codexkit-strategic-analysis-porter

Conduct strategic analysis using Porter's Five Forces, PESTEL, and SWOT frameworks. Assess competitive dynamics, macro environment, and internal capabilities. Synthesize into strategic implications wi

SKILL.md

GitHub

Strategic Analysis (Porter + PESTEL + SWOT)

When to Use

  • During annual strategic planning cycles
  • When evaluating entry into a new market or segment
  • When competitive dynamics shift significantly
  • When preparing strategic recommendations for the board

Procedure

Step 1 — Porter's Five Forces

Rate each force (1 = Low, 5 = High):

Force Guiding Questions
Threat of New Entrants Barriers to entry? Capital requirements? Regulatory hurdles?
Bargaining Power of Suppliers Supplier concentration? Switching costs? Unique inputs?
Bargaining Power of Buyers Buyer concentration? Price sensitivity? Switching costs?
Threat of Substitutes Alternative solutions? Performance ratio? Switching ease?
Competitive Rivalry Number of competitors? Industry growth? Exit barriers?

Overall industry attractiveness: Average of 5 forces (inverted — lower score = more attractive).

Step 2 — PESTEL Scan

Factor Key Trends Impact (H/M/L) Timeframe
Political Regulation, trade policy, political stability
Economic GDP growth, inflation, exchange rates, interest rates
Social Demographics, consumer behavior, workforce trends
Technological Innovation pace, automation, digital disruption
Environmental Sustainability pressure, resource scarcity, climate
Legal Compliance requirements, IP law, labor law

Step 3 — SWOT Synthesis

Combine Five Forces (external) + PESTEL (macro) + internal assessment:

Helpful Harmful
Internal Strengths Weaknesses
External Opportunities Threats

Step 4 — Strategic Options

Generate strategic options by crossing:

  • Strengths × Opportunities → Offensive strategies
  • Strengths × Threats → Defensive strategies
  • Weaknesses × Opportunities → Reorientation strategies
  • Weaknesses × Threats → Survival strategies

Rank options by: Feasibility × Impact × Alignment with vision.

Inputs

Input Required Format
Industry/market context Yes Description or brief
Company position Yes Products, market share, capabilities
Competitor list Recommended Key competitors with known strengths

Output

## Strategic Analysis — [Company/Market]

### Five Forces Assessment

| Force | Rating | Rationale |
|-------|--------|-----------|
| New Entrants | 2/5 | High capital requirements, regulatory barriers |
| Supplier Power | 3/5 | Moderate concentration, some switching costs |
| Buyer Power | 4/5 | Price-sensitive market, low switching costs |
| Substitutes | 3/5 | Digital alternatives emerging |
| Rivalry | 4/5 | 5 major competitors, slow growth |
| **Industry Attractiveness** | **Moderate** (avg 3.2/5) | |

### PESTEL Summary
[Top 3–5 macro trends with impact assessment]

### SWOT Matrix
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|-----------|------------|
| Strong brand | Limited digital capability |
| | |
| **Opportunities** | **Threats** |
| Emerging market expansion | New digital entrant |

### Strategic Options (Ranked)

| # | Strategy | Type | Feasibility | Impact | Rank |
|---|----------|------|-------------|--------|------|
| 1 | Digital transformation | Reorientation | High | High | ⭐ 1 |
| 2 | Market expansion APAC | Offensive | Medium | High | 2 |
| 3 | Cost leadership program | Defensive | High | Medium | 3 |

### Recommendation
[2–3 sentence strategic recommendation with rationale]

Definition of Done

  • Five Forces rated with rationale
  • PESTEL scan with top trends identified
  • SWOT matrix completed
  • Strategic options generated from SWOT cross-analysis
  • Options ranked by feasibility × impact
  • Clear recommendation provided

Examples

Prompt

Analyze the competitive landscape for our B2B SaaS company in the HR tech market.
We have 5% market share, strong product but weak sales team.
Key competitors: Workday, BambooHR, Deel.
Use Porter's Five Forces + PESTEL + SWOT and recommend strategic options.

Quality Criteria

  • All claims reference specific frameworks, standards, or quantifiable data
  • Content matches the stated audience's expertise level
  • Recommendations are actionable — each includes a concrete next step
  • No unsupported assertions or generic filler language

Verification (4C)

Check Question
Correctness Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions?
Completeness Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience?
Context-fit Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic?
Consequence If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret?

Edge Cases

  • Conflicting frameworks — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly.
  • Rapidly changing domain — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates.
  • Audience has mixed expertise levels — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 — Initial release