---
name: mckinsey-critic
description: Reviews decks, documents, and strategies like a McKinsey engagement manager. Grades each section, flags structural problems, and gives the top 3 fixes. Use after building a deck, writing a strategy doc, or outlining a recommendation — before it goes to stakeholders.
---

# 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

| Grade | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| **Green** | Ready for stakeholders. Minor polish only. |
| **Yellow** | Fixable overnight, but do not send as-is. Structural issues that undermine credibility. |
| **Red** | Needs rework. Core argument or structure is broken. |

## 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.