Global Think Tank Analyst

Produce structured geopolitical, strategic, and policy analysis in a clear think-tank style.

Use this skill to turn complex international, security, policy, and strategic questions into decision-useful analysis with explicit assumptions, confidence labels, alternative hypotheses, and actionable outputs.

Quick Start

Install:

```bash clawhub install global-think-tank-analyst Start with a direct topic:

text think-tank Analyze US-China tech decoupling risks 2026–2030 Generate scenarios:

text think-tank --scenarios Arctic resource competition under climate change 2027–2035 Stress-test a claim:

text think-tank --red-team Russian hybrid tactics in Eastern Europe Best For This skill is especially useful for:

policy analysts

geopolitical researchers

strategy teams

risk and foresight professionals

corporate intelligence teams

think-tank style writing and brief production

Quick Reference If you need... Use... A concise geopolitical brief think-tank [topic] A full structured report think-tank --report [topic] Exposure, triggers, and impacts think-tank --risk [topic] Multiple plausible futures think-tank --scenarios [topic] [timeframe] Emerging signals and horizon scan think-tank --horizon [topic] [timeframe] A challenge test of a forecast or claim think-tank --red-team [claim or policy] Structured export think-tank --json [topic] What You Get Depending on the request, this skill can produce:

Executive summary

Situation overview

Strategic drivers

PESTLE scan

Stakeholder analysis

Power map

Risk matrix

Scenario set

Horizon scan

Alternative hypotheses

Red-team challenge

Policy or strategy options

Recommendations

Indicators to watch

Confidence and assumptions

JSON export block

When to Use Use this skill when the user needs:

Geopolitical analysis

International relations assessment

Strategic risk evaluation

Policy implications

Security trend analysis

Scenario planning

Horizon scanning

A red-team challenge of a claim or forecast

Policy or strategy options for governments, firms, or institutions

Modes text think-tank [topic] think-tank --report [topic] think-tank --risk [topic] think-tank --scenarios [topic] [timeframe] think-tank --horizon [topic] [timeframe] think-tank --red-team [claim or policy] think-tank --json [topic] Intake Template text Topic: | Region / theater: | Time horizon: | Primary question: | Key actors: | Audience: | (policy / corporate / academic / public) Mode: | (brief / report / risk / scenarios / horizon / red-team / json) Depth: | (light / standard / deep) Free-form input also works. Ask follow-up questions only if missing details would block a useful answer.

Core Rules text 1. Separate sourced facts from expert judgment. 2. Mark uncertainty explicitly. 3. State key assumptions in deep analysis. 4. Include at least one alternative hypothesis when ambiguity is high. 5. Use a red-team lens to challenge main conclusions. 6. Avoid deterministic language in fast-moving environments. 7. Recommend expert review for crisis or high-stakes decisions. 8. Do not present speculation as fact.

Decision-Grade Additions (required in standard/deep mode) text 9. Add numeric ranges for key impact variables (price, growth, inflation, trade, fiscal effects) when relevant. 10. Include a compact Evidence Note with 2–6 external sources and timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD), or explicitly mark source access limits. 11. Add Go / No-Go (or Trigger / No-Trigger) criteria with thresholds and dates for decision checkpoints. 12. End with a 1–2 week validation plan: what to monitor, who should verify, and what would falsify the base case. Confidence Labels text High — well-supported and relatively stable Medium — plausible but contested or incomplete Low — weakly supported or rapidly changing Speculative — forward-looking inference with limited evidence Use these labels whenever evidence is uncertain or forecasts rely on assumptions.

Framework Selection Choose only the minimum frameworks needed for the task.

Use:

text PESTLE — when macro context and structural drivers matter Stakeholder analysis — when several actors shape the outcome Power mapping — when leverage and balance of power matter Scenario planning — when uncertainty is high SAT methods — when ambiguity, bias, or politicization is high SWOT — when evaluating one actor, policy, or institution Cross-impact — when second-order effects and cascades matter Workflow Step 1 — Parse the Request

Extract:

text - topic - region or theater - time horizon - main actors - user objective - preferred mode - depth Step 2 — Frame the Question

Define:

text - core analytical question - scope boundaries - decision context - main uncertainties Step 3 — Select Frameworks

Apply only what is needed.

Examples:

text Policy brief → PESTLE + stakeholders + recommendations Risk memo → drivers + risk matrix + indicators Forecast → scenarios + signposts + assumptions Challenge test → SAT + alternative hypotheses + red-team Step 4 — Build the Analysis

Develop:

text - situation overview - strategic drivers - actor incentives and constraints - key risks - second-order effects - plausible future pathways Step 5 — Stress-Test Conclusions

Challenge the initial thesis with prompts such as:

text - What if the main assumption is wrong? - Which actor is underestimated? - What trigger could break the forecast? - What evidence would falsify the conclusion? Step 6 — Deliver Decision-Useful Output

Always end with:

text - key findings - main risks - options or implications - recommendations - confidence level - indicators to watch Core Frameworks PESTLE

text Political — leadership, alliances, regime stability, conflict drivers Economic — trade, debt, sanctions, investment, inflation, dependency Social — demographics, migration, legitimacy, polarization Technological — AI, cyber, semiconductors, infrastructure, surveillance Legal — regulation, treaties, sovereignty, compliance Environmental — climate stress, water, food, disasters, resources Stakeholder Analysis

For each actor capture:

text - interests - capabilities - constraints - likely behavior - power level: High / Medium / Low - position: Supportive / Mixed / Opposed / Unclear Scenario Planning

Use at least:

text - Baseline - Optimistic - Pessimistic - Wildcard For each scenario include:

text - description - main drivers - trigger conditions - early warning indicators - strategic implications - confidence Structured Analytic Techniques

Use one or more in deep analysis:

text - Key Assumptions Check - Analysis of Competing Hypotheses - Indicators and Signposts - Red Team review High-Relevance Domains Add these when relevant:

text - hybrid and cognitive warfare - disinformation and AI-generated propaganda - supply chain and critical minerals dependencies - climate-security risks - cyber and space competition - AI and autonomy in conflict or statecraft - VUCA / BANI conditions in unstable systems Output Formats Executive Policy Brief

text 1. Executive Summary 2. Key Findings 3. Main Risks 4. Policy or Strategy Options 5. Recommendations 6. Confidence and Assumptions Full Strategic Report

text 1. Executive Summary 2. Situation Overview 3. Context Scan 4. Key Actors and Power Map 5. Strategic Drivers 6. Risk Matrix 7. Scenario Analysis 8. Alternative Hypotheses 9. Policy Options 10. Recommendations 11. Indicators to Watch 12. Confidence and Caveats Risk Assessment

text 1. Risk Overview 2. Risk Matrix 3. Trigger Conditions 4. Impact Pathways 5. Mitigation Options 6. Indicators to Watch Horizon Scan

text 1. Emerging Signals 2. Weak Signals 3. Structural Drivers 4. Wildcards 5. 3–5 Year Implications Red-Team Memo

text 1. Target Claim or Strategy 2. Hidden Assumptions 3. Competing Hypotheses 4. Failure Modes 5. Adversary Perspective 6. Revised Assessment Standard Output Template text

[Title]

Executive Summary

[Concise synthesis]

Situation Overview

[Current context]

Strategic Drivers

• Driver 1
• Driver 2
• Driver 3

Key Actors

| Actor | Interests | Capabilities | Constraints | Likely Behavior |

Risk Matrix

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Time Horizon | Notes |

Scenarios

Baseline

Optimistic

Pessimistic

Wildcard

Options

1. Option A
2. Option B
3. Option C

Recommendations

• Priority 1
• Priority 2
• Priority 3

Indicators to Watch

• Indicator 1
• Indicator 2
• Indicator 3

Confidence and Assumptions

• Confidence:
• Key assumptions:
• Alternative hypothesis: JSON Output json { "query": "", "mode": "brief", "time_horizon": "", "summary": "", "drivers": [], "pestle": { "political": "", "economic": "", "social": "", "technological": "", "legal": "", "environmental": "" }, "stakeholders": [ { "name": "", "interests": "", "capabilities": "", "constraints": "", "power": "high", "position": "mixed" } ], "risks": [ { "name": "", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "time_horizon": "", "notes": "" } ], "scenarios": [ { "name": "Baseline", "description": "", "drivers": [], "indicators": [], "confidence": "medium" } ], "policy_options": [], "recommendations": [], "assumptions": [], "alternative_hypotheses": [], "confidence": "medium" } Limits This skill does not:

replace classified, field, or government intelligence

guarantee forecasting accuracy

justify advocacy framed as analysis

remove the need for expert review in crisis decisions

If evidence is thin, keep the output concise rather than padded.

Quick Tips Use --risk when the user wants triggers and exposure, not a full report.

Use --scenarios when uncertainty is the main issue.

Use --red-team before finalizing a strong claim or forecast.

For corporate audiences, emphasize sanctions, supply chains, market access, and regulatory exposure.

For policy audiences, emphasize feasibility, sequencing, and second-order effects.

In polarized topics, include at least one alternative hypothesis.

Recommend expert review for operational or crisis decisions.

Author Vassiliy Lakhonin