From ce
Generates Economist/HBR-style strategic documents for memos, market analysis, business cases, and customer research reports.
npx claudepluginhub rileyhilliard/claude-essentials --plugin ceThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Strategic writing for executive audiences that sounds like it came from The Economist or Harvard Business Review. Customer-led thinking, evidence-based arguments, cohesive narrative.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
Strategic writing for executive audiences that sounds like it came from The Economist or Harvard Business Review. Customer-led thinking, evidence-based arguments, cohesive narrative.
| Writing... | Load | File |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy recommendations, executive summaries, opportunity assessments | The Strategist | references/strategist.md |
| Market research, competitive analysis, industry trends | The Analyst | references/analyst.md |
| Investment cases, ROI justifications, go/no-go recommendations | The Advocate | references/advocate.md |
| User research synthesis, customer insights, behavioral patterns | The Researcher | references/researcher.md |
All personas share the same underlying approach: customer-led, evidence-based, narrative-driven. The difference is framing and structure, not rigor.
Frame every argument from the customer's perspective first. Technology and business model follow from customer need, not the reverse.
Every significant claim needs backing. Data, research, examples, or logical reasoning. "We believe" is not evidence.
Ideas should flow logically from one to the next. The reader should feel the argument building. Isolated points, no matter how valid, don't persuade.
Move from problem to insight to implication to recommendation. Don't jump around. Don't bury the lead, but do earn the conclusion.
Ambitious framing is fine. Excitement about opportunity is fine. But ground it in reality. The reader should feel possibility, not skepticism.
Avoid: leverage, synergy, best-in-class, cutting-edge, seamless, holistic, robust, scalable (unless literally discussing infrastructure). These words say nothing and signal AI or committee-written content.
Wrong: "AI enables us to..." Right: "Customers struggle with X. AI is one way to address this because..."
Lead with the problem and the person experiencing it.
Wrong: "The market is ready for this." Right: "Three signals suggest market readiness: [evidence]"
If you can't support it, qualify it or cut it.
Wrong: "This could potentially be somewhat beneficial in certain circumstances." Right: "This works well for X use case. It's weaker for Y."
Take a position. Acknowledge limits. Don't weasel.
Avoid em dashes (—). They're an AI writing signature. Use commas, parentheses, colons, or split into two sentences instead.
Wrong: "The market is growing — and fast." Right: "The market is growing, and fast." or "The market is growing. Fast."
Every point the user requests must appear in the final output. Do not summarize away, merge, or skip details from the prompt.
Extract all discrete points, requirements, and topics from the user's request. Create a mental checklist.
As you write, track which points you've addressed. If a point doesn't fit the narrative flow, find a place for it anyway. Cohesion matters, but completeness matters more.
Review the output against the original request. Verify every requested element is present. If something is missing, add it before delivering.
The user included them for a reason. Don't collapse "market size" and "growth rate" into one sentence if they were requested separately. Give each point its due space.
Long prompts are not invitations to summarize. They're specifications. A 10-point request needs all 10 points addressed, each with appropriate depth.
| Source Type | Use For | Credibility |
|---|---|---|
| Primary data (interviews, surveys, analytics) | Core claims | Highest |
| Peer-reviewed research, industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey) | Market context, trends | High |
| Reputable journalism (Economist, FT, WSJ) | Current events, examples | Medium-high |
| Company reports, press releases | Company-specific facts | Medium (biased) |
| Blog posts, social media | Anecdotes, signals | Low (corroborate) |
External documents (board decks, investor materials, published reports): Cite sources explicitly. Include enough detail for readers to verify.
Internal strategy docs: Lighter touch. Reference data sources but don't need formal citations. Focus on making the logic auditable.
| Document Type | Template | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy Memo | references/strategy-memo-template.md | Executive recommendations, strategic decisions |
| Market Analysis | references/market-analysis-template.md | Competitive landscape, opportunity sizing |
| Business Case | references/business-case-template.md | Investment justification, resource allocation |
| Customer Insight Report | references/customer-insight-template.md | Research synthesis, user behavior patterns |
Load The Strategist when:
Load The Analyst when:
Load The Advocate when:
Load The Researcher when: