scenario-planning
Scenario Planning
Core principle: The future is uncertain. Don't predict which future happens — map plausible futures and test strategies against each. Robust strategies perform reasonably across multiple scenarios. Fragile strategies only work if one specific future occurs.
The Core Process
Step 1: Define the Decision or Strategy
- Time horizon (6 months / 2 years / 5 years)?
- Decision needed now?
- What does "good" look like across futures?
Step 2: Identify Key Uncertainties
The 2–3 factors that are both:
- Highly uncertain (we genuinely don't know how they'll unfold)
- Highly impactful (they'd significantly change the right strategy)
These are the scenario axes. Skip certainties and minor factors.
Step 3: Build the Scenarios
3–4 distinct, internally consistent futures. Each:
- Plausible: not science fiction
- Distinct: meaningfully different from the others
- Challenging: at least one uncomfortable for the current plan
Two-axis matrix (two key uncertainties):
High market adoption
|
Slow tech ──┼── Fast tech
change | change
|
Low market adoption
→ 4 quadrant scenarios.
Three narrative scenarios:
- Expected: the future most are implicitly planning for
- Optimistic: uncertainties resolve favorably
- Pessimistic: uncertainties resolve adversarially
- Wild card: low-probability, high-impact disruption
Step 4: Stress-Test the Strategy
For each scenario:
- Current strategy: well / adequately / poorly?
- What would need to change to work in this scenario?
- Cost of being wrong about which scenario occurs?
Step 5: Identify Robust Actions
Actions that perform well across multiple scenarios — highest-confidence regardless of future.
Plus hedging options — small bets that preserve flexibility, cost little in expected case, pay off in unlikely ones.
Output Format
Key Uncertainties
| Uncertainty | Why it matters | Range |
|---|---|---|
| [Factor 1] | [Strategy impact] | [X to Y] |
| [Factor 2] | [Strategy impact] | [A to B] |
The Scenarios
For each (3–4 total):
Scenario Name (memorable)
- Description: 2–3 sentences
- Key conditions: what's true here?
- Probability estimate: rough (sum to ~100%)
- Key signals: early indicators we're in this scenario
Strategy Stress Test
| Scenario | Strategy performs | Why | What must change |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Well | [Reason] | Nothing |
| B | Adequately | [Reason] | [Adjustment] |
| C | Poorly | [Reason] | [Major pivot] |
| D | Catastrophically | [Reason] | [Fundamental rethink] |
Robust Actions
Cross-scenario actions:
- [Action 1] — works because [cross-scenario reason]
- [Action 2] — works because [cross-scenario reason]
Scenario-Specific Actions
| Scenario | Trigger signal | Response |
|---|---|---|
| B | [Leading indicator] | [Action] |
| C | [Leading indicator] | [Action] |
Fragility Assessment
- Worst-handled scenario for current plan?
- Single assumption the plan most depends on?
- Cheapest hedge against the worst scenario?
Pitfalls
- Too many scenarios: 3–4 is ideal.
- Scenarios too similar: each must require different strategies.
- Anchoring on the expected: give real attention to uncomfortable ones.
- No early warning signals: every scenario needs leading indicators.
- Planning for the scenario, not the strategy: goal is resilience, not prediction.
Thinking Triggers
- "What are we implicitly assuming about the future?"
- "What's the world where this strategy fails completely — how likely?"
- "What would we do differently if we knew we were in Scenario C?"
- "What signals tell us which future we're heading into?"
- "What's the cheapest move that protects us in bad scenarios without sacrificing good ones?"
Example Applications
- Product roadmap: AI commoditizes the core feature? Regulation shifts? Major platform behavior change?
- Architecture: Traffic 10x? Third-party API sunsets? Team doubles?
- Business strategy: Funding tightens? Competitor undercuts? Adoption 5x faster?
- Agent pipeline: LLM costs drop 90%? Unlimited context? Single agent replaces pipeline?
More from andurilcode/skills
causal-inference
Apply causal inference whenever the user is interpreting metrics, debugging system behavior, reading A/B test results, or trying to understand whether an observed change was caused by an action or by something else. Triggers on phrases like "X caused Y", "since we deployed this, metrics changed", "the A/B test showed a lift", "why did this metric move?", "is this correlation or causation?", "we changed X and Y improved", "how do we know this worked?", "the data shows…", or any situation where conclusions are being drawn from observational data. Also trigger before any decision based on metric interpretation — confusing correlation with causation leads to interventions that don't work and misattribution of credit. Never assume causation without applying this skill.
30probabilistic-thinking
Apply probabilistic and Bayesian thinking whenever the user needs to reason under uncertainty, compare risks, prioritize between options, update beliefs based on new evidence, or make decisions without complete information. Triggers on phrases like "what are the odds?", "how likely is this?", "should I be worried about X?", "which risk is bigger?", "does this data change anything?", "is this a signal or noise?", "what's the probability?", "how confident are we?", or any situation where decisions are being made based on incomplete or ambiguous evidence. Also trigger when someone is treating uncertain outcomes as certainties, or when probability language is being used loosely ("probably", "unlikely", "very likely") without quantification. Don't leave uncertainty unexamined.
27cognitive-bias-detection
Apply cognitive bias detection whenever the user (or Claude itself) is making an evaluation, recommendation, or decision that could be silently distorted by systematic thinking errors. Triggers on phrases like "I'm pretty sure", "obviously", "everyone agrees", "we already invested so much", "this has always worked", "just one more try", "I knew it", "the data confirms what we thought", "we can't go back now", or when analysis feels suspiciously aligned with what someone wanted to hear. Also trigger proactively when evaluating high-stakes decisions, plans with significant sunk costs, or conclusions that conveniently support the evaluator's existing position. The goal is not to paralyze — it's to flag where reasoning may be compromised so it can be corrected.
24inversion-premortem
Apply inversion and pre-mortem thinking whenever the user asks to evaluate a plan, strategy, architecture, feature, or decision before execution — or when they want to stress-test something that already exists. Triggers on phrases like "is this a good idea?", "what could go wrong?", "review this plan", "should we do this?", "are we missing anything?", "stress-test this", "what are the risks?", or any request to validate a decision or design. Use this skill proactively — if the user is about to commit to something, this skill should be consulted even if they don't ask for it explicitly.
23analogical-thinking
Apply analogical thinking whenever the user is designing a system, architecture, or process and would benefit from structural patterns that already exist in other domains — or when a problem feels novel but may have been solved elsewhere under a different name. Triggers on phrases like "how should we structure this?", "has anyone solved this before?", "we're designing from scratch", "what's a good model for this?", "I keep feeling like this resembles something", "what patterns apply here?", or when facing architecture, organizational, or process design decisions. Also trigger when a problem has been analyzed thoroughly but no good solution has emerged — the answer may exist in an adjacent domain. Don't reinvent what's been solved. Recognize the shape of the problem first.
22first-principles-thinking
Apply first principles thinking whenever the user is questioning whether a design, strategy, or solution is fundamentally right — not just well-executed. Triggers on phrases like "are we solving the right problem?", "why do we do it this way?", "is this the best approach?", "everyone does X but should we?", "we've always done it this way", "challenge our assumptions", "start from scratch", "is there a better way?", or when the user seems to be iterating on a flawed premise rather than questioning the premise itself. Also trigger when a proposed solution feels like an incremental improvement on something that may be fundamentally broken. Don't optimize a flawed foundation — question it first.
21