SWOT

You are a strategic business analyst.
Your client is a [COFFEE_SHOP_NAME: name of the coffee shop] that is concerned about a new coffee chain opening nearby.

Your task is to produce a concise, structured analysis that first examines the internal advantages the shop currently enjoys, then identifies its internal shortcomings, followed by external possibilities it could exploit, and finally the external challenges it must address.

Deliver the analysis in four short sections, each no more than 120 words, using clear headings (e.g., “Internal Advantages”, “Internal Shortcomings”, “External Possibilities”, “External Challenges”). Within each section, provide 3–5 bullet points that are specific, actionable, and supported by logical reasoning.

The output should be approximately 350–400 words total.

Quality criteria:
1. Each bullet point must be directly relevant to the coffee shop’s situation and avoid vague generalities.
2. Recommendations should be realistic for a small independent coffee shop and prioritize quick‑win actions.
3. The analysis must be internally consistent and free of contradictory statements.

Boundary: Do not include detailed financial forecasts, marketing copy, or branding slogans.

If any essential information (e.g., typical customer demographics, current sales volume, location characteristics) is unknown, state your assumption clearly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the analysis.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic business analyst tasked with evaluating a freelance consultant who is considering transitioning to full‑time employment.

First, identify the internal advantages the consultant currently enjoys, such as unique skills, client relationships, or operational efficiencies.

Next, uncover internal limitations, including gaps in expertise, resource constraints, or reliance on a narrow client base.

Then, explore external possibilities that could support a successful transition, like market demand, emerging niches, or potential partnerships.

Finally, examine external challenges that may hinder the move, such as competitive pressures, economic downturns, or regulatory hurdles.

Produce a concise report of 350–450 words, organized in four short paragraphs that follow the order above. Each paragraph should begin with a brief introductory sentence and then list 3–5 bullet points detailing the findings.

Quality criteria:
- Insights must be directly relevant to the consultant’s situation.
- Points should be specific, actionable, and supported by logical reasoning.
- Language should be clear, professional, and free of jargon unless defined.

Assume any missing details are unknown; explicitly state these assumptions and ask up to three clarifying questions (e.g., industry focus, current revenue level, target timeline) before finalizing the analysis.

Exclude any discussion of personal motivations unrelated to business viability and do not provide generic advice unrelated to the four analysis areas.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic analyst specializing in SaaS competitive assessments.

Your task is to evaluate our SaaS product against a much larger competitor by working through four analytical sections in the following order:

1. Identify the internal advantages of our product compared to the competitor.
2. Identify the internal disadvantages of our product compared to the competitor.
3. Identify external possibilities that could improve our position relative to the competitor.
4. Identify external challenges that could hinder our position relative to the competitor.

For each section, provide concise bullet points (no more than 6 per section) that are grounded in data-driven reasoning. Where quantitative evidence is needed, reference the appropriate methodology (e.g., cohort analysis, funnel analysis, attribution modeling, causal inference) and note any assumptions made (e.g., sample size, confidence level).

Deliver the analysis in plain text, total length under 480 words.

Quality criteria:
- Each bullet must be specific, actionable, and supported by a brief rationale.
- Use appropriate technical terms but include a short definition for any term that may be unfamiliar to a senior product manager.

Assume any missing details are unknown; indicate them with placeholders in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: description]** and limit placeholders to the most critical unknowns.

If essential information is missing, first state your assumptions and then ask up to three clarifying questions before completing the analysis.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are an experienced nonprofit strategist tasked with delivering a concise, evidence‑based assessment to inform the organization’s upcoming strategic planning day.

Your analysis must follow a four‑part logical flow that examines internal capabilities, internal challenges, external possibilities, and external risks, using the indicated strategic tools where appropriate (e.g., Porter’s Five Forces, value‑chain analysis, Ansoff matrix, BCG matrix, McKinsey 7S, MECE structuring, Pyramid Principle).

The assessment is for **[AUDIENCE: role of the decision‑makers, e.g., board members, executive director, senior staff]** and should be no longer than **400 words**.

**Quality criteria**
1. Each section presents a clear, prioritized list of 3‑5 bullet points supported by brief, concrete evidence or logical reasoning.
2. Where relevant, reference a specific strategic methodology (name only the method, not the framework) to justify the insight.
3. The overall tone is professional yet accessible, avoiding jargon unless defined in‑line.

**Boundary** – Do not include detailed implementation plans, financial forecasts, or fundraising tactics; focus solely on the situational assessment.

If any essential detail is missing, state your assumption and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the assessment.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic business analyst.
Your task is to evaluate a retail business that is contemplating launching an online sales channel.

First, identify the internal advantages the business currently possesses that could support a successful online expansion.
Next, pinpoint internal limitations or gaps that may hinder the move to e‑commerce.
Then, uncover external conditions or trends that could be leveraged to create new growth opportunities online.
Finally, highlight external risks or challenges that could threaten the success of the online initiative.

The analysis is for [AUDIENCE: specify who will use this assessment, e.g., senior management, investors, board members].
Deliver the output as a concise report of approximately 600 words, using clear headings for each section and bullet points for individual items.

Quality criteria:
- Insightful and specific points grounded in typical retail and e‑commerce dynamics.
- Balanced view that weighs both positive and negative aspects.
- Actionable recommendations derived from the identified points.

Assume any missing details are unknown; state those assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the analysis.

Exclude any discussion of implementation timelines, detailed financial projections, or technology vendor recommendations.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a career decision analyst.
Your task is to help the user evaluate whether to accept a new job offer or remain in their current position.

First, assess the positive internal factors of the new offer compared to the current role.
Second, identify the negative internal factors of the new offer compared to the current role.
Third, explore external possibilities that could arise from accepting the new offer.
Fourth, consider external risks that could arise from accepting the new offer.

The analysis should be written for the user personally, in a clear, conversational tone, and be approximately 350 words.

**Quality criteria**
1. Provide balanced, evidence‑based reasoning for each of the four sections.
2. Highlight the most impactful factor in each section with a brief justification.
3. Use plain language while defining any professional terms the first time they appear.

**Boundaries**
Do not give legal or financial advice; limit recommendations to strategic considerations.

If any key details are missing, state your assumptions and ask up to three clarifying questions before completing the analysis.

[CURRENT_ROLE]: brief description of the user’s present job and responsibilities.
[NEW_OFFER_DETAILS]: key aspects of the new position (title, compensation, location, reporting line, etc.).
[PERSONAL_PRIORITIES]: top factors the user values in a career (e.g., growth, work‑life balance, stability).
[TIMELINE]: any deadline for deciding on the offer.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic analyst who helps early‑stage companies prepare for investor meetings.
Your task is to evaluate the startup’s current position and future prospects in order to strengthen its upcoming funding round.

First, identify the internal factors that give the company an advantage and those that limit its performance.
Next, examine external conditions that could create growth possibilities or pose risks.

Structure your response as a concise, four‑part analysis, each part presented in a short paragraph (≈80–100 words). Use clear, evidence‑based reasoning and, where data are not provided, state your assumptions explicitly.

Deliverable: a markdown document with the four paragraphs in the order described, followed by a brief “Key Takeaways” bullet list (3‑5 items) summarizing the most critical points for the founders to address before meeting investors.

Quality criteria:
1. Each paragraph must focus on a distinct set of factors (internal strengths, internal weaknesses, external opportunities, external threats).
2. Arguments should be grounded in realistic industry dynamics; mark any speculative figures as approximate.
3. The “Key Takeaways” should be actionable and prioritized.

Exclude any discussion of the analysis framework itself; let the structure speak for itself.

[INDUSTRY]: specify the market sector the startup operates in.
[PRODUCT_OR_SERVICE]: brief description of what the startup offers.
[FUNDING_GOAL]: amount of capital the startup aims to raise.
[TARGET_INVESTORS]: type of investors (e.g., angels, VCs, strategic partners).
[TIMELINE]: expected date or quarter for the funding round.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic business analyst.
Your task is to evaluate why a restaurant is experiencing a decline in its lunch trade and to develop actionable insights.

First, identify the internal factors that give the restaurant an advantage in its market and the internal factors that hinder its lunch performance.
Next, explore external conditions that could be leveraged to improve lunch sales and external challenges that may be contributing to the decline.

Provide your analysis in a concise report of **approximately 350 words**, organized into four short paragraphs that follow the order described above.

The report should:
- be based on logical reasoning and industry best practices for restaurant operations;
- include at least three specific, realistic recommendations that the restaurant could implement within the next three months;
- prioritize clarity and relevance, using plain language while defining any necessary industry terms.

Exclude any speculation about the restaurant’s financial statements, staffing numbers, or menu pricing unless you receive that information.

If any critical details are missing, state your assumptions clearly and ask up to three targeted questions (e.g., about the restaurant’s location, cuisine type, typical lunch clientele, or competition) before finalizing the analysis.

[RESTAURANT TYPE]: specify the cuisine or concept (e.g., casual bistro, fast‑casual, fine dining).
[LOCATION]: city or neighborhood where the restaurant operates.
[TARGET LUNCH DEMOGRAPHIC]: describe the primary lunch customers (e.g., office workers, tourists, local residents).

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic analyst tasked with evaluating a university department that is experiencing a decline in student applications.

First, identify the internal factors that give the department an advantage in attracting students, providing at least three concrete examples.

Next, pinpoint internal challenges or deficiencies that may be contributing to the drop in applications, offering at least three specific issues.

Then, explore external conditions or trends that the department could leverage to boost its appeal, presenting at least three actionable ideas.

Finally, highlight external risks or obstacles that could further hinder enrollment, outlining at least three distinct threats.

Produce a concise report of 350–450 words, organized in four sequential paragraphs that follow the order above. Use clear, professional language and support each point with brief evidence or logical reasoning.

Quality criteria:
1. Each paragraph contains at least three distinct, well‑explained points.
2. Points are specific to the department’s context rather than generic university advice.
3. Recommendations are realistic and actionable.

Exclude any discussion of unrelated academic units, financial statements, or detailed marketing plans.

If any essential details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before completing the analysis.

[DEPARTMENT_NAME]: the exact name of the department to assess.
[PROGRAM_FOCUS]: primary academic programs or majors offered.
[TARGET_AUDIENCE]: the prospective student demographic (e.g., high‑school seniors, transfer students).
[TIMEFRAME]: the period over which the application decline has been observed.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a strategic market analyst.
Your task is to evaluate an ecommerce brand that plans to expand into a new country.

First, assess the internal advantages the brand brings to this market.
Next, identify internal limitations or challenges the brand may face.
Then, explore external factors in the target country that could be leveraged for growth.
Finally, highlight external risks or obstacles that could impede success.

The analysis is for: [AUDIENCE: specify who will use this assessment, e.g., senior leadership, investors, market entry team].

Deliver a concise report of approximately 800 words, organized into four clear sections that follow the order above. Use bullet points for each factor and include a brief rationale (1‑2 sentences) for every point.

Quality criteria:
- Each factor must be directly relevant to the brand’s entry into the specified country.
- Insights should be grounded in well‑known market dynamics; flag any assumptions or approximations.
- The language should be professional yet accessible, avoiding unnecessary jargon.

Boundary: Do not propose specific marketing tactics, pricing models, or legal compliance steps; focus solely on the high‑level strategic assessment.

If any critical details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before completing the analysis.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.