--- name: strategic-scout model: opus description: Produces a scout document containing a stated tension, 3-5 distinct routes with tradeoffs, and a recommended direction with rationale — the first artifact in a four-step pipeline (scout → spec → prompts → commission). Canonical version, wired into that pipeline; for a fast single-file scout with no pipeline scaffolding, use `dojo-craft:scout-writer`. Use when: "we don't know which direction to take", "scout our options before we commit", "what are the tradeoffs here", "we're stuck between competing priorities", "I need routes before writing a spec". category: scout-position inputs: - name: tension type: string description: The strategic tension or decision point to scout routes for required: true outputs: - name: scout_document type: ref format: cas-ref description: Scout document with stated tension, 3-5 distinct routes with tradeoffs, and recommended direction with rationale --- # Strategic Scout Skill **Version:** 2.1 **Created:** 2026-02-07 **Author:** Manus AI **Purpose:** To provide a structured, repeatable process for navigating strategic uncertainty, exploring multiple possible futures, and aligning on a clear, actionable plan. --- ## I. The Philosophy: From Problem to Possibility Strategic thinking is not about finding the right answer to a problem; it is about exploring the landscape of possibility that a tension reveals. This skill transforms the act of planning from a linear process of problem-solving to a creative process of possibility-seeking. By beginning with a tension, scouting multiple routes, and continuously aligning on a shared vision, we can navigate uncertainty with clarity and confidence, and arrive at solutions that are both innovative and robust. --- ## II. When to Use This Skill - **At the beginning of a new project or major release.** - **When facing a significant strategic decision with no clear answer.** - **When a project feels stuck or lacks a clear direction.** - **When there are multiple competing priorities or stakeholder interests.** --- ## III. The Workflow This is a 4-step workflow for strategic scouting and decision-making. ### Step 1: Identify the Tension **Goal:** To frame the strategic challenge as a tension to be held, not a problem to be solved. 1. **Articulate the Tension:** Clearly state the core strategic challenge as a tension between two competing ideas (e.g., "feature lab vs. focused product"). 2. **Hold the Question Open:** Resist the urge to immediately choose a side or find a solution. The goal is to create a space for exploration. ### Step 2: Scout Multiple Routes **Goal:** To map the landscape of possibility by exploring multiple distinct paths forward. 1. **Generate 3-5 Routes:** Use Scout mode to generate a diverse set of potential routes. 2. **Define Tradeoffs:** For each route, clearly articulate the risk profile, potential impact, and estimated duration. 3. **Present the Options:** Present the routes and their tradeoffs to the user for review and discussion. ### Step 3: Synthesize and Refine **Goal:** To create a hybrid approach that combines the best aspects of multiple routes. 1. **Gather Feedback:** Actively listen to the user's feedback on the scouted routes. 2. **Look for Connections:** Identify opportunities to combine elements from different routes into a more robust solution. 3. **Propose a Hybrid Plan:** Present a new, synthesized plan that incorporates the user's feedback and the best aspects of the scouted routes. ### Step 4: Align on Vision **Goal:** To ensure that the plan is fully aligned with the user's true strategic vision. 1. **Check for Alignment:** Continuously ask clarifying questions to ensure that the plan is meeting the user's underlying goals. 2. **Be Prepared to Reframe:** If the user's feedback reveals a deeper or different vision, be prepared to reframe the entire plan. 3. **Confirm the Vision:** Before moving to execution, get explicit confirmation from the user that the plan is fully aligned with their vision. --- ## IV. Best Practices - **Begin with a Tension, Not a Solution:** The quality of your strategic thinking is determined by the quality of your questions. - **Scouting is an Act of Humility:** The first idea is rarely the best idea. Be patient and explore multiple possibilities. - **Synthesis is a Creative Act:** The best solutions often come from combining existing ideas in new ways. - **Alignment is an Ongoing Process:** Don't assume you understand the user's vision. Continuously check for alignment. --- ## VII. The Full Pipeline: Scout → Spec → Prompts → Commission The strategic scout is not standalone — it is phase 1 of a 4-step workflow. Each step produces a persistent artifact: ### Phase 1: Scout (this skill) - **Output:** A scout document with tension, 3-5 routes, tradeoffs, and selected direction with rationale - **Artifact:** `thinking/[topic]_strategic_scout.md` ### Phase 2: Specify - **Input:** Scout decisions + codebase audit - **Tool:** `release-specification` skill - **Output:** A production-ready specification grounded in scout decisions AND measured codebase state - **Artifact:** `docs/vX.X.X/[release]_specification.md` ### Phase 3: Prompts - **Input:** Specification sections - **Tool:** `implementation-prompt` or `zenflow-prompt-writer` skill - **Output:** Self-contained implementation prompts, one per parallel track - **Artifact:** `docs/vX.X.X/prompts/track_[N]_prompt.md` ### Phase 4: Commission - **Input:** Implementation prompts + actual codebase - **Tool:** `pre-implementation-checklist` skill (with Track 0) - **Output:** Verified prompts with Track 0 remediation complete, then parallel execution - **Gate:** Track 0 must pass before parallel tracks begin The scout is the "why." The spec is the "what." The prompts are the "how." Track 0 is the "verify." **Key triggers:** "scout to spec", "spec pipeline", "full workflow from tension to implementation" --- ## VI. Quality Checklist Before moving to execution, ensure you can answer "yes" to all of the following questions: - [ ] Have you clearly articulated the core strategic tension? - [ ] Have you scouted at least 3-5 distinct routes with clear tradeoffs? - [ ] Have you looked for opportunities to synthesize the best aspects of multiple routes? - [ ] Have you gotten explicit confirmation from the user that the plan is fully aligned with their vision? --- ## VIII. Perspectives from Past Scouting Sessions ### Perspective 1: The Great Simplification (v0.0.31) - **Tension:** Additive complexity vs. subtractive simplification. - **Insight:** A lean, focused product is often more powerful than a feature-rich but bloated one. - **Lesson:** Don't be afraid to pivot and start fresh if the current path is leading to complexity. ### Perspective 2: Orchestration Visibility (v0.0.31) - **Tension:** Backend power vs. frontend visibility. - **Insight:** A powerful feature is useless if the user can't see it or understand it. - **Lesson:** Make the invisible visible. The user experience of a feature is as important as the feature itself. ### Perspective 3: Parallel Tracks (v0.0.30) - **Tension:** Speed vs. quality. - **Insight:** With clear specifications and separation of concerns, you can have both. - **Lesson:** Good governance multiplies velocity. Invest in planning and specification to enable parallel execution. --- ## Output - Scout document saved to `thinking/[topic]_strategic_scout.md` containing: tension statement, 3-5 routes (each with approach, risks, estimated impact, and duration), and a recommended direction with explicit rationale - If the user is proceeding to Phase 2, a handoff note naming the spec artifact and the relevant skill to invoke next ## Examples **Scenario 1:** "Should we build a mobile app or focus on improving the desktop experience?" → Scout document with routes including (1) mobile-first PWA, (2) desktop-only deepening, (3) parallel mobile + desktop, (4) web-responsive as mobile substitute — each with risk profile and timeline, plus a recommendation with stated tradeoffs. **Scenario 2:** "We need to decide whether to open-source our core library." → Scout document exploring (1) full open-source with community model, (2) open-core (free tier + paid extensions), (3) source-available license, (4) stay closed — with business model implications and competitive risk for each. Recommended direction identifies which option fits the current revenue stage. ## Edge Cases - If the user already knows their direction and just wants help specifying it, skip scouting and route directly to `release-specification` or `implementation-prompt` — running a full scout on a decided question wastes time and can introduce unnecessary doubt. - If the tension involves a third-party constraint (regulatory requirement, contractual obligation, hard deadline), surface that constraint upfront and remove any routes that violate it before presenting options. - If the tension is primarily interpersonal or organizational (e.g., disagreement between two team members), note that this skill addresses the strategic dimension only and flag that alignment work is a separate step. ## Anti-Patterns - Presenting routes that are not genuinely distinct — if Routes 2 and 3 differ only in implementation detail rather than strategic approach, collapse them into one route. - Recommending a direction before presenting all routes — the recommendation must come after the options are on the table, not before, to avoid anchoring the user prematurely. - Scouting without naming the tension explicitly — a scout that jumps straight to routes without a stated tension gives users no way to evaluate whether the routes actually address their situation. - Treating scout output as final — the scout document is a starting point for conversation, not a decision. Always check for reframes before moving to Phase 2.