sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skills/mckinsey-critic

McKinsey Critic

Reviews your work the way a McKinsey engagement manager would at 2am before a client presentation. Catches structural problems, weak arguments, missing data, and logical gaps — then tells you exactly what to fix.

How It Works

Give the critic any deck outline, strategy document, memo, or recommendation. It will:

1. Grade the overall work (Green / Yellow / Red)
2. Review each section or slide with a status and specific issue
3. Identify the top 3 fixes — ranked by impact, with clear instructions
4. Call out one thing that works — so you know what to protect

Grading Scale

What the Critic Checks

Structure

• Does the narrative flow logically? (Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution)
• Are section breaks in the right place?
• Is there a clear beginning, middle, and end?

Rigor

• Is every claim backed by data or a source?
• Are numbers specific, not vague ("grew significantly" → "grew 25% YoY")?
• Are comparisons fair and complete?
• Is there a financial frame where one is needed?

So-What

• Does each section have a clear takeaway?
• Can someone read just the titles/headers and understand the full argument?
• Is the recommendation actionable and time-bound?

Completeness

• Are there comparison frameworks where options are presented? (not just a list)
• Are competitors named, not described generically?
• Are next steps specific with owners and timelines?

Output Format

# Critic Review: [Title]
 
**Grade: [GREEN/YELLOW/RED] — [one-line verdict]**
 
## Section-by-Section Review
 
| Section/Slide | Status | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| [Name] | Green/Yellow/Red | [Specific issue or "Strong"] |
 
## Top 3 Fixes
 
### Fix 1: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
 
### Fix 2: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
 
### Fix 3: [Title]
[What's wrong and exactly how to fix it]
 
## One Thing That Works
[Specific section/line that's strong and why — protect this]

Common Problems the Critic Catches

• Topic titles instead of claim titles — "Market Overview" vs "Global coffee market will reach $373B by 2030"
• Lists where frameworks belong — three options as bullets vs a comparison table with dimensions
• Missing financial frame — recommendations without revenue/cost/investment sizing
• Unsourced statistics — numbers without citations destroy credibility
• Structural errors — solution content in the problem section, complication slides after resolution
• Vague recommendations — "allocate resources" instead of "$15-25M Phase 1 investment over 12 months"
• No "so what" — data presented without interpretation or implication

When to Use

• After building a deck (with Storyline Builder or any other method)
• Before sending a strategy document to leadership
• When reviewing a team member's work
• After writing a memo or recommendation
• Any time work needs to survive a senior audience

Tips

• Run the critic BEFORE you polish formatting. Fix structure first, then make it pretty.
• The top 3 fixes are ranked by impact. If you only have time for one fix, do Fix 1.
• Yellow is the most common grade. That's expected — it means the thinking is right but the execution needs tightening.
• Pair with the Storyline Builder. Build the narrative first, then let the critic review it.