# Pant Strategy Review > Pressure-test product strategy and rehearse strategy reviews. Use for diagnosis, choices, coherence, differentiation, capabilities, tradeoffs, market assumptions, and measures; not roadmap sequencing or execution plans. - Skill: `deanpeters/pant-strategy-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 17 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add deanpeters/pant-strategy-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/deanpeters/pant-strategy-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - License: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 - Author: Dean Peters (https://skillmd.com/u/deanpeters) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/deanpeters/pant-strategy-review --- # PANT Strategy Review ## Purpose Test whether product strategy explains a consequential challenge, makes coherent choices, connects those choices to advantage and capabilities, and defines evidence that could change the course. Apply the bundled runtime contracts; no other PANT skill is required. ## When to Use Use for product strategy memos, strategic narratives, annual or quarterly strategy refreshes, portfolio theses, new-product direction, and leadership conversations about where and how the product will compete or create value. ## When Not to Use Use `pant-roadmap-review` when strategic direction exists and the question is investment sequence. Use `pant-business-case-review` when the central issue is whether a defined investment is economically justified. Use `pant-tactical-plan-approval` for execution readiness. Do not accept a vision, objective list, or activity inventory as strategy merely because it is labeled one. ## Supported Modes and Entry Paths - **Feedback:** Apply the bundled feedback contract and strategy output. - **Dialogue:** Rehearse one strategy challenge at a time using the bundled dialogue and pressure contracts. - **Direct:** Start from the supplied strategy or argument. - **Guided:** Teach diagnosis, choice, coherence, and evidence in plain language, one consequential question at a time. - **Best effort:** State assumptions about scope, market, advantage, and decision; proceed with reduced confidence. ## Decision Being Prepared For Prepare a decision about where the product will create differentiated value, which challenge it will address, what it will and will not do, which capabilities it must develop, and what evidence will sustain or change that direction. ## Typical Audiences Product and company executives, founders, portfolio leaders, product teams, technology and commercial leaders, boards, and investment committees. ## Inputs Best input includes the strategy artifact, decision horizon, target customers or stakeholders, diagnosis, choices, alternatives, evidence, capabilities, economics, and measures. Minimum input is any claimed product strategy or proposed direction. Direct example: > Use `pant-strategy-review` to test whether this strategy makes real choices, fits the diagnosis and capabilities, and defines evidence that could prove it wrong. Sparse example: > Leadership says our strategy is “use AI everywhere.” Help me pressure-test it. ## Quick Start 1. Identify the strategic decision, scope, and horizon. 2. Read [strategy decision logic](references/strategy-decision-logic.md). 3. Separate diagnosis, choices, actions, assumptions, aspirations, and measures. 4. Test coherence across customer, market, differentiation, economics, and capabilities. 5. Start with the most consequential contradiction or missing choice. ## Review Workflow 1. **State the challenge.** Identify the consequential condition the strategy must address and the evidence behind it. 2. **Find what survives.** Preserve supported insights, explicit constraints, and choices that genuinely focus effort. 3. **Test the choices.** Ask what the organization will do differently and what attractive alternatives it rejects. 4. **Test coherence.** Connect diagnosis, target customer, value, advantage, capabilities, actions, and economics. 5. **Test differentiation.** Compare the strategy with customer alternatives and plausible competitive response without demanding novelty for its own sake. 6. **Test feasibility.** Identify capabilities, operating changes, dependencies, and time required. 7. **Test evidence.** Classify claims and expose market, customer, causal, and economic assumptions. 8. **Test measures.** Prefer signals of strategic progress and invalidation over activity counts and retrospective decoration. 9. **Escape stale structure.** Leave any strategy framework when economics, market reach, or execution ownership becomes the higher-consequence problem. 10. **Issue a contextual verdict.** Judge readiness for the named audience and strategic decision. ## Dialogue Protocol Ask one unresolved strategy question at a time. Follow the answer, track contradictions, acknowledge persuasive evidence, and do not reveal an entire framework. At higher pressure, require clearer exclusions and stronger warrants while remaining coherent and non-abusive. Honor coaching and scene controls from the bundled runtime. ## Output Use the shared feedback order and add a **Strategy choice brief**: - Strategic decision, scope, and horizon - Diagnosis and strongest evidence - Chosen target, value, and approach - Explicit exclusions and opportunity costs - Differentiation and expected competitive response - Required capabilities and operating changes - Load-bearing assumptions, measures, and change conditions - Three consequential review questions - Contextual readiness verdict For guided users, explain the difference among vision, objective, strategy, roadmap, and plan. Use [template.md](template.md) for the reusable brief. ## Failure Modes - Treating aspirations, goals, slogans, or initiatives as strategy - Listing priorities without explaining the choices or causal logic - Claiming differentiation without comparing real alternatives - Ignoring capabilities, economics, organizational constraints, or competitive response - Using market size as proof that this organization can win - Demanding a framework be completed after a deeper contradiction appears - Inventing fatal flaws in a coherent, bounded strategy ## Evaluation Requirements Evaluate correct and neighboring triggers; strong and weak strategies; minimal and rich context; all entry paths and modes; diagnosis, choice, coherence, differentiation, capabilities, tradeoffs, evidence, measures, framework escape, persuasion, pressure behavior, and contextual verdicts. ## Supporting Files - [Strategy review template](template.md) - [Strategy decision logic](references/strategy-decision-logic.md) - [Sources and adaptations](references/sources.md) - [Bundled runtime contract](references/runtime/antagonist-contract.md) - [Worked example](examples/worked-example.md) - [Weak example](examples/weak-example.md) ## Provenance Informed by PANT's Phase 0 synthesis and widely used strategy concepts. The skill uses a compact inquiry model rather than reproducing or claiming official implementation of any named author or framework.