scenario-planning
Skill9 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
name: scenario-planning description: Financial scenario planning — base, upside, downside, stress Base Case (most likely outcome, 50-60% probability): - Reflects management's best estimate of future performance - Anchored to current run-rate, pipeline, and known commitments - Incorporates consensus macro assumptions - This is typically the rolling forecast or budget case Upside Case (favorable outcome, 15-25% probability): - Key opportunities materialize (large deal wins, market tailwinds) - Revenue growth at the upper end of the reasonable range - Operating leverage kicks…
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworkstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- fzfclee/consulting-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- deciqAI/knowledge-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 7, 2026
- gokulsvision/crewm8-cfo-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 29, 2026
- CAPP-Financials/Consulting_Braintheir own version, first seen Apr 24, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworks★ 14same name
- deciqAI/knowledge-skills★ 13same name
- fzfclee/consulting-skills★ 6same name
- gokulsvision/crewm8-cfo-skills★ 2same name
- CAPP-Financials/Consulting_Brain★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository52 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- consolidationSkill
- deferred-taxesSkill
- gaap-standardsSkill
- hgb-standardsSkill
- ifrs-standardsSkill
- lease-accountingSkill
- revenue-recognitionSkill
- balanced-scorecardSkill
- deckungsbeitragsrechnungSkill
- investitionsrechnungSkill
- kostenrechnungSkill
- aml-kycSkill
- basel-iiiSkill
- mariskSkill
- sox-complianceSkill
- kpi-systemsSkill
- wertschoepfungskettenSkill
- covenant-analysisSkill
- credit-scoring-modelsSkill
- rating-methodologiesSkill
- econometricsSkill
- fiscal-policySkill
- labor-marketsSkill
- monetary-policy-analysisSkill
- trade-economicsSkill
- earnings-modelsSkill
- sector-analysisSkill
- budgetingSkill
- cash-flow-forecastingSkill
- rolling-forecastsSkill
- variance-analysisSkill
- solvency-iiSkill
- comparable-analysisSkill
- dcf-valuationSkill
- deal-structuringSkill
- lbo-modelingSkill
- pitch-book-creationSkill
- precedent-transactionsSkill
- corporate-tax-planningSkill
- international-taxSkill
- transfer-pricingSkill
- vat-optimizationSkill
- working-capitalSkill
- cap-table-analysisSkill
- lbo-modeling-detailSkill
- portfolio-management-peSkill
- startup-valuationSkill
- term-sheet-analysisSkill
- asset-allocationSkill
- estate-planningSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
Does NOT assume everything goes right simultaneously — that is fantasy, not a scenario
- Distinctive: line 233
Before finalizing scenario analysis, verify:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Scenario Planning
name: scenario-planning description: Financial scenario planning — base, upside, downside, stress
When to Activate
- User needs to build financial scenarios for strategic decision-making
- Presenting management or board with a range of financial outcomes
- Evaluating the impact of specific risks or opportunities on the P&L and cash flow
- Building probability-weighted expected outcomes
- Defining management action triggers tied to scenario thresholds
Core Concepts
Scenario Definitions
Base Case (most likely outcome, 50-60% probability):
- Reflects management's best estimate of future performance
- Anchored to current run-rate, pipeline, and known commitments
- Incorporates consensus macro assumptions
- This is typically the rolling forecast or budget case
Upside Case (favorable outcome, 15-25% probability):
- Key opportunities materialize (large deal wins, market tailwinds)
- Revenue growth at the upper end of the reasonable range
- Operating leverage kicks in (margin expansion)
- Does NOT assume everything goes right simultaneously — that is fantasy, not a scenario
Downside Case (adverse but plausible outcome, 15-25% probability):
- Demand softens, customer decisions delay, competitive pressure increases
- Revenue growth slows or declines moderately
- Cost inflation exceeds assumptions
- Represents a "soft landing" — things go wrong but the business adapts
Stress Case (severe but possible outcome, 5-10% probability):
- Recession, key customer loss, regulatory shock, or market disruption
- Revenue declines materially (10-30% depending on industry)
- Tests liquidity and solvency under extreme conditions
- Purpose: ensure the business survives, not that it thrives
- Informs liquidity reserves, covenant headroom, and contingency plans
Key Driver Identification
Scenarios should be built by modifying specific operational drivers, not by applying blanket percentage adjustments to the P&L.
Step 1: Identify the 10-15 drivers that most impact financial outcomes
Revenue Drivers:
- New customer acquisition rate
- Customer retention / churn rate
- Average revenue per customer (ARPU)
- Pricing power / ASP changes
- Market growth rate
- Win rate on pipeline
Cost Drivers:
- Headcount growth / hiring pace
- Wage inflation / merit increases
- Input cost inflation (materials, energy)
- Discretionary spend levels (marketing, T&E, consulting)
- FX rates (for multi-currency businesses)Step 2: Define driver values for each scenario
Driver | Base | Upside | Downside | Stress
New logos/quarter | 15 | 20 | 10 | 5
Monthly churn rate | 1.5% | 1.0% | 2.0% | 3.5%
ARPU | $500 | $550 | $475 | $450
Hiring (net adds) | 25 | 35 | 15 | -10
COGS inflation | 3% | 2% | 5% | 8%Step 3: Run each driver set through the financial model to generate scenario P&L, balance sheet, and cash flow.
Probability Weighting
Calculate an expected (probability-weighted) outcome for key metrics:
Expected EBITDA = P(Base) × EBITDA_Base
+ P(Upside) × EBITDA_Upside
+ P(Downside) × EBITDA_Downside
+ P(Stress) × EBITDA_Stress
Example:
= 0.55 × $50M + 0.20 × $65M + 0.20 × $35M + 0.05 × $15M
= $27.5M + $13.0M + $7.0M + $0.75M
= $48.25MUse probability-weighted outcomes for:
- Valuation (expected cash flows in a DCF)
- Debt capacity assessment (what can we comfortably service?)
- Capital allocation decisions (invest only if NPV positive across weighted scenarios)
- Investor communications (sensitivity ranges around guidance)
Sensitivity Tables
Two-dimensional tables isolating the impact of two key drivers:
=== EBITDA SENSITIVITY: Revenue Growth × Gross Margin ===
EBITDA ($M) | GM = 58% | GM = 60% | GM = 62% | GM = 64%
Rev Growth = 0% | $__ | $__ | $__ | $__
Rev Growth = 5% | $__ | $__ | $__ | $__
Rev Growth = 10% | $__ | $__ | $__ | $__
Rev Growth = 15% | $__ | $__ | $__ | $__Build sensitivity tables for the most critical driver pairs:
- Revenue growth × gross margin
- Volume × pricing
- Churn rate × new customer acquisition
- FX rate × revenue growth
- Interest rate × leverage level
Scenario Comparison Dashboard
=== SCENARIO COMPARISON ===
Metric | Stress | Downside | Base | Upside
Revenue ($M) | ____ | ____ | ____ | ____
Revenue Growth | ____% | ____% | ____% | ____%
Gross Margin | ____% | ____% | ____% | ____%
EBITDA ($M) | ____ | ____ | ____ | ____
EBITDA Margin | ____% | ____% | ____% | ____%
Net Income ($M) | ____ | ____ | ____ | ____
Free Cash Flow ($M) | ____ | ____ | ____ | ____
Net Debt / EBITDA | ___x | ___x | ___x | ___x
Cash Runway (months)| ___ | ___ | ___ | ___
Covenant Headroom | ____% | ____% | ____% | ____%
Probability | 5-10% | 15-25% | 50-60% | 15-25%Methodology
Scenario Construction Process
- Define purpose — what decision does this scenario analysis support?
- Identify key drivers — 10-15 drivers that explain 80%+ of variance
- Define scenario narratives — coherent story for each scenario (not random combinations)
- Set driver values — specific, justified assumptions for each driver in each scenario
- Run financial model — generate full P&L, balance sheet, and cash flow for each
- Analyze outputs — compare key metrics across scenarios
- Probability weight — assign probabilities, calculate expected values
- Identify action triggers — what metric levels trigger which management actions
- Build contingency plans — pre-approved actions for downside/stress scenarios
- Present to management — decision-focused, not analysis-focused
Scenario Narratives
Each scenario needs a coherent narrative — the drivers should tell a consistent story.
Example narratives:
Upside: "Accelerated digital transformation drives demand pull-forward.
Enterprise segment grows 25% as large deals close faster.
Gross margins expand 200bp from favorable mix shift toward high-margin products.
Headcount scales efficiently due to productivity improvements."
Downside: "Economic uncertainty causes enterprise customers to delay purchasing decisions.
SMB churn increases as smaller customers cut discretionary spend.
Wage inflation persists at 5%, compressing margins.
Two planned product launches slip by one quarter."
Stress: "Recession triggers a 20% decline in new business.
Largest customer (8% of revenue) announces vendor consolidation.
Credit markets tighten, refinancing costs increase 200bp.
Workforce reduction of 15% required to preserve cash."Management Decision Triggers
=== DECISION TRIGGER FRAMEWORK ===
Metric | Green | Yellow | Red | Action
Quarterly revenue | > 95% of plan | 90-95% of plan | < 90% of plan | [Hiring pause]
Monthly cash burn | < $__M | $__M - $__M | > $__M | [Cost reduction]
Net retention rate | > 110% | 100-110% | < 100% | [CS intervention]
Pipeline coverage ratio | > 3.0x | 2.0-3.0x | < 2.0x | [Lead gen surge]
Covenant ratio | > 30% headroom | 15-30% headroom| < 15% headroom | [Lender dialogue]
Cash runway | > 18 months | 12-18 months | < 12 months | [Fundraise/cut]Pre-approved contingency actions:
- Yellow zone: management-level response, enhanced monitoring frequency
- Red zone: executive team activation, board notification, specific pre-approved actions
Templates
Scenario Planning Summary
=== SCENARIO PLANNING SUMMARY ===
Company: [Name]
Purpose: [Decision being supported]
Date: [Date]
--- Scenario Definitions ---
Base Case: [2-sentence narrative]
Upside Case: [2-sentence narrative]
Downside Case: [2-sentence narrative]
Stress Case: [2-sentence narrative]
--- Key Driver Assumptions ---
[Driver table as shown above]
--- Financial Outcomes ---
[Scenario comparison dashboard as shown above]
--- Probability-Weighted Expected Outcome ---
Expected Revenue: $____M
Expected EBITDA: $____M
Expected Free Cash Flow: $____M
--- Decision Triggers and Contingency Plans ---
[Decision trigger framework as shown above]
--- Recommendation ---
[Specific recommendation based on scenario analysis]
[Actions to take now regardless of scenario]
[Contingency actions to prepare but not yet execute]Quality Gate
Before finalizing scenario analysis, verify:
- Each scenario has a coherent narrative (drivers tell a consistent story)
- Scenarios span a meaningful range of outcomes (not clustered around base case)
- Driver values are justified with supporting evidence or precedent
- Base case aligns with the current rolling forecast or budget
- Stress case tests liquidity and covenant compliance, not just profitability
- Probabilities assigned to scenarios sum to approximately 100%
- Probability-weighted outcome is calculated for key decision metrics
- Full financial statements are modeled (not just P&L — include cash flow and balance sheet)
- Decision triggers are specific, measurable, and tied to pre-approved actions
- Scenarios are not stale — refresh when material new information emerges
- Management has reviewed and validated scenario assumptions
- Presentation focuses on decisions and actions, not just analysis
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

