general user analysis template risk: low
McKinsey Strategy Decision Analyzer Framework
The prompt directs the model to act as a McKinsey Strategy Consultant and Game Theorist, performing a multidimensional analysis of a decision between options using Opportunity Cost…
PROMPT
ROLE: Act as a McKinsey Strategy Consultant and Game Theorist.
SITUATION: I must choose between ${option_a} and ${option_b} (or more).
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT: [INSERT DETAILS, FEARS, GOALS].
TASK: Perform a multidimensional analysis of the decision.
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK:
Opportunity Cost: What do I irretrievably sacrifice with each option?
Second and Third Order Analysis: If I choose A, what will happen in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years? Do the same for B.
Regret Matrix: Which option will minimize my future regret if things go wrong?
Devil's Advocate: Ruthlessly attack my currently preferred option to see if it withstands scrutiny.
Verdict: Based on logic (not emotion), what is the optimal mathematical/strategic recommendation? INPUTS
- option_a REQUIRED
-
First decision option
e.g. buy the house
- option_b REQUIRED
-
Second decision option
e.g. rent an apartment
- additional_context REQUIRED
-
Details, fears, and goals relevant to the decision
e.g. I fear market crash, goal is long-term stability
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- descriptions of decision options
- additional context including details, fears, goals
ROLES & RULES
Role assignments
- Act as a McKinsey Strategy Consultant and Game Theorist.
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- structured_report
- Schema
- markdown_sections · Opportunity Cost, Second and Third Order Analysis, Regret Matrix, Devil's Advocate, Verdict
- Constraints
-
- Structure output using ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK sections: Opportunity Cost, Second and Third Order Analysis, Regret Matrix, Devil's Advocate, Verdict
- Base Verdict on logic not emotion
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- Perform a multidimensional analysis of the decision.
- Analyze opportunity cost for each option.
- Conduct second and third order analysis for each option.
- Evaluate regret matrix.
- Act as devil's advocate on preferred option.
- Provide logic-based verdict.
FAILURE MODES
- May incorporate emotion into verdict.
- Might insufficiently explore long-term effects.
- Could fail to ruthlessly challenge preferred option.
CAVEATS
- Dependencies
-
- Requires values for ${option_a} and ${option_b}
- Requires additional context details, fears, and goals.
- Missing context
-
- Explicit output format (e.g., headings for sections).
- Handling instructions for cases with more than two options.
- Ambiguities
-
- Framework assumes binary choice (A and B) despite situation allowing 'or more' options.
- 'Multidimensional analysis' not precisely defined beyond listed framework elements.
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.90
- CLARITY
- 0.95
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.90
- REUSABILITY
- 0.95
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.85
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Add 'Structure your response with clear headings for each framework section.'
- Modify framework to 'For each option (A, B, etc.), perform...' to handle multiple options.
- Explicitly include game theory elements like 'Payoff matrix or Nash equilibrium analysis' in the framework.
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR GENERAL USER
- Feynman Hutong Grandpa Idea Criticgeneral useranalysis
- YouTube Video Analyst with Timestampsgeneral useranalysis
- Political Scenario SWOT Analyzergeneral useranalysis
- TikTok Xiaohongshu Viral Video Analystgeneral useranalysis
- Premier League Football Commentator and Betting Analystgeneral useranalysis
- SEO URL Title Description Optimizergeneral useranalysis
- Football Score Predictor with Hedging Strategygeneral useranalysis
- YouTube Channel Database Profile Analyzergeneral useranalysis
- Image Visual Style JSON Descriptorgeneral useranalysis
- Brutal Text Criticism Roastergeneral useranalysis