Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Defines what winning means before starting a contest, preventing pyrrhic victories that undermine larger goals. Useful for clarifying objectives and avoiding over-optimization.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-strategy-victoryThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Clausewitz's central insight in *On War*: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." The military contest is not the point; it is a means to a political end. The moment a commander loses sight of the political objective and optimizes purely for military victory, they have already failed strategically — because a military win that undermines the political aim is worse than a negotiate...
Clausewitz's central insight in On War: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." The military contest is not the point; it is a means to a political end. The moment a commander loses sight of the political objective and optimizes purely for military victory, they have already failed strategically — because a military win that undermines the political aim is worse than a negotiated settlement.
The same principle applies to any contest. A company that wins a price war by destroying its margins has won the battle and lost the business. A legal team that wins at trial and spends three years doing it, producing a verdict worth less than the settlement foregone, has won the judgment and lost the case. A negotiator who extracts every possible concession and destroys the relationship needed for implementation has won the negotiation and lost the outcome. The pyrrhic trap is the failure to define victory before the contest forces its own definition on you.
Sun Tzu's corollary: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." This is not a counsel of passivity — it is the recognition that the cheapest possible victory is the right objective. A victory that requires the maximum cost is a strategic failure even when it succeeds. Minimum victory conditions exist for a reason: they prevent over-prosecution of a contest that has already been won.
Step 1: Stated objective What are you trying to achieve? Name it as it is currently framed.
Framing check: Confirm the specific contest and objective before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual situation being analyzed and what winning is currently defined as — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Real objective What would you actually have if you achieved the stated objective? What is the objective behind the stated one — the political end, in Clausewitz's terms? Why does the stated objective matter? Sometimes the stated objective is the real one; often it is a proxy for something deeper, and winning the proxy while losing the underlying goal is precisely the pyrrhic trap.
Step 3: Minimum victory The least outcome you would accept as a win. What must be true for this effort to have been worth it? Minimum victory conditions often look unsatisfying in advance — they feel like compromises. They are not. They are the protection against prosecuting a contest past the point of value.
Step 4: Maximum victory What would unequivocally mean you won? What outcome makes the cost obviously worthwhile, regardless of what it took? Maximum victory conditions serve a different function: they tell you when to stop pressing once you've reached them.
Step 5: Pyrrhic check What does winning cost at maximum force? At minimum force? At the likely cost, is the maximum victory worth it? Is the minimum victory worth it? Name the specific things you could lose — relationships, capital, time, reputation, flexibility — by prosecuting this contest. What would constitute a pyrrhic outcome even on a win?
Step 6: Victory recognition How will you know when you've won? What observable condition tells you to stop? This is the step most often skipped — and its absence produces contests that continue past their objective, consuming additional resources toward a goal already achieved or already unachievable.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Stated Objective [How the objective is currently framed]
Real Objective [The underlying political end — why the stated objective matters, and what you'd actually have if you achieved it]
Minimum Victory [The least outcome that makes this worth the effort — what must be true]
Maximum Victory [The unequivocal win — what makes the cost obviously worthwhile]
Pyrrhic Check [What winning costs — and what would constitute a pyrrhic outcome even on a technical win]
Victory Recognition Conditions [Observable conditions that tell you to stop — you have won, or you have lost and further prosecution only adds cost]
Run this before any other strategy skill when the objective is unclear — all other skills operate in service of a defined objective, and without one, they produce well-structured answers to the wrong question. Pairs tightly with /s4h-strategy-force-economy: knowing minimum and maximum victory conditions shapes how much force to deploy, and when the minimum has been achieved. When the pyrrhic check suggests the cost of maximum victory is unacceptable, use /s4h-strategy-alliance and /s4h-strategy-positioning to understand whether the cost can be reduced before the contest begins.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-strategy-positioning — Position to achieve the victory conditions/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis — Stress-test the victory definition/s4h-strategy-timing — Time moves toward victorynpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityGuides competitive strategy to avoid pyrrhic victories by using proportionate force, preserving resources, and maintaining capacity for follow-on engagements.
Routes to the correct strategy skill for adversarial, competitive, or negotiation situations. After framing the challenge, it directs to specialized skills like terrain analysis, intelligence auditing, timing, force economy, or positioning.
Evaluates or develops strategies using Rumelt's kernel: Diagnosis, Guiding Policy, Coherent Actions. Detects bad strategies like fluff, unaddressed challenges, and goal lists.