From futureproof-c-suite-brainstorming
Guides executive teams through Gino Wickman's Identify-Discuss-Solve (IDS) methodology to drill past symptoms to the true root cause before brainstorming solutions, then drives to concrete action items with owners and deadlines. Trigger: when a user presents a recurring business problem, organisational issue, or strategic challenge and needs help finding the real root cause — or when a user says they're stuck solving the same problem repeatedly and want to run IDS on it.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/futureproof-c-suite-brainstorming:ids-root-cause-solverThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
```
FutureProof:connect(skill="ids-root-cause-solver")
Use the returned context, experiments, instructions, and recent_sessions to personalise this session. Pay particular attention to:
instructions about communication style, strategic priorities, or decision-making normsAsk the user:
If the user provides a list of multiple issues, instruct them to stack-rank by impact and confirm which single issue to IDS first. IDS is sequential — one issue at a time, fully resolved before moving to the next.
This is the most critical phase. Executives habitually solve the wrong problem because they anchor on the first framing. The goal is to separate symptoms from the single root cause.
Apply the following diagnostic protocol:
Restate the user's issue, then challenge it:
| Layer | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Why is [stated issue] happening? | … |
| L2 | Why is [L1 answer] happening? | … |
| L3 | Why is [L2 answer] happening? | … |
| L4 | Why is [L3 answer] happening? | … |
| L5 | Why is [L4 answer] happening? | … |
Stop when the answer becomes something directly actionable by someone in the room — that is the root cause.
Before proceeding, pressure-test the identified root cause with three checks:
Present the validated root cause statement in bold and ask the user to explicitly confirm: "Is THIS the real issue?"
Do not proceed to Discuss until confirmation is received.
Once the root cause is confirmed, facilitate a rigorous discussion. The rule: everyone's input, but no tangents and no solution-jumping yet.
Explore the root cause across six dimensions:
| Dimension | Guiding Question |
|---|---|
| People | Is this a right-person-right-seat issue? Does someone lack the capacity, capability, or commitment to own this? |
| Process | Is there a missing, broken, or undocumented process that allows this root cause to persist? |
| Data | Are decisions being made without adequate leading indicators or scorecards? What metric would have flagged this earlier? |
| Structure | Does the accountability chart create ambiguity about who owns this outcome? |
| Priorities | Is this root cause a consequence of competing or misaligned Rocks (quarterly priorities)? |
| Culture/Values | Is there a core value violation or cultural norm enabling this issue to fester unaddressed? |
For each relevant dimension, summarise the key insight in one sentence.
Surface the top constraints that any solution must respect:
Produce a Discussion Brief — a concise synthesis of:
Now — and only now — move to solutions. Apply the following rigorous solve protocol:
Generate 3–5 candidate solutions that directly address the confirmed root cause (not the original symptom). For each candidate:
| # | Solution | Addresses Root Cause Because… | Effort (H/M/L) | Impact (H/M/L) | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | … | … | … | … | … |
| 2 | … | … | … | … | … |
| 3 | … | … | … | … | … |
Prioritise solutions that are simple, executable within the current quarter, and owned by one person — per EOS discipline.
Ask the user to select or combine. If they are torn, apply a forced-rank: "If you could only do ONE of these, which moves the needle most?" That is the primary action. Others become contingencies or Phase 2.
Convert the selected solution into EOS-standard To-Dos — each with three mandatory fields:
| To-Do | Owner | Due Date |
|---|---|---|
| [Specific, verb-first action — not vague] | [Single name — shared ownership = no ownership] | [Specific date, not "ASAP"] |
| … | … | … |
| … | … | … |
Apply the "Who does what by when?" test to every line. If any field is vague, challenge the user to sharpen it before finalising.
If the solution requires communication beyond the room, specify:
Produce the IDS Resolution Document — a single, structured artefact the user can paste directly into their Level 10 meeting notes, issue tracker, or EOS tooling:
Date: [Session date] Issue (as originally stated): [From Step 2] Root Cause (validated): [From Step 3]
Five Whys Trace: [Table from Step 3a]
Discussion Summary:
Selected Solution: [From Step 5b]
Action Items:
| To-Do | Owner | Due Date |
|---|---|---|
| … | … | … |
Cascading Communication:
| Recipient | Message | Channel | By When |
|---|---|---|---|
| … | … | … | … |
Follow-Up: This issue is resolved/moved to the V/TO issue list/carried to next L10 (ask user to confirm status).
Ask the user: "Is this issue resolved, or does it need to be carried forward?" Update the status accordingly.
FutureProof:save_experiment(skill="ids-root-cause-solver", experiment={
hypothesis: "Applying the Five Whys drill consistently surfaces root causes that differ from the originally stated issue in >70% of sessions, leading to higher solution durability",
variants: ["control: team solves from original issue framing", "variant: team solves from IDS-validated root cause"],
measurement: "Issue recurrence rate — does the same issue reappear within 90 days on the L10 issues list?",
expected_impact: "60% reduction in recurring issues on the L10 list within two quarters"
})
FutureProof:request_research(skill="ids-root-cause-solver",
query="Advanced root-cause analysis frameworks used alongside EOS IDS — including Kepner-Tregoe, Ishikawa, and current-reality trees — and evidence on which techniques most reduce issue recurrence in leadership teams",
reason="Strengthen the Identify phase with complementary diagnostic tools; ensure the methodology evolves beyond baseline Five Whys when users bring complex, multi-causal issues"
)
FutureProof:save_session(skill="ids-root-cause-solver", session={
summary: "IDS session on [root cause summary] — originally presented as [stated issue summary]",
key_findings: ["Root cause diverged from stated issue: [yes/no]", "Primary dimension: [people/process/data/structure/priorities/culture]", "Number of action items generated: [n]", "Issue status: [resolved/carried forward]"],
user_feedback: null
})
Creates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.
npx claudepluginhub peter-swain-inc/futureproof-skills