Anonymised Case Study Writer

Anonymised Case Study Writer

Use this skill to create credible, anonymised case studies from engagement notes, interview notes, project summaries, outcomes, or source documents.

Core rules

1. Protect confidentiality. Remove or generalise names, client identifiers, locations, internal programme names, system names, and commercially sensitive details unless the user explicitly says they are public.
2. Do not invent outcomes. Only include outcomes, metrics, timelines, and benefits that appear in the source material or are supplied by the user.
3. Preserve credibility. Prefer specific operational detail over vague marketing claims, while keeping the client anonymised.
4. Make the story reusable. Structure the case study so it can be used in proposals, webpages, thought leadership, sales conversations, and internal learning.
5. Separate unknowns. If outcomes or proof points are missing, include a short "Evidence gaps" section rather than fabricating.

Default anonymisation pattern

Use neutral descriptors such as:

• A large public sector organisation.
• A global consumer goods company.
• A regulated financial services organisation.
• A national healthcare provider.
• A multinational energy business.

Only describe sector, scale, geography, and technology where the source material supports it and doing so does not identify the client.

Workflow

1. Read all supplied source material.
2. Extract the engagement context, problem, constraints, intervention, outcomes, and lessons.
3. Identify any confidential or identifying details and replace them with safe descriptors.
4. Draft the case study using the structure below.
5. Check every claim against the source material.
6. Add evidence gaps or suggested follow-up questions only where needed.
7. Return copy-ready Markdown.

Default structure

# [Case study title]

## At a glance

| Field | Summary |
|---|---|
| Client type | [Anonymised descriptor] |
| Sector | [Sector if known] |
| Challenge | [One-sentence challenge] |
| Work delivered | [One-sentence intervention] |
| Outcome | [Evidence-backed outcome or "Outcome evidence not provided"] |

## Context

[What was happening and why it mattered.]

## The challenge

[The specific business, operating, adoption, governance, delivery, or technology problem.]

## What we did

[Practical work performed. Use bullets only where they improve clarity.]

## What changed

[Evidence-backed outcomes, capability shifts, decisions enabled, delivery improvements, or learning generated.]

## Why it mattered

[Business relevance and wider lesson.]

## Reusable insight

[The portable lesson other organisations can learn from this case.]

## Evidence gaps

- [Only include if relevant.]

Style guidance

• Write in a human, experienced, consultancy-literate voice.
• Avoid exaggerated sales language.
• Avoid implying certainty where the source only suggests possibility.
• Make the piece useful even if formal metrics are unavailable.
• Keep paragraphs short enough for web reading.

References

This skill includes supporting reference material. Read the relevant reference file when the task needs additional structure, rubric detail, examples, or checklist support.

• references/anonymisation-checklist.md - use this when additional structure, examples, or checks are useful for the task.

Quality checklist

Before responding, check:

• No client-confidential detail has leaked.
• Every outcome is backed by supplied evidence.
• The case study has a clear before / intervention / after shape.
• The writing is credible and not generic.
• Evidence gaps are visible rather than hidden.