---
name: sun-tzu-strategy-brief
description: "Prepare for a specific contest — a competitive deal, a negotiation, a market entry, a turf fight — using the actual planning framework from Sun Tzu's Art of War: the five factors, the calculations before battle, and winning without fighting. Use when facing a competitor head-to-head, preparing a bake-off or RFP, entering a rival's market, or picking which fight to have. Produces a strategy brief with a fight/no-fight verdict."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/sun-tzu-strategy-brief.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Sun Tzu Strategy Brief Skill

The Art of War's core insight is not aggression — it is that the outcome is mostly
decided **before** the engagement, in the counting-house: the winning general "makes
many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought" (Ch. I, Giles translation).
This skill runs those calculations for a modern contest and — the part most strategy
decks skip — is willing to conclude *don't fight this one*.

## What This Skill Produces

- A **five-factor assessment** of you vs. the opponent for this specific contest
- The **terrain read**: what kind of ground this fight is on, and who it favours
- A **win-without-fighting scan**: the outcomes that get what you want with no
  head-to-head at all
- A **fight / reshape / decline verdict** with the reasoning shown

## Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):
- The contest: who, over what, decided by whom, by when
- What winning actually gets you (revenue, the logo, the territory, precedent)
- Your honest strengths and constraints; the opponent's, as far as known
- What happens if you simply don't engage

## Framework: the calculations (Art of War, Ch. I–IV)

**1. The five factors** (Ch. I) — score both sides honestly on each:

| Factor | Sun Tzu's term | Modern translation |
|---|---|---|
| Moral influence | Tao | Does each side's team actually believe in this fight? Alignment beats headcount. |
| Heaven | Timing | Conditions outside anyone's control — budget cycles, market mood, regulation |
| Earth | Terrain | Whose home ground is the deal/segment/standard being fought on? |
| Command | The general | Who runs each side's effort — empowered operator or committee? |
| Method | Discipline | Process and logistics: pricing authority, support capacity, follow-through |

**2. Know the other and know yourself** (Ch. III) — mark each cell of the table as
*known*, *assumed*, or *unknown*. The famous line is a probability statement: know
both sides and the result holds no fear; know only yourself and you trade wins and
losses; know neither and you lose. Count your unknowns before trusting your verdict.

**3. Win without fighting** (Ch. III) — "supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemy's resistance without fighting" (Giles). Before planning the head-to-head, list
at least three no-battle outcomes: reframe the buying criteria, partner instead of
compete, concede this deal to own the next segment, change what is being compared.

**4. Invincibility first** (Ch. IV) — secure what cannot be lost before reaching for
what can be won: which existing customers, allies, or territory must be defended
*while* you fight this? An offense that exposes the base is how challengers die.

## Output Format

```
## The contest
[One paragraph: who, over what, decided by whom, when]

## Five factors
| Factor | Us | Them | Edge | Known/assumed? |

## Unknowns that could flip the verdict
[The assumed/unknown cells, and the cheapest way to convert each to known]

## Three ways to win without fighting
1. … 2. … 3. …

## Verdict: FIGHT / RESHAPE / DECLINE
[Fight: the two factors that decide it and how to press them.
 Reshape: which factor you change before engaging, and how.
 Decline: what you protect instead, and what declining costs.]

## Defend while attacking
[What must not be lost during this, and its guard]
```

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Both columns scored — a brief that only assesses the opponent is scouting,
      not strategy
- [ ] Every factor cell marked known/assumed/unknown, and the unknown count stated
      plainly next to the verdict
- [ ] At least three genuine no-battle options, not one padded to three
- [ ] The verdict is one of the three words, committed to — "it depends" is the
      exact failure this skill exists to prevent
- [ ] Quotes only where exact (Giles translation); otherwise paraphrase with a
      chapter reference

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not produce war-metaphor decoration on top of an ordinary SWOT — every
      section should do analytical work the five factors made possible
- [ ] Do not let the user's fighting spirit set the verdict; the book's most-repeated
      advice is to not fight battles you haven't already won on paper
- [ ] Do not treat colleagues as the "enemy" — this skill is for external contests;
      internal politics belongs to machiavelli-counsel, and the difference matters
- [ ] Do not skip the defend-while-attacking section because the user is excited