Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Audit a competitive strategy for internal consistency using Porter's tests. Use when evaluating whether a strategy hangs together, after formulating strategy, or when diagnosing strategic drift.
npx claudepluginhub gnurio/porter-strategy-skills --plugin porter-strategy-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/porter-strategy-skills:audit-strategy-consistencyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Run Porter's Figure 1-3 consistency tests against a firm's competitive strategy to determine whether goals and policies form a coherent, implementable whole.
Creates p5.js generative art with seeded randomness, noise fields, and interactive parameter exploration. Use for algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Run Porter's Figure 1-3 consistency tests against a firm's competitive strategy to determine whether goals and policies form a coherent, implementable whole.
The firm's current competitive strategy: explicit goals (financial, market position, social) and key operating policies across each functional area. Typically produced by upstream skills (e.g., formulate-strategy). If not available, extract from the user's description.
## Strategy Consistency Audit: [Firm/Business Unit]
### Strategy Summary
- Goals: [list]
- Key Operating Policies: [list by functional area]
### Test Results
#### A. Internal Consistency
| # | Test | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|------|---------|----------|
| 1 | Goals mutually achievable? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 2 | Policies address goals? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 3 | Policies reinforce each other? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
#### B. Environmental Fit
| # | Test | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|------|---------|----------|
| 4 | Exploit opportunities? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 5 | Deal with threats? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 6 | Timing vs. environment? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 7 | Responsive to societal concerns? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
#### C. Resource Fit
| # | Test | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|------|---------|----------|
| 8 | Match available resources? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 9 | Timing vs. change capacity? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
#### D. Communication & Implementation
| # | Test | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|------|---------|----------|
| 10 | Goals understood? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 11 | Congruent with values? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
| 12 | Sufficient capability? | PASS/FAIL | [reasoning] |
### Overall Verdict: [CONSISTENT / PARTIALLY CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENT]
### Priority Inconsistencies
1. [Most critical gap + which test failed]
2. [Next most critical]
Firm: Regional grocery chain pursuing both cost leadership (goal: lowest prices in market) and premium organic selection (goal: widest organic assortment).
Test 1 -- Goals mutually achievable? FAIL. Lowest-price positioning requires cost minimization across procurement and operations. Widest organic assortment requires premium supplier relationships and higher SKU complexity, which drives costs up. The goals work against each other.
Test 3 -- Policies reinforce each other? FAIL. Procurement policy targets lowest-cost suppliers, but merchandising policy mandates premium organic brands. These policies create internal conflict in buyer decision-making.
Test 5 -- Deal with threats? FAIL. Competitors (Whole Foods, Aldi) each own one positioning clearly. Straddling invites competitive response from both directions with no defensible position.
Test 8 -- Match available resources? FAIL. The firm lacks the scale for cost leadership (regional vs. national chains) and the brand equity for premium organic positioning simultaneously.
Overall Verdict: INCONSISTENT. The strategy attempts to straddle two generic strategies. Resolution requires choosing one position or defining a focused segment where both goals are achievable (e.g., "affordable organic for families" in a specific metro area).