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:

1. Read project docs - Check chosen folder for clarify-*.md files and other context
2. 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?"
3. 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"