Battle Plan

Transforms a clarified goal into a comprehensive action plan that strengthens your case AND navigates the people who need to approve it.

Core Principle

Substance and politics are intertwined. A brilliant proposal fails without political navigation. Political skill fails without a defensible proposal. This skill addresses both.

Before Starting

First Question: Document Depth

Do you want fast or thorough document review?
A) Fast - use doc-summary/ (smaller files, quicker responses)
B) Thorough - use docs/ (full documents, more context)
C) Skip documents - just work from what I tell you

Then:

Read project docs - Check chosen folder for clarify-*.md files and other context
If no clarification exists, ask: "I don't see a clarification document. Want to run /clarify first, or should I work with what you tell me now?"
Summarize understanding before generating plan: "Based on what I've read, here's what I understand..." and confirm with user

The Battle Plan Structure

1. ASSESS - Where do you stand?

Substance Assessment

What's the core proposal?
What evidence exists today?
What are the gaps and weaknesses?
What questions can't be answered yet?
What would a skeptic attack?

Political Assessment

Who decides?
Who influences the decision?
Where does each person stand today?
What are the key relationships and dynamics?

Gap Analysis

Substance gaps: What's missing from the proposal itself?
Evidence gaps: What proof points are needed?
Research gaps: What don't you know about competitors, industry, frameworks?
Political gaps: Which relationships need work?

2. STRENGTHEN - Build a defensible case

Research Tasks

Not just "gather info" but specific research with clear purpose:

Competitive intel: What are competitors doing? How behind/ahead are we?
Industry precedents: Who's done this well? What can we learn?
Frameworks and experts: What do credible external sources say?
Internal evidence: What data exists internally that supports the case?
Failure analysis: What's failed before and why? How is this different?

Proposal Improvements

Based on gaps and weaknesses identified:

Success metrics that are specific and measurable
ROI framework or value articulation
Risk mitigation that addresses real concerns
Implementation clarity - how this actually works
Answers to the questions opponents will ask

Documents to Create (Substance)

Strengthened proposal/plan
Evidence summary or proof points document
Research findings synthesis
FAQ or objection responses

3. BUILD SUPPORT - Navigate the people

Political Groundwork

For each key person:

Current stance assessment
What they need to see/hear/believe
Who influences them
Best approach (1:1, group, formal, informal)
Specific messaging for their concerns
What would make them a champion vs. just not blocking

Relationship Moves

Pre-conversations before formal asks
Coalition building with supporters
Neutralizing blockers
Finding unexpected allies

Documents to Create (Politics)

Tailored summaries for different audiences
Talking points for champions to use
Materials that let supporters advocate for you

4. EXECUTE - Sequenced actions

Sequence Logic

The order matters. Consider:

What research must complete before certain conversations?
Which people need to be won over before approaching others?
What documents need to exist before key meetings?
Where are the dependencies?

Interleaved Actions

Don't separate "do all research, then do all politics." Interleave:

Research finding → informs → conversation with skeptic
Conversation with ally → reveals → new research need
Proposal revision → enables → executive meeting

5. CHECKPOINTS - How you know it's working

Evidence that substance is getting stronger
Evidence that political support is building
Warning signs that require course correction
Decision points where you might pivot

Output Format

Save to docs/battle-plan-[topic]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

# Battle Plan: [Goal]
Generated: [date]
Based on: [link to clarify doc if exists]

---

## Situation Summary

[3-4 paragraph summary covering:
- The goal and why it matters
- Current strength of the case (substance)
- Current political landscape
- What needs to happen]

---

## Assessment

### Substance: Current State
- **Core proposal**: [what you're actually proposing]
- **Evidence you have**: [what supports the case today]
- **Key weaknesses**: [what opponents will attack]
- **Unanswered questions**: [what you can't defend yet]

### Politics: Current State
- **Decision maker(s)**: [who approves]
- **Current alignment**: [who's supportive, skeptical, blocking]
- **Key dynamics**: [relationships, tensions, opportunities]

### Gap Analysis
| Gap Type | What's Missing | Why It Matters |
|----------|---------------|----------------|
| Evidence | [specific gap] | [consequence if not filled] |
| Research | [specific gap] | [consequence if not filled] |
| Proposal | [specific gap] | [consequence if not filled] |
| Political | [specific gap] | [consequence if not filled] |

---

## The Plan

> **Note:** This document serves as your action checklist. Leave it in project docs to help the LLM track progress and assist with execution.

### Phase 1: Strengthen the Case

**Research to Conduct:**
- [ ] [Specific research task]
  - Purpose: [why this matters]
  - Source: [where to look]
  - Output: [what you'll have when done]

- [ ] [Specific research task]
  - Purpose: [why this matters]
  - Source: [where to look]
  - Output: [what you'll have when done]

**Proposal Improvements:**
- [ ] [Specific improvement to make]
  - Addresses: [which weakness or gap]
  - Deliverable: [what this produces]

- [ ] [Specific improvement to make]
  - Addresses: [which weakness or gap]
  - Deliverable: [what this produces]

**Documents to Create:**
- [ ] [Document name/type]
  - Purpose: [what it accomplishes]
  - Audience: [who it's for]
  - Key content: [what it must include]

### Phase 2: Build Political Support

**Pre-Conversations:**
Before any formal ask, prepare the ground:

#### [Person 1] - [Current stance]
- [ ] **Approach**: [how to engage - 1:1, setting, framing]
- [ ] **Key message**: [what they need to hear]
- [ ] **Evidence to share**: [which proof points matter to them]
- [ ] **Ask**: [what you want from this conversation]
- [ ] **Success looks like**: [how you'll know it worked]

#### [Person 2] - [Current stance]
[Same structure]

**Coalition Building:**
- [ ] [Action to build support network]
- [ ] [Action to arm champions with materials]

### Phase 3: Execute

**Sequenced Actions:**

| Order | Action | Depends On | Enables |
|-------|--------|------------|---------|
| 1 | [Action] | - | [what this unlocks] |
| 2 | [Action] | Step 1 | [what this unlocks] |
| 3 | [Action] | Steps 1-2 | [what this unlocks] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Detailed Sequence:**

1. [ ] **[Action]**
   - Why now: [reasoning]
   - Deliverable: [what this produces]
   - Next step it enables: [what follows]

2. [ ] **[Action]**
   - Depends on: [previous step]
   - Deliverable: [what this produces]
   - Next step it enables: [what follows]

[Continue as needed]

### Objections & Responses

| Likely Objection | From Whom | Underlying Concern | Evidence/Response |
|------------------|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|
| [What they'll say] | [Name] | [Real issue] | [How to address - include specific evidence] |
| [What they'll say] | [Name] | [Real issue] | [How to address - include specific evidence] |

### Checkpoints

**Substance Checkpoints:**
- [ ] [Evidence that case is getting stronger]
- [ ] [Research completed that fills key gap]
- [ ] [Proposal improvement that addresses weakness]

**Political Checkpoints:**
- [ ] [Signal that key person is moving toward support]
- [ ] [Coalition milestone]
- [ ] [Blocker neutralized or converted]

**Warning Signs:**
- [Sign that something is going wrong]
- [Sign that approach needs to change]

### Risks & Contingencies

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
| [What could go wrong] | H/M/L | H/M/L | [What to do] |

---

## Immediate Next Actions

Do these first:

1. [ ] [Specific action with clear output] - [why first]
2. [ ] [Specific action with clear output] - [why second]
3. [ ] [Specific action with clear output] - [why third]

After Completion

Ask: "Want me to help execute any of these items? I can help with:

Research (competitive intel, industry precedents, frameworks)
Drafting documents (proposals, summaries, talking points)
Preparing for specific conversations
Strengthening specific parts of the case"