SCQA Framework Skill
Foundation: McKinsey's SCQA (Situation-Complication-Question-Answer) framework, derived from Barbara Minto's pyramid principle
Core Concept: Build compelling narrative by establishing situation, introducing complication, raising question, then delivering answer.
Why This Works:
- •Engages reader with familiar situation
- •Creates tension with complication (problem)
- •Raises question reader now wants answered
- •Delivers answer with impact (reader is primed)
- •Natural storytelling flow
The SCQA Structure
Four elements in sequence:
1. Situation (S)
What: The stable, uncontroversial starting point everyone agrees on
Purpose: Establish common ground with reader
Example:
"Software engineers use AI coding assistants to boost productivity."
Characteristics:
- •Non-controversial (reader nods along)
- •Familiar to target audience
- •Sets the stage for complication
2. Complication (C)
What: The problem, change, or challenge that disrupts the situation
Purpose: Create tension and make reader care
Example:
"But generic AI agents produce unreliable code - state corruption, context loss, hallucinations. Teams abandon them after weeks of frustration."
Characteristics:
- •Introduces conflict/problem
- •Makes status quo untenable
- •Resonates with audience pain
- •Creates urgency
3. Question (Q)
What: The question reader now wants answered (often implicit)
Purpose: Focus attention on the answer you're about to provide
Example:
"How can we get AI productivity benefits without the reliability chaos?"
Characteristics:
- •Natural question arising from complication
- •What reader is now thinking
- •Can be explicit or implicit
- •Sets up your answer
4. Answer (A)
What: Your solution, recommendation, or core message
Purpose: Deliver the answer reader is now primed to receive
Example:
"CAF provides production-grade architecture that prevents AI chaos through stateless, file-based patterns proven over 6 months."
Characteristics:
- •Directly addresses question
- •This is your core message
- •Reader is now receptive
- •Rest of content supports this answer
Complete Example
Topic: Introducing CAF
Situation:
Claude Code has become a popular AI coding assistant, with developers using it daily for everything from bug fixes to feature development.
Complication:
However, Claude Code out-of-box is a generic assistant. It doesn't understand your domain, workflows, or constraints. As projects grow complex, generic responses become frustrating - developers spend more time correcting AI suggestions than coding.
Question (implicit):
How can we customize Claude Code for our specific domain without losing the ease of the IDE-based experience?
Answer:
The Claude Agent Framework (CAF) transforms Claude Code into domain-specific agents through simple markdown-based customization. Define domain commands, specialized agents, and behavioral skills - no programming required.
Variations
SCQ (Implicit Answer)
When to use: Answer is your entire document
Structure:
- •Situation
- •Complication
- •Question
- •[Your entire article/doc is the answer]
Example opening:
Situation: AI coding assistants promise productivity gains. Complication: Generic assistants don't understand domain specifics. Question: How do we customize AI for our domain?
[Rest of white paper answers this question]
SCA (Implicit Question)
When to use: Question is obvious from complication
Structure:
- •Situation
- •Complication
- •Answer (question implied)
Example:
Situation: Developers use AI assistants daily. Complication: But generic AI produces unreliable code - state corruption, context loss. Answer: CAF prevents this through stateless architecture.
[Implied question: "How do we prevent AI reliability issues?"]
CSA (Situation Assumed)
When to use: Audience already knows situation
Structure:
- •Complication (jump right to problem)
- •[Situation implied]
- •Answer
Example:
Complication: Generic AI assistants keep producing unreliable code. Answer: Domain-specific customization through CAF solves this.
[Implied situation: "We're using AI assistants"]
Application to Content Types
Application 1: Opening Hook
Use SCQA for article/document opening:
# [Title] [Situation - 1 paragraph] Establish the current state that readers recognize. [Complication - 1-2 paragraphs] Introduce the problem or challenge that disrupts equilibrium. Make readers feel the pain. [Question - optional, can be implicit] What readers are now asking. [Answer - 1 paragraph] Your core message / solution / recommendation. This is what the rest of the document will elaborate on. --- [Rest of document provides evidence and detail for the answer]
Application 2: Persuasive Narrative
Structure for convincing readers:
Situation: "Here's how things are..." Complication: "But this problem exists..." Question: "So what should we do?" Answer: "We recommend [solution]"
Body: Provide evidence for answer Closing: Reinforce answer + call to action
Application 3: Problem-Solution Content
SCQA maps to problem-solution:
- •Situation + Complication = Problem definition
- •Question = Bridge to solution
- •Answer = Solution statement
- •Body = Solution elaboration
Application 4: Positioning Statement
SCQA for competitive positioning:
Situation: "Current alternatives exist (Alt A, Alt B)" Complication: "But they have these limitations..." Question: "What's needed?" Answer: "We provide [unique value] that alternatives don't"
Integration with Pyramid Principle
SCQA + Pyramid work together:
SCQA: How to structure the opening/hook (narrative flow) Pyramid: How to structure the answer and supporting arguments (hierarchical)
Combined structure:
Opening (SCQA): ├─ Situation ├─ Complication ├─ Question └─ Answer [This is Level 1 of pyramid] Body (Pyramid): ├─ Argument 1 supporting Answer [Level 2] │ └─ Evidence [Level 3] ├─ Argument 2 supporting Answer [Level 2] │ └─ Evidence [Level 3] └─ Argument 3 supporting Answer [Level 2] └─ Evidence [Level 3] Closing: └─ Reinforce Answer + CTA
SCQA gets reader to care about your answer. Pyramid organizes proof of answer.
Crafting Effective Components
Crafting Situation
Good situation:
- •✅ Familiar to audience
- •✅ Non-controversial
- •✅ Concise (1 paragraph)
- •✅ Sets stage for complication
Bad situation:
- •❌ Controversial (audience disagrees)
- •❌ Unfamiliar (audience confused)
- •❌ Too long (reader loses interest)
- •❌ Doesn't connect to complication
Crafting Complication
Good complication:
- •✅ Resonates with audience pain
- •✅ Creates urgency
- •✅ Makes status quo untenable
- •✅ Leads naturally to question
Bad complication:
- •❌ Audience doesn't relate
- •❌ No urgency (so what?)
- •❌ Too dramatic (not believable)
- •❌ Doesn't set up your answer
Crafting Question
Good question:
- •✅ Natural from complication
- •✅ What reader is thinking
- •✅ Your answer addresses it
- •✅ Can be implicit (often better)
Bad question:
- •❌ Disconnected from complication
- •❌ Too broad or vague
- •❌ Your answer doesn't address it
- •❌ Stated explicitly when obvious
Crafting Answer
Good answer:
- •✅ Directly addresses question
- •✅ Your core message
- •✅ Concise and memorable
- •✅ Rest of content supports it
Bad answer:
- •❌ Doesn't answer question
- •❌ Vague or generic
- •❌ Too complex (save detail for body)
- •❌ Not your actual core message
Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Starting with Complication
❌ Don't jump to problem without context:
AI coding assistants produce unreliable code...
Why: Reader doesn't have context. What AI assistants? Who's using them?
✅ Establish situation first:
Software engineers use AI coding assistants daily. But these assistants produce unreliable code...
Mistake 2: Weak Complication
❌ Complication doesn't create urgency:
Situation: Developers use AI assistants. Complication: Sometimes the suggestions could be better.
Why: "Could be better" doesn't create enough tension.
✅ Strong complication with real pain:
Situation: Developers use AI assistants. Complication: But 40% abandon them within weeks due to state corruption and unreliable output - wasted time, broken code, lost trust.
Mistake 3: Answer Doesn't Match Question
❌ Mismatched Q&A:
Question: How do we make AI assistants more reliable? Answer: CAF provides markdown-based customization.
Why: Answer talks about customization, not reliability.
✅ Matched Q&A:
Question: How do we make AI assistants more reliable? Answer: CAF prevents failures through stateless architecture and file-based persistence.
Mistake 4: Answer Too Complex
❌ Answer tries to explain everything:
Answer: CAF is a meta-framework that provides commands, agents, and skills organized in a plugin architecture with markdown-based configuration that allows...
Why: Too much detail. Save for body.
✅ Concise answer, details later:
Answer: CAF transforms Claude Code into domain-specific agents through markdown-based customization. [Body provides details about commands, agents, skills]
Quality Checklist
When applying SCQA, verify:
- • Situation is familiar and non-controversial
- • Complication creates real tension/urgency
- • Complication resonates with audience pain
- • Question naturally arises from complication
- • Question is what reader now wants answered
- • Answer directly addresses question
- • Answer is your core message
- • Answer is concise (details in body)
- • Flow is natural (S→C→Q→A)
- • Reader is now primed to hear evidence
Integration with Positioning
SCQA + Positioning Manifest:
From positioning manifest:
- •Core message = Your Answer (A)
- •Audience context/pain = Informs Complication (C)
- •Desired action = Influences how you state Answer
Example:
{
"core_message": "CAF transforms Claude Code into domain agents",
"audience_context": "Developers frustrated by generic AI assistants"
}
Becomes SCQA:
- •S: Developers use AI assistants
- •C: But generic assistants frustrate with domain-ignorant responses
- •Q: How to get domain-specific AI?
- •A: CAF transforms Claude Code into domain agents
References
Foundation: McKinsey's SCQA framework, derived from Barbara Minto's pyramid principle
Key insight: People engage with stories that start where they are (Situation), introduce tension (Complication), raise a question they want answered (Question), then deliver the answer (Answer).
Application: Use SCQA for openings and persuasive narratives. Use Pyramid for organizing supporting evidence.
Skill Version: 1.0 Created: 2025-10-31 Used by: author agent (optional, for narrative structure) Key Innovation: Narrative engagement that primes reader to receive core message