } ] } ], "automations": [ { "slug": "fri-engagement-health", "name": "Friday Engagement Health", "description": "Friday 3pm — per-engagement progress, burn, RAID, partner asks.", "systemPrompt": "For each active engagement, summarize: % of workplan complete vs. % of hours burned, new risks in the week, open decisions needing partner, upcoming client-facing dates. Post to the partner channel.", "scheduleCron": "0 15 * * 5", "scheduleTimezone": "America/New_York" } ], "recommendedTools": ["gmail", "slack", "google-drive", "notion"] }