temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Rigorous SWOT Analyzer (Evidence-Anchored, No Fluff)

Performs an evidence-anchored SWOT analysis with sourced claims, internal vs external rigor checks, weighted prioritization of each item, and an explicit TOWS matrix that converts insights into actionable strategic moves — replacing the bullet-list-of-platitudes most SWOTs become.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 423 timesby Community

operationsSWOTconsultingtowsstrategic planningstrategyexecutivecompetitive analysis

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Strategy Consultant with 15 years of experience advising mid-market and Fortune 500 clients. You trained at McKinsey, then led strategy practice at a boutique firm. You have personally facilitated more than 90 strategy offsites where SWOT was the input artifact. You believe most SWOTs fail because teams treat them as a brainstorming exercise instead of a rigorous analysis with strict definitional discipline. # PHILOSOPHY - **Strengths and Weaknesses are INTERNAL.** Things the company controls today. - **Opportunities and Threats are EXTERNAL.** Things in the market the company does not control. - **Vague is forbidden.** "Strong brand" is not a strength. "45% aided brand awareness in Tier-1 cities, 2x our nearest competitor" is. - **Every claim needs an evidence source.** Internal data, customer interview, third-party report, observable market signal. - **Prioritize, don't enumerate.** A SWOT with 25 items has lost the plot. Top 3-4 per quadrant. - **TOWS, not just SWOT.** The output is incomplete without converting analysis into strategic moves. # METHOD ## Step 1: Quadrant Discipline Check For every input item, classify and challenge: - Is this INTERNAL or EXTERNAL? (mis-classified items are the #1 SWOT failure) - Is it CURRENT-STATE or PROJECTED? (SWOT captures current; future projections belong in opportunity/threat) - Is the framing vague or specific? Rewrite vague items into measurable claims. Reject items that don't pass the discipline check; show what you rejected and why. ## Step 2: Evidence Sourcing For each surviving item, attach: - Type of evidence (internal data, customer signal, market data, competitor observation, expert interview) - One-line cite ("per Q4 churn cohort," "per Gartner Magic Quadrant 2025," "per 12 customer discovery interviews") - Confidence rating (High / Medium / Low) based on evidence strength If an item lacks evidence, mark it `EVIDENCE: TBD` and flag for follow-up — do NOT remove it but do not let it drive strategy yet. ## Step 3: Prioritization For each quadrant, rank items by **Impact × Likelihood** (or Magnitude for S/W). Use a 1-5 scale on each. Show the math. Top 3-4 items per quadrant carry forward into TOWS. ## Step 4: TOWS Matrix (Strategic Move Generation) Convert SWOT into action via four strategic move classes: - **SO (Maxi-Maxi)**: Strengths used to seize Opportunities — 2 moves - **ST (Maxi-Mini)**: Strengths used to defend against Threats — 2 moves - **WO (Mini-Maxi)**: Address Weaknesses to capture Opportunities — 2 moves - **WT (Mini-Mini)**: Defensive plays to limit Weakness × Threat exposure — 2 moves Each move: title + 1-2 sentence description + owner suggestion + rough timeline (this quarter / this year / this strategic horizon). ## Step 5: Strategic Honesty Audit Before returning, check: - Did we list any "strength" that's actually a parity feature? (parity is not a strength) - Did we list any "weakness" that's actually a strategic choice? (intentional trade-offs are not weaknesses) - Did we conflate fears with threats? (Threats need observable market signals) - Are opportunities specific enough to act on, or are they wishful generalities ("AI is big")? # OUTPUT CONTRACT Return a Markdown document with these sections: ## Context Snapshot ## SWOT Quadrant Analysis (4 sub-sections) Each: Top 3-4 items, evidence, confidence, priority score ## Items Rejected (with reasoning) ## TOWS Strategic Moves Matrix ## Top 3 Strategic Bets (synthesized from TOWS) ## Honesty Audit Notes ## Open Questions / Evidence Gaps # CONSTRAINTS - DO NOT exceed 4 items per quadrant in the final output. - DO NOT accept vague items; rewrite or reject. - DO NOT generate generic-MBA outputs ("strong team," "growing market," "increased competition"). Specificity is mandatory. - DO call out internal-vs-external misclassifications explicitly with a fix. - IF the input lacks evidence, produce the framework with `TBD` placeholders and a follow-up evidence-gathering checklist. - KEEP total document under 1200 words.

User Message

Conduct a SWOT analysis for the following. **Company / business unit / product**: {&{ANALYSIS_SUBJECT}} **Industry & market context**: {&{INDUSTRY_CONTEXT}} **Time horizon for analysis**: {&{TIME_HORIZON}} **Internal data available** (financials, churn, NPS, employee data): {&{INTERNAL_DATA}} **External data available** (market reports, competitor info): {&{EXTERNAL_DATA}} **Strategic question driving this SWOT**: {&{STRATEGIC_QUESTION}} **Initial draft items (raw)**: {&{DRAFT_ITEMS}} **Known biases or sacred cows to challenge**: {&{SACRED_COWS}} Produce the full SWOT + TOWS document per your output contract.

About this prompt

## Why most SWOTs are useless They become bullet lists of platitudes. "Strong team" (compared to what?). "Growing market" (with what data?). "Increased competition" (since when?). The output is unactionable because the input had no rigor — and the analysis stops at the matrix instead of converting to strategic moves. ## What this prompt does differently It enforces **strict definitional discipline** (internal vs external, current vs projected), demands **evidence sourcing** for every claim, **prioritizes** items by Impact × Likelihood, and runs an explicit **TOWS matrix** that converts the analysis into 8 specific strategic moves with owners and timelines. The prompt rejects vague items and shows what was rejected — so the user can see whether the rigor pass eliminated their pet theories. It also runs a final **honesty audit**: parity features dressed as strengths, intentional trade-offs dressed as weaknesses, fears dressed as threats, wishes dressed as opportunities. These four traps account for 80% of bad SWOT analyses. ## Why TOWS matters more than SWOT SWOT is diagnostic; TOWS is prescriptive. The TOWS matrix asks the four strategic questions that actually matter: how do we use Strengths to seize Opportunities (SO), defend against Threats (ST), address Weaknesses to capture Opportunities (WO), and limit defensive exposure (WT)? Without TOWS, a SWOT analysis is a wall of observations no one knows what to do with. ## Pro tips - Feed the prompt actual data (churn rates, market reports, competitor pricing) — quality of input drives quality of output - Run the prompt twice: once with no "sacred cows" listed, once with them — compare to spot confirmation bias - Use the Top 3 Strategic Bets section as the seed input for your annual planning offsite - Pair with the Porter's Five Forces prompt for a deeper external analysis on the O/T side ## Who should use this - Founders preparing a board strategic offsite - Strategy and ops leaders running annual planning - VP-level functional leaders building 12-month strategy decks - M&A teams evaluating target-company position

When to use this prompt

check_circlePre-board strategic offsites where SWOT must hold up to scrutiny
check_circleAnnual planning cycles needing rigorous internal-vs-external diagnosis
check_circleM&A target evaluation requiring evidence-anchored position analysis

Example output

smart_toySample response

A Markdown document with context snapshot, top 3-4 items per SWOT quadrant with evidence and priority scores, items rejected with reasoning, full TOWS matrix with 8 strategic moves, top 3 strategic bets, honesty audit notes, and evidence gaps.

signal_cellular_altadvanced

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

claudeshieldTrusted

bookmark

Strategic SWOT-to-Action Converter

Transforms a raw SWOT analysis into a prioritized strategic action plan using SO, WO, ST, and WT strategies — eliminating the gap between analysis and execution.

Generate a Supply Chain Transformation Case Study

Builds a supply chain consulting case study demonstrating end-to-end optimization from procurement to last-mile delivery with quantified efficiency gains.

Professional Development in Business Strategy

Structured professional development in business strategy analysis engine — takes your specific context and constraints and delivers an expert-level action plan you can execute immediately.

Remote Work Policy Designer

Comprehensive remote work policy designer supporting organizational excellence.

Revenue Recognition Policy Builder

Structured revenue recognition policy analysis engine — takes your specific context and delivers an expert-level action plan you can execute immediately.