engagement-manager

Strategy Consulting Engagement — Full Analytical Workflow

Orchestrate a complete consulting-grade analytical engagement. This skill coordinates the other skills in sequence, producing an executive-grade client report from a starting business problem.

Operating Mode

Delivery only. Produce results directly. Flag weak logic inline rather than asking Socratic questions. The user wants outputs, not coaching.

Workflow

Phase 1: Define the Problem

Invoke the problem-definition skill. Work with the user to sharpen their business question into a decision-oriented problem statement with clear scope and boundaries.

Do not proceed until the user confirms the problem statement.

Phase 2: Structure Hypotheses (Optional)

Assess whether the problem benefits from a formal hypothesis tree:

• If the question has multiple plausible answers and research needs prioritization → invoke the hypothesis-tree skill
• If the question is narrow enough for direct research → skip to Phase 3

If used, present the hypothesis tree to the user and get confirmation on research priorities before proceeding.

Phase 2.5: Data Source Inquiry (MANDATORY — three required questions)

Before launching research, ask the user about available data sources using the AskUserQuestion tool. This step determines the research tier mix and shapes the entire research strategy.

The following three questions are REQUIRED and must each appear as a separate, clearly worded question in the AskUserQuestion call. You may add additional context-specific questions (e.g., geography focus, deliverable format), but these three must not be omitted, merged, or rephrased beyond recognition. The AskUserQuestion tool accepts a maximum of 4 questions per call — if you need more than one additional question beyond the three required, use a second call.

1. Internal/client data (REQUIRED): Based on the problem statement, suggest 2-3 specific types of internal data that would be most valuable for THIS question and ask whether they are available. Examples: internal strategy documents, store layouts, financial models, operational metrics, customer data. Tailor the examples to the specific engagement — do not use generic placeholders.

2. Expert interviews (REQUIRED): Ask explicitly: "Do you have access to expert interviews — either existing transcripts/notes from industry practitioners, or planned interviews we should prepare guides for?" This question must be asked separately from the internal data question because expert data follows a different processing path (Phase 3.5, expert-interview skill). Do NOT merge this with the internal data question.

3. Other external reference material (REQUIRED): Ask: "Do you have any other reference material that should inform this research — for example, an industry report, market study, competitor analysis, or third-party dataset?" This captures data sources that are neither internal client data nor expert interviews but still provide valuable context beyond what public web research can find.

Why these three questions matter: Each question covers a distinct data tier that follows a different processing path. Internal data (Q1) is analyzed alongside public research in Phase 3. Expert interviews (Q2) activate Phase 3.5 and the expert-interview skill for claim extraction and CS scoring. Other reference material (Q3) feeds into the research brief as supplementary context for the analysts. Together, the answers determine whether the engagement runs as Scenario A (public only), B (internal data only), C (internal + public), D (public + expert), or E (all sources).

Record all answers and carry them into the research brief.

Phase 2.7: Deliverable Format Confirmation (MANDATORY)

After the Data Source Inquiry, use the AskUserQuestion tool to confirm the deliverable format. This question must be asked BEFORE research begins so the synthesis and delivery phases know what to produce.

Important: The format choice does NOT affect research quality or depth. Research is always driven by the Precision Anchor and Coverage Dimensions — the agents investigate the question thoroughly regardless of output format. The format choice only determines how findings are presented in the final deliverable.

Question: "The default deliverable is a concise executive Word document (4-6 pages, bullet-driven, with sourced recommendations and Research Notes). Would you prefer a different format?"

Options:

• Executive brief (4-6 pages, Word) — Concise, bullet-driven, focused on key findings and actionable recommendations. (This is the default.)
• Comprehensive report (10-20 pages, Word) — Full analytical narrative with detailed evidence, counter-arguments, and appendix.
• Excel — Structured spreadsheet. Best when the deliverable must map findings across many dimension intersections.
• PowerPoint — Slide-based deliverable for presenting to stakeholders.

If the user requests a format not listed above, confirm that you can produce it and adapt the delivery phase accordingly.

Carry the format choice forward to the synthesis phase and the client-report/delivery phase. The Deliverable Blueprint from problem-definition should be updated to reflect the confirmed format.

Phase 3: Research

Include the Deliverable Blueprint from the Precision Anchor in the brief/input for this phase.

Invoke the research skill. This dispatches three agents:

1. analyst-alpha: Direct research angle (market data, financials, industry benchmarks)
2. analyst-bravo: Complementary angle (competitive dynamics, case studies, contrarian evidence)
3. research-validator: Cross-checks both analysts' findings for consistency and source quality

The research brief must include the data availability summary from Phase 2.5. If internal data was provided, analyze it alongside public research. If the user indicated expert interviews are planned, identify the key uncertainties where expert input would be most valuable.

After the validator completes, the research skill will present an executive summary and a Deep Research assessment identifying under-explored sub-dimensions. The user can choose to dispatch a third "deep dive" agent targeting those specific gaps, or proceed with the existing research base.

Phase 3.5: Expert Interviews (if indicated in Phase 2.5)

If the user indicated during the Data Source Inquiry that expert interviews would be available, invoke the expert-interview skill. This phase comes AFTER public research because:

• Interview guides are sharper when informed by what the public data already shows
• Questions can target the specific gaps and uncertainties identified during research
• The interviewer knows what to validate vs. what to explore

Sub-steps:

1. Plan: Based on the research gaps, recommend 3-5 expert profiles ranked by impact on the Precision Anchor question. Present to user for confirmation.
2. Guide: Create concise interview guides — each question mapped to a specific information gap, with context on what the public research already found.
3. Process (when notes are uploaded): Extract claims, assign CS scores (CS-2 for direct experience, CS-3 for opinion/hearsay), cross-reference against public findings. Flag conflicts and resolve by prioritizing the higher-quality and more precise source.
4. Integrate: Feed confirmed, enhanced, and net-new findings back into the research base. Update Research Notes entries.

If expert interviews reveal significant conflicts with public research or surface entirely new information, consider a targeted follow-up research pass before proceeding to sense-check.

Phase 4: Sense-Check (MANDATORY — produces a written report)

Invoke the sense-check skill. This is NOT optional and cannot be replaced with an informal assessment. The sense-check skill prescribes a 7-step process that must produce a written Sense-Check Report containing:

• Claim-by-claim assessment table
• Key vulnerabilities
• Steel-man counter-narrative
• Math checks
• Analytical traps analysis
• Question-Answer Precision Verdict (PRECISE / PARTIAL / DRIFTED)

A DRIFTED verdict is a hard stop — loop back to Phase 3 for targeted research. A PARTIAL verdict must be carried forward into the synthesis as an explicit qualification.

Present the sense-check report to the user (Checkpoint 3).

COMMON FAILURE MODE: The agent reads the sense-check skill but decides the research is "strong enough" and skips producing the actual report. This defeats the purpose. The discipline of writing each section forces rigor that mental shortcuts do not provide. Always produce the written report.

Phase 5: Synthesize (MANDATORY — produces a written storyline)

Include the Deliverable Blueprint from the Precision Anchor in the brief/input for this phase.

Invoke the synthesis skill. This step transforms the evidence into an argument. It is NOT the same as organizing findings by topic — it answers the question "so what should the client do?"

The synthesis skill must produce a written Storyline Document containing:

• One-sentence governing message (tested against the Precision Anchor)
• 2-4 key arguments with evidence mapped to each
• Counter-argument section
• Headline sequence (must read as a coherent argument without supporting text)
• Evidence map (traceability table: headline → evidence → source → CS score)
• Precision Anchor Alignment statement (DIRECTLY / PARTIALLY / WITH QUALIFICATION)

Present the storyline to the user (Checkpoint 4).

COMMON FAILURE MODE: The agent skips synthesis and goes directly from research to the report, organizing findings by topic rather than by argument. The result is a summary, not a synthesis. The test: if you remove all the evidence and read only the headlines, does a decision-oriented argument emerge? If not, the synthesis step was skipped.

Phase 6: Deliver (MANDATORY)

Include the Deliverable Blueprint from the Precision Anchor in the brief/input for this phase, along with the confirmed deliverable format from Phase 2.7.

Format-specific delivery:

• Executive brief or Comprehensive report (.docx): Invoke the client-report skill. Do NOT write the document directly using the docx skill alone — the client-report skill contains writing standards, banned words, structure requirements, and a mandatory quality review process. For executive briefs, enforce a strict 4-6 page limit (see client-report skill, Executive Brief Mode).

• Excel (.xlsx): Use the xlsx skill. Let the Deliverable Blueprint and the user's stated needs guide the structure. Do not over-engineer — apply the default xlsx skill and ask the user for any structural preferences (e.g., how to organize rows/columns) if not already clear from the Deliverable Blueprint.

• PowerPoint (.pptx): Use the pptx skill. Let the synthesis storyline guide the slide structure. Do not over-engineer — apply the default pptx skill and ask the user for any structural preferences if not already clear.

Research Notes / source traceability requirement: Regardless of format, source traceability must be included — adapted to the format. For Word documents: the Research Notes section as specified in the client-report skill. For Excel: a Sources sheet listing every reference cited in the matrix cells. For PowerPoint: a Sources appendix slide. The traceability requirement is non-negotiable; the specific format adapts.

The report MUST include:

• Executive summary (half page)
• Body sections following the synthesis headline sequence, using the "Data → So What → Now What" pattern and industry-standard terminology alongside plain-language explanations
• Counter-argument section addressing: the steel-man counter-narrative, ALL client-raised objections (from the sense-check's Client-Raised Objections Inventory), and foreseeable operational risks
• Specific recommendations — every sourced data point must lead to an actionable recommendation
• Research Notes section (MANDATORY — final section, compiled from the validator's source registry, providing full traceability for every data point in the report)

The client-report quality review MUST include all mandatory checks (5a through 5l), including:

• Citation completeness self-audit (no uncited claims)
• Assumption labeling audit (illustrative vs. sourced numbers clearly distinguished)
• Source-type-aware confidence language audit
• "Data → So What → Now What" pattern check
• Cross-section linkage review
• Client Question Checklist verification (every client question answered or acknowledged)
• Expert-sourced content retention check (no expert finding dropped without explanation)

COMMON FAILURE MODE: The agent bypasses the client-report skill and writes the document directly, producing a well-formatted document that lacks the Research Notes section, the counter-argument section, and the quality review. The client-report skill is not just about formatting — it enforces analytical rigor in the final deliverable.

Phase 6.5: Deliverable Validation (MANDATORY — no agent audits its own output)

The agent that wrote the report cannot objectively audit it. Dispatch a separate validation agent to read the generated .docx alongside the upstream artifacts and produce a gap report.

Why this exists: The client-report skill specifies mandatory quality checks (5a–5k), but when the same agent that wrote the report also runs the checks, it has sunk-cost bias toward what it already produced. The research phase already solves this problem — two analysts write, a separate validator checks. This phase extends that pattern to delivery.

Process:

1. Dispatch the research-validator agent (or a general-purpose agent) with the following inputs:

   • The generated .docx file path
   • The validated research file (research-validated.md) — specifically the Research Notes / Source Registry section
   • The sense-check report
   • The synthesis storyline (governing message, headline sequence, evidence map)
   • The Precision Anchor and Client Question Checklist from problem definition

2. The validator agent must check:

   • Source completeness (AUTOMATIC FAIL if counts diverge): Extract the .docx text (via pandoc or equivalent). Count entries matching [N] in the research-validated file's Source Registry section. Count entries matching [N] in the extracted .docx text. Report both numbers explicitly: "Source Registry: {X} entries. Report Research Notes: {Y} entries." If X ≠ Y, the report FAILS — do not evaluate other checks. The most common failure is a prose summary replacing the numbered list; if the .docx Research Notes section contains zero [N] entries, flag immediately.
   • Counter-argument coverage: Verify the steel-man counter-narrative, client-raised objections, and operational risks from the sense-check all appear in the document.
   • Client Question Checklist: Every question answered or explicitly acknowledged as out-of-scope.
   • Headline fidelity: The synthesis headline sequence should be traceable in the document's section structure.
   • Banned language: Scan for any banned words/phrases from the client-report skill.

3. The validator produces a Deliverable Gap Report:

   • PASS: No gaps found. Document is ready for delivery.
   • FAIL: List each gap with the specific missing item and where it should appear.

4. If FAIL: fix the gaps in the document before presenting to the user. Then re-run the validator to confirm.

COMMON FAILURE MODE: The agent decides the report "looks good enough" and skips this phase. This is the phase that would have caught the most common delivery failure — omitted Research Notes, missing sources, dropped client questions. It adds one agent call. Do not skip it.

Present the final validated document to the user.

Mandatory User Checkpoints (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

The following checkpoints require presenting output to the user and waiting for their response before proceeding. These are not optional efficiency trade-offs — they are quality gates that catch errors, incorporate user knowledge, and prevent wasted work.

CHECKPOINT 1 — Problem Statement (Phase 1) Present the problem statement, Precision Anchor (including the Deliverable Blueprint), AND the Client Question Checklist. Wait for user confirmation. DO NOT proceed to research until the user confirms.

CHECKPOINT 2 — Research Package (Phase 3) After the validator completes, present the validated research package to the user. Include: key findings summary, evidence strength assessment, and information gaps. DO NOT proceed to sense-check until the user responds.

CHECKPOINT 3 — Sense-Check Report (Phase 4) Produce the full sense-check report (claim inventory, triangulation, steel-man, math checks, precision verdict). Present to the user. DO NOT proceed to synthesis until the user has seen the sense-check results.

CHECKPOINT 4 — Storyline (Phase 5) Present the synthesis output (governing message, headline sequence, evidence map) to the user. Ask: "Does this storyline answer your question? Any adjustments before I write the report?" DO NOT proceed to the report until the user approves the storyline.

Key Principles Throughout

Be explicit about evidence quality. Never present a weak finding as a strong one. Use confidence levels and ranges.

Be explicit about information boundaries. Clearly flag what public research can answer vs. what requires client data or expert interviews. Recommend specific data requests and expert profiles where gaps exist.

Let the user drive pace. Present output at each phase and wait for confirmation before proceeding. The user may want to inject additional context, redirect the analysis, or skip phases.

Never pad. Every sentence in every output must earn its place against the Deliverable Blueprint. What counts as earning its place depends on what the client needs: driving a recommendation, filling a coverage dimension, providing a reference example the client will return to.

Quick Reference — Skill Sequence

problem-definition → [hypothesis-tree] → data-source-inquiry → deliverable-format → research → [deep-research] → [expert-interview] → sense-check → synthesis → deliver → deliverable-validation
                      (optional)          (AskUserQuestion)      (AskUserQuestion)   (3 agents)  (user-initiated)   (if interviews)                               (format-aware)   (separate agent)