SWOT with rigor — weighted, evidenced, decision-driving
intermediateClaude OpusOperationsOps Managementframeworkmethodologystrategyswotplanning
Use case
Use this when the team needs a real strategic snapshot, not a wall of generic bullets. The structure forces evidence per entry and surfaces the cross-quadrant moves (matching strengths to opportunities, defending weaknesses against threats) that the typical SWOT skips.
The prompt
You are running a SWOT analysis with rigor. A normal SWOT becomes a wall of platitudes; this version forces evidence, weighting, and cross-quadrant analysis so the output drives a decision. <context> Subject of the SWOT:{{subject}}(a company, a product line, a function, a project) Decision the SWOT will inform:{{decision}}Time horizon:{{horizon}}Available evidence (data, customer quotes, market signals):{{evidence}}</context> <task> Step 1 — Populate each quadrant. For each of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, list 3 to 6 specific entries. - Strengths and Weaknesses are internal — you control them - Opportunities and Threats are external — you do not Each entry must include: - The specific claim - Evidence (data, customer quote, market signal); cite from{{evidence}}or mark UNCONFIRMED - Magnitude (1 to 5, how much this matters at{{horizon}}) - Confidence (1 to 5, how sure are you this is real) Step 2 — Sanity check internal vs. external. Misclassification is the #1 SWOT failure mode. For each entry, ask: "is this thing primarily under our control?" If yes, it is S/W. If no, it is O/T. Reclassify any that are wrong. Step 3 — Cross-quadrant matrix. Build a 2x2 of interactions: - SO (Strength × Opportunity): where we attack - ST (Strength × Threat): where we defend - WO (Weakness × Opportunity): where we invest to capture - WT (Weakness × Threat): where we are most exposed Identify the single most important interaction in each cell. Step 4 — Tie to{{decision}}. For each of the four cells, name the move it implies for{{decision}}. If a cell does not imply a move, say so. Step 5 — Honesty pass. List 1 to 2 entries you considered marking but cut for honesty (e.g., a "strength" that is actually parity with the market, an "opportunity" that is wishful). Briefly explain. </task> <output_format> ## SWOT table (with evidence, magnitude, confidence) ## Internal vs. external sanity check ## Cross-quadrant interactions (SO, ST, WO, WT) ## Implied moves for the decision ## Cuts on honesty grounds </output_format> <constraints> - Every entry has evidence or is marked UNCONFIRMED. No vibes. - Reject vague entries. "Strong brand" is not a strength; "47% of inbound leads name us first when surveyed" is. If you cannot make it specific, cut it. - Strengths must beat the market, not just exist. "We have a sales team" is not a strength. "Our enterprise win rate is 18% higher than the segment average" is. - Cross-quadrant analysis is the deliverable. The single quadrants are inputs to it. </constraints>
Variables
{{{{subject}}}}Replace with your {{subject}}{{{{decision}}}}Replace with your {{decision}}{{{{horizon}}}}Replace with your {{horizon}}{{{{evidence}}}}Replace with your {{evidence}}
Example
Input
subject: Our company's mid-market product line decision: Whether to invest 2x in mid-market or hold flat and double down on enterprise horizon: 12 months evidence: Net retention by segment; CAC by segment; competitor moves last 6 months; customer interview notes (n=20)
Output
## SWOT **Strengths** | Claim | Evidence | Magnitude | Confidence | |---|---|---|---| | Mid-market NPS 64, 18 points above enterprise | Q3 NPS report | 4 | 5 | | Self-serve onboarding works for mid-market (TTV 6 days) | Product analytics | 4 | 5 | | Inbound MQL volume from mid-market growing 25% QoQ | Marketing dashboard | 3 | 4 | **Weaknesses** | Claim | Evidence | Magnitude | Confidence | |---|---|---|---| | CAC payback 14 months, vs. enterprise 9 months | Finance | 5 | 5 | | Mid-market churn 11% annual; enterprise 4% | Cohort report | 5 | 5 | | No mid-market-specific CSM team; shared with enterprise | Org chart | 3 | 5 | **Opportunities** | Claim | Evidence | Magnitude | Confidence | |---|---|---|---| | Two competitors raised prices 30% in Q2; mid-market is fleeing | 5 customer interviews | 4 | 3 | | New compliance regulation in our space favors integrated platforms (us) over point tools | Industry report | 3 | 3 | **Threats** | Claim | Evidence | Magnitude | Confidence | |---|---|---|---| | Larger competitor adding mid-market SKU in Q4 | Press release | 5 | 4 | | Mid-market budget compression in 2 customer verticals | Customer interviews | 3 | 3 | ## Internal vs. external sanity check All internal claims are under our control; all external claims are market-driven. No reclassifications. ## Cross-quadrant interactions - **SO**: NPS + inbound growth × competitor price hikes → run a "switch from [competitor]" campaign now while customers are migrating - **ST**: Self-serve onboarding × competitor SKU launch → close the activation gap before they can; new customers are sticky - **WO**: CAC payback × compliance tailwind → invest in content/SEO to ride the regulatory inflection without paid spend - **WT**: Churn × competitor SKU → highest exposure; retention investments must come before any growth investment ## Implied moves for the decision - SO move: invest in mid-market — but the urgency is competitive timing, not just opportunity size. - WT move: retention work in mid-market is mandatory regardless of the invest decision; without it, growth investment compounds churn. - Net: invest 2x is correct ONLY if the first 30% of the investment goes to closing the churn gap. Pure growth investment without retention work amplifies the loss. ## Cuts on honesty grounds - Removed "strong product roadmap" from Strengths. Roadmap is plans, not fact. - Removed "AI-native architecture" from Strengths. Same as competitors at this point — parity, not advantage.
Tips for best results
- 1The cross-quadrant interactions are what makes this stronger than the typical SWOT — without them, you have four lists and no strategy. SO/ST/WO/WT is where the analysis pays for itself.
- 2Force every entry to have evidence. Nothing kills a SWOT faster than 'strong brand' with no source. UNCONFIRMED is honest; vibes are not.
- 3The internal/external sanity check catches a remarkably common error. Things you can change and things you cannot are different categories of action.
- 4If the WT cell is the most important, your strategy needs to start there. Capturing opportunity while a threat-weakness combo is unaddressed is how companies lose.
- 5Pair with claude-pre-mortem on the implied moves. SWOT identifies the moves; pre-mortem stress-tests them.
Related prompts
MECE breakdown of a problem space
intermediateDecompose a problem into Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive buckets so analysis cannot double-count or quietly skip a branch.
Personal Productivityframeworkmethodologydecomposition
Fishbone (Ishikawa) analysis for a multi-cause problem
intermediateMap a multi-cause problem across the standard fishbone categories, weight each cause by likelihood and impact, then commit to the highest-leverage interventions.
Operationsframeworkmethodologyroot-cause
Claude pre-mortem on a planned project or decision
intermediateRun a structured pre-mortem on a plan you are about to commit to. Surface failure modes, weight likelihood and impact, then propose specific mitigations.
Personal Productivityframeworkmethodologydecision-making
Need help implementing this prompt in your workflow?
Book a call