Theory of Change Builder

A ToC is not a logic model with arrows. It is an argument about how change happens, with the assumptions made visible and testable. This skill enforces that standard.

When to use

Trigger for theory-of-change work: new programme design, ToC revision, pathway analysis, programme logic review, funder-required ToC submissions, or ToC critique.

Do not trigger for routine results frameworks, logframes, or indicator lists — those are downstream of the ToC.

Required inputs

Ask in one batch. Do not start drafting without the first four.

1. Long-term outcome or vision: the change Ane wants the programme to contribute to, stated in language the target population would recognise (required)
2. Target population and context: who, where, what constraints shape their lives (required)
3. Programme scope: what interventions the programme can actually deliver (required)
4. Timeframe: short (12 mo), medium (3 yr), long (5-10 yr) markers (required)
5. Existing analysis: prior ToC, needs assessment, or evaluation findings (optional)
6. Feminist political economy analysis: who holds power in this system, how gender and other axes shape access (optional but required for SRHR; will prompt if missing)

Method

Work backward from the long-term outcome. Never forward from activities.

Step 1 — articulate the vision

Write the long-term outcome as one sentence. Must be specific enough to be falsifiable. "Improved SRHR outcomes" fails. "Adolescent girls in [region] access quality contraception within 30 minutes' travel, without third-party consent" passes.

Step 2 — identify preconditions

What must be true for the long-term outcome to hold? List preconditions at medium-term and short-term horizons. Each precondition is itself a change state, not an activity.

Step 3 — surface the causal links

For every link between preconditions, name:

• Causal claim: why does A lead to B in this context?
• Assumption: what must be true, outside the programme's control, for A to actually lead to B?
• Evidence status: tested (cite the source), plausible (cite the framework), or untested (flag for evidence gap)

Step 4 — apply the feminist political economy lens

Do not skip this, even if the programme is not labelled SRHR. For each node:

• Whose interests does this change serve? Whose interests does it threaten?
• What power relations must shift for this change to stick?
• Which voices defined this outcome? Who was consulted? Who co-designed?

If these questions cannot be answered, mark the precondition with ⚠️ Feminist political economy analysis missing.

Step 5 — identify threats to the ToC

From Mayne (2019): what alternative explanations would account for the expected change if the programme were not running? What other contributions are likely? Name them.

Step 6 — define the contribution question

State the evaluative question the ToC must eventually answer. Follow Mayne (2019) phrasing: "To what extent and in what ways did the programme contribute to [outcome], given other contributions and context?"

Step 7 — plan the evidence

For each assumption, name:

• What would confirm it?
• What would disconfirm it?
• What data source could provide that evidence?
• When will the ToC be revisited in light of the evidence?

Output structure

Produce a ToC document with these sections under these H2s:

1. Vision — one sentence, as described in Step 1
2. Context and population — two paragraphs max
3. Pathway diagram — text representation: each precondition as a node, each link described in one sentence. If the user needs a visual, produce Mermaid source.
4. Preconditions by horizon — three columns (short / medium / long), each precondition one line
5. Causal claims and assumptions — table: From → To, Causal claim, Assumption, Evidence status
6. Feminist political economy analysis — per-node power and participation notes
7. Threats to the ToC — rival explanations and other contributions
8. Contribution question — one sentence
9. Evidence plan — table: Assumption, Confirming evidence, Disconfirming evidence, Data source, Revisit date
10. Data gaps — ⚠️ Data gap: entries for anything missing

Citation requirements

Every framework claim cites author and year. Mandatory versions:

• Vogel (2012) "Review of the Use of 'Theory of Change' in International Development" (DFID)
• van Eerdewijk et al. (2017) "White Paper: A Conceptual Model of Women and Girls' Empowerment" (KIT)
• Mayne (2019) "Revisiting the Contribution Question" Evaluation 25(3)
• Cornwall & Rivas (2015) for feminist framing when relevant

Writing rules

Follow CLAUDE.md house style. No hedging in causal claims — if the claim is uncertain, state that the evidence is untested. No logical leaps — if Step 3 cannot name the causal mechanism, mark the link as ⚠️ Untested mechanism.

Limitations

This skill does not generate indicators. Route to indicator-designer after the ToC is stable. It does not replace stakeholder consultation — it structures the analysis Ane brings from that consultation.

Edit-preservation protocol

If Ane references an existing output by path and asks to improve, iterate, or expand it, the protocol activates. Read the file first, edit scope-bounded via the Edit tool, preserve out-of-scope content byte-identical, and return the EDIT-PRESERVATION DELIVERY summary.

Apply mel_wiki/wiki/concepts/edit-preservation-protocol.md when target file exists.