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:

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