agentleFS
sarbaksarbak/strategy-skills/storyline-synthesis/SKILL.md

storyline-synthesis

Skill0 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Write a clean, McKinsey-style synthesis document from analysis work. Pairs with opportunity-analysis and deep-research for full strategy workflows. Use when the user asks to synthesize findings, write up results, create a strategy summary, or produce a recommendation document. Also trigger when someone says "write this up", "synthesize", "create the storyline", "write the synthesis", or "turn this research into a document."

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write a clean, McKinsey-style synthesis document from analysis work in the current project.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Read every document in the project's strategy/analysis subfolder.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    All findings with supporting data

    line 24
  4. Distinctive:

    Write one sentence that captures the core recommendation.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Verify the logical chain: each finding must lead to the next

    line 37
  6. Distinctive:

    Test: Read only the supporting argument headers in sequence.

    line 39
  7. Distinctive:

    Consistent density across sections: No section should be 3x longer than another.

    line 54
  8. Distinctive:

    Strip anything interesting but irrelevant: If it doesn't support the governing thought, cut it.

    line 58
  9. Distinctive:

    Run ALL of these before publishing:

    line 77
  10. Distinctive:

    Read only the headers in sequence.

    line 95
  11. Distinctive:

    No version number or date

    line 110

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Storyline Synthesis

Write a clean, McKinsey-style synthesis document from analysis work in the current project.

This process has 10 steps. Complete every step in order. Do not skip steps. When reporting progress, label each step as shown (e.g., "Step 3/10").


Step 1/10 -- Read all analysis documents

Read every document in the project's strategy/analysis subfolder. Identify:

  • All findings with supporting data
  • Any contradictions between documents
  • Gaps where claims lack supporting evidence

Step 2/10 -- Identify the governing thought

Write one sentence that captures the core recommendation. This is the single most important sentence in the document. Everything else supports it.

Step 3/10 -- Plan the storyline structure

Outline BEFORE writing:

  • Governing thought (from Step 2/10)
  • 3-7 supporting arguments as action sentences (not topic labels)
  • Verify the logical chain: each finding must lead to the next

Test: Read only the supporting argument headers in sequence. Do they tell the story by themselves?

Step 4/10 -- Check data backing

For every claim in the outline: does it have a number or source? If not, flag it. Do NOT write the synthesis with unsourced claims -- flag them for research first.

Step 5/10 -- Write the header

  • Title
  • Version number + date (e.g., "v3.0 -- March 20, 2026")
  • Increment version on each meaningful update

Step 6/10 -- Write the storyline

  • Section headers are action sentences, not topic labels. GOOD: "Mid-market SaaS companies are underserved by current vendors." BAD: "Market overview." GOOD: "Three distribution channels reach 80% of target buyers." BAD: "Go-to-market strategy."
  • Consistent density across sections. No section should be 3x longer than another. If a section needs detail, move tables and lists to an appendix and reference it: "(See Appendix B for detail.)"
  • Every claim needs a number or source. "The market is big" is not a finding. "$2.3B market, 15% CAGR (Gartner, 2025)" is.
  • Each finding logically leads to the next. The reader should never ask "how did we get from A to C?"
  • Never reference prior versions, research process, or what was assumed vs. found. Present validated findings as findings. The reader doesn't care about the research journey.
  • Strip anything interesting but irrelevant. If it doesn't support the governing thought, cut it.

Step 7/10 -- Write the sequencing section

  • Numbered action steps, time-bound
  • Concrete, not aspirational
  • Each step should have a clear owner or trigger

Step 8/10 -- Write appendices

  • Appendix per topic (B, C, D...) for detailed tables referenced in the storyline
  • Final appendix: Sourced data points -- every number cited in the document with:
    • The specific claim
    • Source URL or publication
    • Date
    • Caveats if any

Step 9/10 -- Run quality tests

Run ALL of these before publishing:

Step 9a/10 -- Pyramid test (down)

Does each header pose a question answered by its section content?

Step 9b/10 -- MECE test (across)

Are sections mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive? No overlaps, no gaps?

Step 9c/10 -- "So what?" test (up)

Does each section provide one "so what?" that builds the governing thought?

Step 9d/10 -- Density check

Is any section more than ~50% longer than the average? If so, trim and move detail to appendix.

Step 9e/10 -- Standalone test

Can someone who wasn't in the room read this and follow the logic without asking "but how do you know that?"

Step 9f/10 -- Action sentence test

Read only the headers in sequence. Do they tell the story by themselves?

Step 10/10 -- Output and share

Save the synthesis document. If the user has a sharing mechanism configured, share via link for easy review.


Anti-patterns

  • Headers as topic labels ("Market sizing", "Competitive landscape") instead of action sentences
  • Fat sections with 3 sub-sections and 5 tables in the main storyline
  • Referencing prior versions ("we originally assumed X")
  • Presenting analysis without a recommendation
  • Missing appendix -- all detail in the body
  • No version number or date
  • Unsourced numbers

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.