elias/everything-claude-code
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code.git synced 2026-06-16 08:26:52 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #2221 from hretheum/feat/add-brand-discovery-competitive-skills

Browse Source 
feat(skills): add brand-discovery and competitive benchmarking pipeline. Catalog counts reconciled.
This commit is contained in:
Affaan Mustafa 2026-06-15 14:06:31 -04:00
commit c8395472bf
36 changed files with 2459 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

190
.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
---
name: benchmark-methodology
description: >-
Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set.
Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice,
visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought
leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics
and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.
---
# Benchmark Methodology
Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
number for any competitor.
## When to Activate
- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
## Why these dimensions
The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
achieves both simultaneously.
## The nine dimensions (with weights)
Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
system; site as proof-of-craft.
4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
there?
## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
from a template. Active liability.
- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
expectation, ownable by nobody.
- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
would notice and cite.
- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
bar others react to.
### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
important finding of the benchmark.
## How to collect the data
For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
study.
2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
verifiable).
3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
→ credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
thought leadership, model.
5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
## Bias controls
- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
credibility.
- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
Adjust outliers.
## Competitor profile card (output format)
Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
from:
```
## <Competitor name>
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
### Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
### Tension plot
- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
### Read for [client]
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
```
Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
## Related Skills
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.

7
.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/agents/openai.yaml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
interface:
display_name: "Benchmark Methodology"
short_description: "Score competitors across nine weighted dimensions"
brand_color: "#F59E0B"
default_prompt: "Use $benchmark-methodology to score a tiered competitor set."
policy:
allow_implicit_invocation: true

145
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
---
name: brand-discovery
description: >-
Use when a brand needs to discover or articulate its identity through
structured multi-session interviews. Covers purpose, positioning, audience,
personality, voice, narrative, and founder-brand tension across 8 modules
using laddering, 5 Whys, and projective techniques. Produces a resumable
session with disk-persisted state and a master brandbook (90_SYNTHESIS.md).
---
# Brand Discovery
Use this skill to conduct a structured, adaptive brand identity interview.
The goal is a complete `90_SYNTHESIS.md` — a master brandbook the
organization can use to brief designers, writers, and external
collaborators.
The interview runs across multiple sessions. Capture answers to disk as you
go so that no elicited knowledge is lost when a conversation ends, and so a
later session can resume from where the last one stopped.
## When to Activate
- A brand is being created, repositioned, or needs a written identity reference to brief collaborators.
- Multiple sessions are expected — the conversation will span days or weeks.
- Multiple founders or stakeholders need individual interviews before a reconciliation pass.
- The user wants a structured, repeatable method rather than an ad-hoc chat.
- Existing brand documentation is scattered, implicit, or founder-dependent and needs to be made explicit.
## Session start protocol
On every activation, perform these steps **before** asking any interview
question:
1. **Check for prior progress.** Look for an existing set of module files
and a `state.json` checkpoint in the project's brand-identity directory.
If none exists, this is a fresh start — confirm the brand name,
participants, and where to save the brand-identity files, then begin at
the first module.
2. **Read the current module file** if one is in progress, and scan its Raw
section for previously captured answers.
3. **Report to the user** in two or three sentences: which module we are
in, its status, and what remains. Then ask: "Continue here, or switch
module?"
## Interview discipline
Apply these rules throughout every module:
1. **One question at a time.** Never present a list of questions.
2. **After each answer:** short paraphrase → one deepening probe OR close
the thread if the topic is saturated. Never move on silently.
3. **Laddering:** for every "what" answer, follow with "Why does that
matter to you?" until a core value surfaces (typically two to four
iterations).
4. **5 Whys:** for beliefs or positioning claims — push until the root
reason, not the surface declaration, is on the table.
5. **Detect thin answers:** if generic, jargon-heavy, or vague, ask for
one concrete example, a client story, or a number.
6. **Projective techniques** (use once per module to break a plateau):
- "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
- Brand obituary: "If the organization closed in five years, what would
customers miss? What would you regret not having said?"
- Competitive contrast: "Name one peer you admire but would never want
to become. What specifically makes them the wrong model?"
7. **Saturation signal:** when two consecutive probes produce no new
information, summarise and close the module.
8. **End of module:** write a structured module file with two sections:
- `## Raw` — verbatim quotes and examples.
- `## Synthesis` — your interpretation, three candidate formulations,
open questions, contradictions between participants.
Then update the `state.json` checkpoint (see State protocol below).
## Module sequence
| File | Label | Frameworks used |
|------|-------|-----------------|
| `10_purpose-why.md` | Purpose / Why | Sinek Golden Circle, Lencioni |
| `20_positioning.md` | Positioning | Dunford "Obviously Awesome", Moore template |
| `30_audience-niche.md` | Audience & Niche | Baker "Business of Expertise", ICP |
| `40_personality-archetype.md` | Personality & Archetype | Mark & Pearson 12 archetypes, J. Aaker 5 dims |
| `50_voice-tone.md` | Voice & Tone | Brand voice guidelines |
| `60_narrative-story.md` | Narrative / Story | Neumeier trueline, brand story arc |
| `70_founder-tension.md` | Founder Brands vs Studio Brand | Enns "Win Without Pitching" |
| `90_SYNTHESIS.md` | Master Brandbook | Kapferer prism, Aaker brand system |
Complete modules in order. Honour a user request to jump modules and note
the skip in `state.json`.
## State write protocol
After each module reaches saturation or done status, write two files:
**Module file** at `modules/{moduleFile}` — full Raw and Synthesis content.
**`state.json`** — a lightweight checkpoint so a later session can resume.
Update `completedModules`, `inProgressModule`, `nextModule`, `lastUpdated`.
Schema:
```json
{
"session": "{brand_name}-brand-{YYYY-MM}",
"outputPath": "{path_to_brand_identity_directory}",
"completedModules": [],
"inProgressModule": "10_purpose-why.md",
"nextModule": "20_positioning.md",
"participants": ["founder-A"],
"lastUpdated": "{ISO-8601}"
}
```
After writing, confirm: "Module X saved. State updated. Next: Y."
**Terminal module (90_SYNTHESIS.md):** when writing the final synthesis,
set `inProgressModule` to `"90_SYNTHESIS.md"` and `nextModule` to `null`
in `state.json`. After writing, set `completedModules` to include
`"90_SYNTHESIS.md"`, then set `inProgressModule` to `null` — leaving it
populated would cause a future resumption to treat the completed brandbook
as still in progress. Confirm: "Brandbook complete. All modules saved."
## Multi-founder mode
When more than one founder participates, write each founder's answers to
`founders/{participant}.md` instead of the main module files. Validate the
`participant` name before writing: accept only alphanumeric characters and
hyphens (e.g. `founder-a`, `anna`); reject names containing path separators
(`/`, `\`, `..`) or special characters. Validate `moduleFile` against the
enumerated module sequence (10 through 90 only). Validate `outputPath` to
ensure it is an absolute path within the project directory — reject relative
paths and paths that escape via `..` segments. After all founders complete a
module, run a reconciliation pass: summarise convergences and divergences in
the module file, flag "productive tensions" for the group alignment workshop.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Starting without reading state first.** Every session must open by checking for existing module files and `state.json`. Skipping this loses all continuity from prior sessions.
- **Asking multiple questions at once.** One question at a time is not optional — lists produce checklist answers, not real insight.
- **Moving to Synthesis before saturation.** If the last two probes produced no new information, the module is done. If they did — it isn't.
- **Skipping multi-founder reconciliation.** When multiple stakeholders are involved, individual interviews must complete before reconciliation. Discussing the brand collectively first introduces anchoring bias.
- **Treating this as a one-shot session.** This skill is designed for multiple sessions. Rushing to `90_SYNTHESIS.md` in one conversation produces shallow output.
## Related Skills
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — after brand-discovery establishes the positioning brief, use this to scope and categorise the competitor set.
- `brand-voice` (ECC) — if the brand-discovery voice-and-tone module needs a separate, source-derived writing-style profile.

7
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/agents/openai.yaml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
interface:
display_name: "Brand Discovery"
short_description: "Adaptive multi-session brand identity interviews"
brand_color: "#8B5CF6"
default_prompt: "Use $brand-discovery to run a structured brand identity interview."
policy:
allow_implicit_invocation: true

42
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
# Module 10 — Purpose / Why
> **Frameworks:** Sinek Golden Circle · Lencioni organisational purpose
>
> **Goal:** Surface the brand's core belief — the Why that exists independently
> of what the organisation sells or how it delivers. Captures the founding
> conviction, not the elevator pitch.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes, stories, and examples captured during the interview.
Record exact language — paraphrase belongs in Synthesis, not here.
Include speaker attribution if multi-founder session. -->
### Core belief (why does this exist?)
### The behavioural How (values in action, not poster slogans)
### What the brand refuses to be or do
### Founder quotes strong enough to become internal anchors
---
## Synthesis
<!-- Your interpretation of the raw material.
Write three sections: formulations, open questions, contradictions. -->
### Candidate Why formulations (offer 2–3 versions, vary register and specificity)
1.
2.
3.
### Open questions / threads to pursue in later modules
### Contradictions or tensions between participants (multi-founder only)
### How does this Why constrain or enable positioning? (bridge to Module 20)

46
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
# Module 20 — Positioning
> **Frameworks:** Dunford *Obviously Awesome* · Moore crossing-the-chasm template ·
> Jobs-to-be-done lens
>
> **Goal:** Define the brand's competitive frame — who it's for, what category it
> competes in, what it does uniquely, and why that matters to the target client.
> Output is the raw material for a positioning statement the brand can act on.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. Record exact language. -->
### Who is the target client? (role, company type, situation)
### What category does the brand compete in? (how clients currently solve this problem)
### What makes the brand different from alternatives in that category?
### What does the target client care about most? (the value they get that others can't match)
### Competitive alternatives named by the founder (include "do nothing" / "hire in-house")
### Phrases or metaphors the founder uses naturally to describe what they do
---
## Synthesis
### Positioning statement draft (Dunford template)
> For **[target client]** who **[situation / JTBD]**, **[brand name]** is the
> **[category]** that **[unique value]**. Unlike **[alternatives]**, we
> **[key differentiator]**.
### Alternative framings (vary the category or the differentiator)
1.
2.
### White-space hypothesis (what no competitor is claiming that this brand could own)
### Open questions / ambiguities
### Tensions with Module 10 Why (flag any contradictions for Module 90 reconciliation)

52
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
# Module 30 — Audience & Niche
> **Frameworks:** Baker *The Business of Expertise* · Ideal Client Profile (ICP) ·
> Pain / trigger / desired outcome lens
>
> **Goal:** Make the target audience concrete enough to brief a copywriter or run
> a paid campaign — not a demographic sketch, but a psychographic and situational
> portrait of the best client the brand wants more of.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. -->
### Who is the ideal client? (describe a specific person, not a segment)
### What situation or trigger brings them to look for help?
### What have they tried before and why did it fall short?
### What does success look like to them? (in their words, not the brand's)
### What do they fear or want to avoid?
### Worst-fit clients (who the brand doesn't want to work with, and why)
### Quotes or stories from real past clients that illustrate the ideal fit
---
## Synthesis
### Ideal Client Profile (ICP)
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Role / title | |
| Organisation type & size | |
| Trigger situation | |
| Primary pain | |
| Desired outcome | |
| Budget signal | |
| Red-flag / disqualifier | |
### Psychographic portrait (2–3 sentences: how this person thinks, what they value, what they distrust)
### Niche hypothesis (the smallest viable market the brand could credibly own)
### Audience segments to test (if there is ambiguity about primary vs secondary ICP)
### Open questions / threads for Module 20 positioning reconciliation

59
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
# Module 40 — Personality & Archetype
> **Frameworks:** Mark & Pearson 12 brand archetypes · J. Aaker 5 brand personality
> dimensions (sincerity / excitement / competence / sophistication / ruggedness)
>
> **Goal:** Establish the brand's character — how it would behave if it were a
> person. Personality governs tone, visual register, and what feels "on brand"
> versus "wrong". A sharp archetype makes a hundred small decisions automatic.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and projective-technique responses. -->
### "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
### Archetype instinct (which of the 12 resonates immediately, and why?)
> Creator · Caregiver · Ruler · Jester · Regular Person · Lover · Hero ·
> Outlaw · Magician · Innocent · Sage · Explorer
### Three adjectives the founder uses most naturally to describe the brand's character
### One brand or public figure the founder admires but the brand should NOT become (and specifically what to avoid)
### One brand or public figure whose personality register the brand aspires to
### How should the brand make clients feel? (not think — feel)
---
## Synthesis
### Primary archetype + shadow
| | |
|---|---|
| **Primary archetype** | (name + 1-line why) |
| **Secondary / shadow** | (what the primary archetype risks becoming; what keeps it honest) |
### J. Aaker personality scores (1–5, 5 = strongly applies)
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sincerity (warm, honest, down-to-earth) | | |
| Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative) | | |
| Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful) | | |
| Sophistication (upper-class, charming) | | |
| Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough) | | |
### Personality in action (3 behavioural guidelines derived from the archetype)
1.
2.
3.
### What the brand must never sound or look like (the anti-personality)
### Open questions / tensions with Module 50 Voice

61
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
# Module 50 — Voice & Tone
> **Frameworks:** Brand voice spectrum (formal <-> casual, serious <-> playful,
> distant <-> warm, conventional <-> irreverent) · Content-type tone matrix
>
> **Goal:** Codify the brand's verbal register precisely enough that two different
> writers produce copy that sounds like the same person. Voice is constant;
> tone shifts by context (home page vs. error message vs. proposal cover).
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples from the interview.
Collect actual copy samples the founder likes or hates. -->
### Copy the founder admires (from their own brand or others) — include the source
### Copy the founder dislikes or finds "wrong register" — what specifically is wrong?
### Words or phrases the brand uses all the time (even informally)
### Words or phrases the brand actively avoids
### How should the brand sound on: a sales page? an error message? a proposal?
### "We always…" / "We never…" statements about how the brand communicates
---
## Synthesis
### Voice spectrum (mark the brand's position on each axis)
| Axis | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal ←→ Casual | | | | | | |
| Serious ←→ Playful | | | | | | |
| Distant ←→ Warm | | | | | | |
| Conventional ←→ Irreverent | | | | | | |
| Minimal ←→ Expressive | | | | | | |
### Voice statement (one paragraph a writer can internalise)
### Tone matrix by content type
| Content type | Tone shift | Example phrase |
|---|---|---|
| Homepage headline | | |
| Case study / evidence | | |
| Proposal / commercial | | |
| Error / apology | | |
| Social / informal | | |
### The three things to check every draft against
1.
2.
3.
### Open questions / tensions with Module 40 Personality

54
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# Module 60 — Narrative / Story
> **Frameworks:** Neumeier trueline · Brand story arc (context → conflict →
> resolution → invitation) · Hero's journey (brand as guide, client as hero)
>
> **Goal:** Crystallise the brand's founding story and its narrative arc — the
> conflict it was built to resolve, the transformation it delivers, and the
> invitation it extends to clients. The trueline is the single sentence that
> holds every story the brand tells.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and stories. -->
### The founding story (what happened, when, why this — not the polished version)
### The conflict or frustration that made the brand necessary
### What the world looks like when the brand's work succeeds (the transformation)
### A client story that best illustrates what the brand does and why it matters
### What would be lost if the brand didn't exist? (brand obituary prompt)
### The invitation: what does the brand ask clients to do or believe?
---
## Synthesis
### Trueline draft (Neumeier: "[Brand] is the only [category] that [unique claim].")
>
### Alternative truelines (2–3 variations, vary level of abstraction)
1.
2.
3.
### Brand story arc
| Beat | Content |
|---|---|
| **Context** (the world before) | |
| **Conflict** (what's broken / wrong) | |
| **Resolution** (what the brand does about it) | |
| **Invitation** (what the client is asked to do) | |
### The brand as guide (not hero) — what the client achieves, not the brand
### Open questions / tensions with Module 20 Positioning and Module 10 Why

49
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
# Module 70 — Founder Brand vs Organisation Brand
> **Frameworks:** Enns *Win Without Pitching* · Personal brand vs institutional
> brand spectrum
>
> **Goal:** Map the relationship between the founder's personal reputation and the
> organisation's brand. Clarify how much equity each carries, what the healthy
> boundary is, and how to sequence personal vs organisation brand investment.
> Unresolved founder-brand tension is a common scaling bottleneck.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes. -->
### Is the founder personally known in the market? How?
### Do clients buy the founder or the organisation? (ask for evidence, not instinct)
### What happens to the brand if the founder steps back or is unavailable?
### What does the founder want for their personal brand in 3–5 years?
### What does the organisation's brand need to be able to do independently?
### Where has the founder-brand been an asset? Where has it been a constraint?
---
## Synthesis
### Current state: where on the spectrum?
```
[Founder IS the brand] ←————————→ [Organisation brand stands alone]
1 2 3 4 5
```
Current position: `___` Target position (3-year): `___`
### What the founder brand should own (and keeps owning)
### What the organisation brand needs to own (independently of the founder)
### Transition plan sketch (if moving from founder-centric toward institutional)
### Risk if nothing changes
### Open questions / threads for Module 90 Synthesis

133
.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
# Module 90 — Master Brandbook (Synthesis)
> **Frameworks:** Kapferer Brand Identity Prism · Aaker brand system (identity /
> personality / associations / equity)
>
> **Goal:** Reconcile all seven preceding modules into a single, actionable
> brandbook. This document is the source of truth the brand uses to brief
> designers, writers, and external collaborators. It resolves tensions between
> modules, commits to specific formulations, and translates them into practical
> guidelines.
---
## Raw
<!-- Module 90 consolidates outputs from Modules 10–70; minimal new raw input is
collected here. Capture any final founder statements or corrections made
during the synthesis pass below. -->
---
## Synthesis
### 1. The Why (from Module 10)
> **Core belief:**
>
> **Behavioural How (values in action):**
>
> **What we refuse to be:**
---
### 2. Positioning (from Module 20)
> **Positioning statement:**
> For **[target client]** who **[situation]**, **[brand name]** is the
> **[category]** that **[unique value]**. Unlike **[alternatives]**, we
> **[key differentiator]**.
>
> **White-space the brand owns:**
---
### 3. Audience (from Module 30)
> **Ideal Client Profile (one-paragraph portrait):**
>
> **Niche the brand is building toward:**
>
> **Red-flag / disqualifier:**
---
### 4. Kapferer Brand Identity Prism
| Facet | Content |
|---|---|
| **Physique** (visible, tangible brand attributes) | |
| **Personality** (character if the brand were a person) | |
| **Culture** (values and principles behind the brand) | |
| **Relationship** (how the brand relates to clients) | |
| **Reflection** (how clients see themselves using this brand) | |
| **Self-image** (how clients feel inside when using this brand) | |
---
### 4b. Aaker Brand System (from Module 40)
> **Primary archetype** (Mark & Pearson):
>
> **Secondary archetype** (if present):
>
> **Aaker brand identity** — four dimensions:
> - *Brand as product:*
> - *Brand as organisation:*
> - *Brand as person (personality):*
> - *Brand as symbol:*
>
> **Brand associations** (3–5 key associations the brand should own):
>
> **Brand equity signals** (what clients would lose if this brand disappeared):
---
### 5. Voice & Tone summary (from Module 50)
> **Voice statement (one paragraph):**
>
> **The three checks every draft must pass:**
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
---
### 6. Narrative assets (from Module 60)
> **Trueline:**
>
> **Brand story arc (one paragraph, usable as an About page starting point):**
---
### 7. Founder / organisation brand boundary (from Module 70)
> **What the founder brand owns:**
>
> **What the organisation brand owns:**
---
### 8. Tensions resolved (record any module-to-module conflicts and how they were settled)
| Tension | Module A | Module B | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
---
### 9. Open questions deferred to next session
<!-- Anything that couldn't be resolved with the current data. -->
---
### 10. Practical next steps
<!-- 3–5 concrete actions the brand can take based on this brandbook. -->
1.
2.
3.

214
.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
---
name: competitive-platform-analysis
description: >-
Use when scoping a competitive landscape — identifying, categorising, and
score-filtering a competitor set before any benchmarking begins. Decides who
counts as a competitor, which tier they belong to, and which sources to mine.
First step in the three-skill competitive pipeline; precedes
benchmark-methodology.
---
# Competitive Platform Analysis
Use this skill to decide **who to benchmark** and **where to find them** before
any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
## When to Activate
- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
- First step before running benchmark-methodology.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do **not**
invent one and do **not** scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
- **Identity / aesthetic register** — what kind of studio or company this is and
how it presents itself.
- **Offer** — what services or products it delivers.
- **Target clients** — who it sells to.
- **Differentiator** — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
- **Scoping consequence** — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
(e.g., memorability × hireability).
**Do not proceed without the positioning brief.** A competitor list scoped
without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
particular determines which competitors are *strong* rivals (those that contest
the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
## Selection criteria
For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
- **Size / model** — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
head-to-head set.
- **Niche / specialization** — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
- **Geography / market** — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
- **Pricing & engagement model** — productized sprints, retainer, project,
day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
- **Portfolio style** — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
distinctiveness.
- **Technical depth / craft maturity** — relevant if the client's credibility
story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
- **Brand strength** — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.
## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across
Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
most instructive.
1. **Positioning stance** — *brand-led / editorial* (competes on identity,
voice, POV) vs *capability-led* (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
2. **Specialization** — *specialist* (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
*generalist* (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
more direct.
3. **Size / model** — *solo / micro* vs *boutique* vs *mid-size* vs
*enterprise-scale*. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
4. **Engagement format** — *productized* (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
vs *bespoke* (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
5. **Distinctiveness posture** — *conventional / safe* vs *contrarian /
manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
benchmarking in any niche.
6. **Evidence / credibility model** — *outcome-led* (metrics, named clients,
case depth) vs *aesthetic-led* (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
earns trust.
7. **Brand strength of the operator** — *interchangeable* vs *cult / ownable
identity* (including senior independents who prove the "memorable solo brand"
model).
8. **Market / reach** — *local / regional* vs *global-remote*; note whether they
win the same clients the client targets.
Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is *direct* when it sits
near the client on positioning, specialization, size, and market at once.
## Competitive tiers (how the set resolves)
Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the
report:
- **Direct** — same band, overlapping offer, same client targets. The realistic
head-to-head.
- **Adjacent** — partial overlap (one capability, or a different client size)
that pressures at the edges.
- **Aspirational** — players the client is not competing with today but whose
brand or commercial maturity sets the bar to aim at.
- *(Watch also for substitutes: no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist
freelancers — note as a threat vector, not a profiled competitor unless
materially relevant.)*
## Data sources (where to look)
Match the source to the dimension you need. The platform *types* below are
generic; substitute the ones native to the client's niche (e.g. Dribbble/Behance
for design, showreel/Vimeo for motion, writing samples/published work for copy):
- **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft quality, range, aesthetic register
(e.g. Dribbble, Behance, Vimeo, or the niche's equivalent showcase).
- **Awards / curated showcases** — craft ambition and editorial recognition;
over-indexes on flashy, so cross-check commercial credibility (e.g. Awwwards,
industry award lists).
- **Competitor's own site** — primary source for positioning, voice, offer
packaging, pricing posture, named clients, manifesto/POV.
- **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, post cadence, client logos,
geography.
- **Review directories** — reviews, named clients, project sizes, engagement
models; strongest signal for commercial credibility and enterprise-readiness
(e.g. Clutch.co or the niche's equivalent).
- **Open / public work** — process repos, published samples, open creative
output: depth and craft-transparency evidence.
- **Conference talks / podcasts / newsletters** — thought-leadership depth and
POV ownership.
Always **verify claims across at least two sources** before treating a competitor
attribute as fact (self-reported site copy ≠ verified outcome). Carry an
adversarial-verification discipline into every profile.
## Scoring matrix template (selection stage)
A lightweight pre-filter to decide who graduates into full benchmarking. Score
1–5; keep candidates that score high on **either** distinctiveness **or**
credibility — the client's strategic tension means both poles are instructive.
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Tier | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Include? |
|-----------|--------------------|----------------|-----------|------|---------------------|------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------|
Rules of thumb (apply per the client's scoping consequence in the positioning brief):
- High distinctiveness **and** high credibility → must-profile (proves the
client's target tension is achievable).
- High distinctiveness, low credibility → cautionary case (memorable but
un-hireable — a potential failure mode to learn from).
- High credibility, low distinctiveness → "competent but forgettable" mass the
client defines itself against.
- Low on both → drop unless needed for landscape breadth.
## Output of this stage
A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 10–18 candidates → 8–12 profiled),
each tagged with its axis positions, tier, and source links, ready to hand to
`benchmark-methodology`.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Scoping without a positioning brief.** A competitor list built without the client's lens is noise. The brief determines what counts as a real rival.
- **Listing every similar company.** The goal is a defensible 10–18 candidate set, not a census. Breadth without pruning makes benchmarking unmanageable.
- **Blurring the Direct/Adjacent/Aspirational tiers.** These tiers serve different strategic purposes. Mixing them produces a flat list that can't drive decisions.
- **Relying on a single source per competitor.** Self-reported site copy is marketing, not fact. Verify attributes across at least two sources.
- **Jumping straight to scoring.** This skill scopes and tiers the set. Benchmark-methodology handles scoring. Don't conflate the two steps.
## Examples
**Scenario:** A boutique brand-identity studio (2-person, EU-remote, productized
sprints, contrarian/manifesto-driven aesthetic) wants to scope its competitive
set before benchmarking. The strategic tension from the positioning brief is
*memorability × hireability*.
**Step 1 — eight-axis population (sample candidates):**
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Engagement | Distinctiveness | Evidence model | Brand strength | Market |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | brand-led / editorial | identity only | micro | productized | contrarian | aesthetic-led | cult | global-remote |
| Studio B | capability-led | broad DS+motion | boutique | bespoke | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | US |
| Agency C | capability-led | brand+digital | mid-size | retainer | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | EU |
| Freelancer D | brand-led | brand voice only | solo | day-rate | editorial | aesthetic-led | ownable | global |
| Studio E | brand-led | brand strategy | micro | productized | manifesto-driven | outcome-led | cult | EU-remote |
**Step 2 — pre-filter scoring (client scoping consequence: weight distinctiveness
because the client's moat is POV-first, not capability breadth):**
| Candidate | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Tier | Include? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
| Studio B | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | Adjacent | ✓ credibility anchor |
| Agency C | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | Aspirational | ✓ scale reference |
| Freelancer D | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | Direct | ✓ cautionary case |
| Studio E | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
**Step 3 — output handed to `benchmark-methodology`:**
Five candidates (3 Direct, 1 Adjacent, 1 Aspirational), each tagged with
axis positions, tier, and source links. Studio A and Studio E are the
sharpest head-to-head rivals; Freelancer D is the "memorable but
un-hireable" cautionary case to learn from.
## Related Skills
- `brand-discovery` — use first to establish the positioning brief and strategic tension that scopes the competitor set.
- `benchmark-methodology` — the next step; takes the tiered set and scores each competitor across nine dimensions.

7
.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/agents/openai.yaml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
interface:
display_name: "Competitive Platform Analysis"
short_description: "Scope and tier a competitor set before benchmarking"
brand_color: "#0EA5E9"
default_prompt: "Use $competitive-platform-analysis to scope and categorize a competitor set."
policy:
allow_implicit_invocation: true

162
.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
---
name: competitive-report-structure
description: >-
Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards.
Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor
profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations,
and team alignment trigger questions. Final step in the three-skill competitive
pipeline.
---
# Competitive Report Structure
Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report.
The report must answer three questions for the client: **who do we compete with,
how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?** Every section
earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't.
## When to Activate
- All competitor profile cards from benchmark-methodology are complete and ready to assemble.
- Need to present competitive findings to a founder, leadership team, or board.
- The report must drive decisions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is) — not just document the landscape.
- Preparing a client deliverable that must be auditable and defensible.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It
supplies:
- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes (e.g., memorability × hireability)
that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve
back to this tension.
- **Brand balance** — the intended proportional mix of the client's strategic
emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft).
Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that
would shift it.
- **Differentiator** — the framing principle for the executive summary and
white-space section.
- **Target quadrant** — where the client intends to sit in the tension map;
confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central
empirical question.
## Framing principle
The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and
recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance.
Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it
explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm
intent."
## Report sections
### 1. Executive summary
3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain
language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its
target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only
this and knows what to do. No methodology here.
### 2. Market landscape & category framing
Define the category and map it. Use a **multi-axis map** — at minimum a 2×2
(e.g., *brand-led <-> capability-led* × *boutique <-> enterprise-scale*), and
ideally the **client's tension plot** from `benchmark-methodology` as the
headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should
make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or
empty) it is.
### 3. Competitor tiers
Organize the set into **Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational** (from
`competitive-platform-analysis`). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's
in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before
the detail.
### 4. Benchmarking matrix
The full **competitors × dimensions** table — the quantitative spine. Rows =
competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note:
dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include
the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a **heatmap**
(color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do **not**
add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias
controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails.
### 5. Deep dives
3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards).
Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension
(high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but
forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each
deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should
avoid.
### 6. White-space & threats
The strategic heart. Two parts:
- **White-space:** the position the client can own that rivals don't — argued
from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant
(from the positioning brief) is genuinely open.
- **Threats:** who/what pressures the client — a rival closing the gap,
substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or
category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity
reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers).
### 7. Strategic recommendations
Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates,
and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership,
brand sharpening). **Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the
positioning brief** and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact ×
effort.
### 8. Sources / methodology appendix
The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per
competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the
report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline
through.
## How to present data
- **2×2 / positioning maps** — for landscape and the tension plot. Lead with
these; they carry the argument faster than prose.
- **Heatmap matrix** — for the competitors × dimensions comparison (section 4).
- **Profile cards** — the source unit feeding deep dives (section 5).
- **Quadrant callouts** — name who sits in each quadrant explicitly, especially
the client's target one.
- Keep tables scannable; push raw evidence and links to the appendix.
## Decision framework (the report must resolve these)
- **Who do we compete with?** — Name the Direct tier specifically; that's the
real fight.
- **How do we compete?** — State the client's differentiator in one sentence,
grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns).
- **Where are our differentiators defensible?** — Identify the
dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that
are table-stakes.
## Trigger questions for the team alignment session
End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis:
- Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in?
- Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and
what's the counter?
- Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis
shift?
- Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to
deliberately concede?
- What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness *without* costing
hireability / credibility?
## Anti-Patterns
- **Leading with methodology.** The executive summary opens with the most important finding, not an explanation of how the benchmark was run. Methodology belongs in the appendix.
- **Presenting scores without the tension plot.** The 2×2 tension map is the headline artefact. A table of numbers without the map buries the strategic insight.
- **Omitting the decision framework.** The report must resolve the three questions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is). Leaving these unanswered turns the report into a literature review.
- **Starting before all profile cards are complete.** Benchmark-methodology must finish before assembly begins. Partial data produces gaps that undermine the heatmap and white-space analysis.
- **Adding a blended total column to the matrix.** Explicitly excluded — it creates a false composite that obscures the asymmetry the client needs to act on.
## Related Skills
- `benchmark-methodology` — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles.
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3.
- `brand-discovery` — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.

7
.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/agents/openai.yaml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
interface:
display_name: "Competitive Report Structure"
short_description: "Assemble scored cards into a decision-grade competitive report"
brand_color: "#10B981"
default_prompt: "Use $competitive-report-structure to assemble a competitive benchmarking report."
policy:
allow_implicit_invocation: true

2
.claude-plugin/marketplace.json
View File

@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
{ {
"name": "ecc", "name": "ecc",
"source": "./", "source": "./",
"description": "Harness-native ECC operator layer - 66 agents, 264 skills, 84 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, selective install profiles, and production-ready workflows for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, and related agent harnesses", "description": "Harness-native ECC operator layer - 66 agents, 268 skills, 84 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, selective install profiles, and production-ready workflows for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, and related agent harnesses",
"version": "2.0.0", "version": "2.0.0",
"author": { "author": {
"name": "Affaan Mustafa", "name": "Affaan Mustafa",

2
.claude-plugin/plugin.json
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{ {
"name": "ecc", "name": "ecc",
"version": "2.0.0", "version": "2.0.0",
"description": "Harness-native ECC plugin for engineering teams - 66 agents, 264 skills, 84 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, MCP conventions, and operator workflows for Claude Code plus adjacent agent harnesses", "description": "Harness-native ECC plugin for engineering teams - 66 agents, 268 skills, 84 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, MCP conventions, and operator workflows for Claude Code plus adjacent agent harnesses",
"author": { "author": {
"name": "Affaan Mustafa", "name": "Affaan Mustafa",
"url": "https://x.com/affaanmustafa" "url": "https://x.com/affaanmustafa"

4
AGENTS.md
View File

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Everything Claude Code (ECC) — Agent Instructions # Everything Claude Code (ECC) — Agent Instructions
This is a **production-ready AI coding plugin** providing 66 specialized agents, 264 skills, 84 commands, and automated hook workflows for software development. This is a **production-ready AI coding plugin** providing 66 specialized agents, 268 skills, 84 commands, and automated hook workflows for software development.
**Version:** 2.0.0 **Version:** 2.0.0
@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ Troubleshoot failures: check test isolation → verify mocks → fix implementat
``` ```
agents/ — 66 specialized subagents agents/ — 66 specialized subagents
skills/ — 264 workflow skills and domain knowledge skills/ — 268 workflow skills and domain knowledge
commands/ — 84 slash commands commands/ — 84 slash commands
hooks/ — Trigger-based automations hooks/ — Trigger-based automations
rules/ — Always-follow guidelines (common + per-language) rules/ — Always-follow guidelines (common + per-language)

8
README.md
View File

@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ Stable graduation of the 2.0 line: 261 skills, the control-pane substrate (sessi
### v2.0.0-rc.1 — Surface Refresh, Operator Workflows, and ECC 2.0 Alpha (Apr 2026) ### v2.0.0-rc.1 — Surface Refresh, Operator Workflows, and ECC 2.0 Alpha (Apr 2026)
- **Dashboard GUI** — New Tkinter-based desktop application (`ecc_dashboard.py` or `npm run dashboard`) with dark/light theme toggle, font customization, and project logo in header and taskbar. - **Dashboard GUI** — New Tkinter-based desktop application (`ecc_dashboard.py` or `npm run dashboard`) with dark/light theme toggle, font customization, and project logo in header and taskbar.
- **Public surface synced to the live repo** — metadata, catalog counts, plugin manifests, and install-facing docs now match the actual OSS surface: 66 agents, 264 skills, and 84 legacy command shims. - **Public surface synced to the live repo** — metadata, catalog counts, plugin manifests, and install-facing docs now match the actual OSS surface: 66 agents, 268 skills, and 84 legacy command shims.
- **Operator and outbound workflow expansion** — `brand-voice`, `social-graph-ranker`, `connections-optimizer`, `customer-billing-ops`, `ecc-tools-cost-audit`, `google-workspace-ops`, `project-flow-ops`, and `workspace-surface-audit` round out the operator lane. - **Operator and outbound workflow expansion** — `brand-voice`, `social-graph-ranker`, `connections-optimizer`, `customer-billing-ops`, `ecc-tools-cost-audit`, `google-workspace-ops`, `project-flow-ops`, and `workspace-surface-audit` round out the operator lane.
- **Media and launch tooling** — `manim-video`, `remotion-video-creation`, and upgraded social publishing surfaces make technical explainers and launch content part of the same system. - **Media and launch tooling** — `manim-video`, `remotion-video-creation`, and upgraded social publishing surfaces make technical explainers and launch content part of the same system.
- **Framework and product surface growth** — `nestjs-patterns`, richer Codex/OpenCode install surfaces, and expanded cross-harness packaging keep the repo usable beyond Claude Code alone. - **Framework and product surface growth** — `nestjs-patterns`, richer Codex/OpenCode install surfaces, and expanded cross-harness packaging keep the repo usable beyond Claude Code alone.
@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ If you stacked methods, clean up in this order:
/plugin list ecc@ecc /plugin list ecc@ecc
``` ```
**That's it!** You now have access to 66 agents, 264 skills, and 84 legacy command shims. **That's it!** You now have access to 66 agents, 268 skills, and 84 legacy command shims.
### Dashboard GUI ### Dashboard GUI
@ -1517,7 +1517,7 @@ The configuration is automatically detected from `.opencode/opencode.json`.
|---------|---------------------|----------|--------| |---------|---------------------|----------|--------|
| Agents | PASS: 66 agents | PASS: 12 agents | **Claude Code leads** | | Agents | PASS: 66 agents | PASS: 12 agents | **Claude Code leads** |
| Commands | PASS: 84 commands | PASS: 35 commands | **Claude Code leads** | | Commands | PASS: 84 commands | PASS: 35 commands | **Claude Code leads** |
| Skills | PASS: 264 skills | PASS: 37 skills | **Claude Code leads** | | Skills | PASS: 268 skills | PASS: 37 skills | **Claude Code leads** |
| Hooks | PASS: 8 event types | PASS: 11 events | **OpenCode has more!** | | Hooks | PASS: 8 event types | PASS: 11 events | **OpenCode has more!** |
| Rules | PASS: 29 rules | PASS: 13 instructions | **Claude Code leads** | | Rules | PASS: 29 rules | PASS: 13 instructions | **Claude Code leads** |
| MCP Servers | PASS: 14 servers | PASS: Full | **Full parity** | | MCP Servers | PASS: 14 servers | PASS: Full | **Full parity** |
@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@ ECC is the **first plugin to maximize every major AI coding tool**. Here's how e
|---------|-----------------------|------------|-----------|----------|----------------| |---------|-----------------------|------------|-----------|----------|----------------|
| **Agents** | 66 | Shared (AGENTS.md) | Shared (AGENTS.md) | 12 | N/A | | **Agents** | 66 | Shared (AGENTS.md) | Shared (AGENTS.md) | 12 | N/A |
| **Commands** | 84 | Shared | Instruction-based | 35 | 5 prompts | | **Commands** | 84 | Shared | Instruction-based | 35 | 5 prompts |
| **Skills** | 264 | Shared | 10 (native format) | 37 | Via instructions | | **Skills** | 268 | Shared | 10 (native format) | 37 | Via instructions |
| **Hook Events** | 8 types | 15 types | None yet | 11 types | None | | **Hook Events** | 8 types | 15 types | None yet | 11 types | None |
| **Hook Scripts** | 20+ scripts | 16 scripts (DRY adapter) | N/A | Plugin hooks | N/A | | **Hook Scripts** | 20+ scripts | 16 scripts (DRY adapter) | N/A | Plugin hooks | N/A |
| **Rules** | 34 (common + lang) | 34 (YAML frontmatter) | Instruction-based | 13 instructions | 1 always-on file | | **Rules** | 34 (common + lang) | 34 (YAML frontmatter) | Instruction-based | 13 instructions | 1 always-on file |

2
README.zh-CN.md
View File

@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ Copy-Item -Recurse rules/typescript "$HOME/.claude/rules/"
/plugin list ecc@ecc /plugin list ecc@ecc
``` ```
**完成！** 你现在可以使用 66 个代理、264 个技能和 84 个命令。 **完成！** 你现在可以使用 66 个代理、268 个技能和 84 个命令。
### multi-* 命令需要额外配置 ### multi-* 命令需要额外配置

4
docs/zh-CN/AGENTS.md
View File

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Everything Claude Code (ECC) — 智能体指令 # Everything Claude Code (ECC) — 智能体指令
这是一个**生产就绪的 AI 编码插件**，提供 66 个专业代理、264 项技能、84 条命令以及自动化钩子工作流，用于软件开发。 这是一个**生产就绪的 AI 编码插件**，提供 66 个专业代理、268 项技能、84 条命令以及自动化钩子工作流，用于软件开发。
**版本:** 2.0.0 **版本:** 2.0.0
@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
``` ```
agents/ — 66 个专业子代理 agents/ — 66 个专业子代理
skills/ — 264 个工作流技能和领域知识 skills/ — 268 个工作流技能和领域知识
commands/ — 84 个斜杠命令 commands/ — 84 个斜杠命令
hooks/ — 基于触发的自动化 hooks/ — 基于触发的自动化
rules/ — 始终遵循的指导方针（通用 + 每种语言） rules/ — 始终遵循的指导方针（通用 + 每种语言）

6
docs/zh-CN/README.md
View File

@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ Copy-Item -Recurse rules/typescript "$HOME/.claude/rules/"
/plugin list ecc@ecc /plugin list ecc@ecc
``` ```
**搞定！** 你现在可以使用 66 个智能体、264 项技能和 84 个命令了。 **搞定！** 你现在可以使用 66 个智能体、268 项技能和 84 个命令了。
*** ***
@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ opencode
|---------|---------------|----------|--------| |---------|---------------|----------|--------|
| 智能体 | PASS: 66 个 | PASS: 12 个 | **Claude Code 领先** | | 智能体 | PASS: 66 个 | PASS: 12 个 | **Claude Code 领先** |
| 命令 | PASS: 84 个 | PASS: 35 个 | **Claude Code 领先** | | 命令 | PASS: 84 个 | PASS: 35 个 | **Claude Code 领先** |
| 技能 | PASS: 264 项 | PASS: 37 项 | **Claude Code 领先** | | 技能 | PASS: 268 项 | PASS: 37 项 | **Claude Code 领先** |
| 钩子 | PASS: 8 种事件类型 | PASS: 11 种事件 | **OpenCode 更多！** | | 钩子 | PASS: 8 种事件类型 | PASS: 11 种事件 | **OpenCode 更多！** |
| 规则 | PASS: 29 条 | PASS: 13 条指令 | **Claude Code 领先** | | 规则 | PASS: 29 条 | PASS: 13 条指令 | **Claude Code 领先** |
| MCP 服务器 | PASS: 14 个 | PASS: 完整 | **完全对等** | | MCP 服务器 | PASS: 14 个 | PASS: 完整 | **完全对等** |
@ -1250,7 +1250,7 @@ ECC 是**第一个最大化利用每个主要 AI 编码工具的插件**。以
|---------|-----------------------|------------|-----------|----------| |---------|-----------------------|------------|-----------|----------|
| **智能体** | 66 | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 12 | | **智能体** | 66 | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 12 |
| **命令** | 84 | 共享 | 基于指令 | 35 | | **命令** | 84 | 共享 | 基于指令 | 35 |
| **技能** | 264 | 共享 | 10 (原生格式) | 37 | | **技能** | 268 | 共享 | 10 (原生格式) | 37 |
| **钩子事件** | 8 种类型 | 15 种类型 | 暂无 | 11 种类型 | | **钩子事件** | 8 种类型 | 15 种类型 | 暂无 | 11 种类型 |
| **钩子脚本** | 20+ 个脚本 | 16 个脚本 (DRY 适配器) | N/A | 插件钩子 | | **钩子脚本** | 20+ 个脚本 | 16 个脚本 (DRY 适配器) | N/A | 插件钩子 |
| **规则** | 34 (通用 + 语言) | 34 (YAML 前页) | 基于指令 | 13 条指令 | | **规则** | 34 (通用 + 语言) | 34 (YAML 前页) | 基于指令 | 13 条指令 |

3
package-lock.json generated
View File

@ -517,6 +517,7 @@
"integrity": "sha512-NZyJarBfL7nWwIq+FDL6Zp/yHEhePMNnnJ0y3qfieCrmNvYct8uvtiV41UvlSe6apAfk0fY1FbWx+NwfmpvtTg==", "integrity": "sha512-NZyJarBfL7nWwIq+FDL6Zp/yHEhePMNnnJ0y3qfieCrmNvYct8uvtiV41UvlSe6apAfk0fY1FbWx+NwfmpvtTg==",
"dev": true, "dev": true,
"license": "MIT", "license": "MIT",
"peer": true,
"bin": { "bin": {
"acorn": "bin/acorn" "acorn": "bin/acorn"
}, },
@ -988,6 +989,7 @@
"integrity": "sha512-LEyamqS7W5HB3ujJyvi0HQK/dtVINZvd5mAAp9eT5S/ujByGjiZLCzPcHVzuXbpJDJF/cxwHlfceVUDZ2lnSTw==", "integrity": "sha512-LEyamqS7W5HB3ujJyvi0HQK/dtVINZvd5mAAp9eT5S/ujByGjiZLCzPcHVzuXbpJDJF/cxwHlfceVUDZ2lnSTw==",
"dev": true, "dev": true,
"license": "MIT", "license": "MIT",
"peer": true,
"dependencies": { "dependencies": {
"@eslint-community/eslint-utils": "^4.8.0", "@eslint-community/eslint-utils": "^4.8.0",
"@eslint-community/regexpp": "^4.12.1", "@eslint-community/regexpp": "^4.12.1",
@ -2662,6 +2664,7 @@
"integrity": "sha512-QP88BAKvMam/3NxH6vj2o21R6MjxZUAd6nlwAS/pnGvN9IVLocLHxGYIzFhg6fUQ+5th6P4dv4eW9jX3DSIj7A==", "integrity": "sha512-QP88BAKvMam/3NxH6vj2o21R6MjxZUAd6nlwAS/pnGvN9IVLocLHxGYIzFhg6fUQ+5th6P4dv4eW9jX3DSIj7A==",
"dev": true, "dev": true,
"license": "MIT", "license": "MIT",
"peer": true,
"engines": { "engines": {
"node": ">=12" "node": ">=12"
}, },

190
skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
---
name: benchmark-methodology
description: >-
Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set.
Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice,
visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought
leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics
and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.
---
# Benchmark Methodology
Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
number for any competitor.
## When to Activate
- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
## Why these dimensions
The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
achieves both simultaneously.
## The nine dimensions (with weights)
Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
system; site as proof-of-craft.
4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
there?
## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
from a template. Active liability.
- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
expectation, ownable by nobody.
- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
would notice and cite.
- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
bar others react to.
### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
important finding of the benchmark.
## How to collect the data
For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
study.
2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
verifiable).
3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
→ credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
thought leadership, model.
5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
## Bias controls
- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
credibility.
- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
Adjust outliers.
## Competitor profile card (output format)
Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
from:
```
## <Competitor name>
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
### Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
### Tension plot
- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
### Read for [client]
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
```
Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
## Related Skills
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.

145
skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
---
name: brand-discovery
description: >-
Use when a brand needs to discover or articulate its identity through
structured multi-session interviews. Covers purpose, positioning, audience,
personality, voice, narrative, and founder-brand tension across 8 modules
using laddering, 5 Whys, and projective techniques. Produces a resumable
session with disk-persisted state and a master brandbook (90_SYNTHESIS.md).
---
# Brand Discovery
Use this skill to conduct a structured, adaptive brand identity interview.
The goal is a complete `90_SYNTHESIS.md` — a master brandbook the
organization can use to brief designers, writers, and external
collaborators.
The interview runs across multiple sessions. Capture answers to disk as you
go so that no elicited knowledge is lost when a conversation ends, and so a
later session can resume from where the last one stopped.
## When to Activate
- A brand is being created, repositioned, or needs a written identity reference to brief collaborators.
- Multiple sessions are expected — the conversation will span days or weeks.
- Multiple founders or stakeholders need individual interviews before a reconciliation pass.
- The user wants a structured, repeatable method rather than an ad-hoc chat.
- Existing brand documentation is scattered, implicit, or founder-dependent and needs to be made explicit.
## Session start protocol
On every activation, perform these steps **before** asking any interview
question:
1. **Check for prior progress.** Look for an existing set of module files
and a `state.json` checkpoint in the project's brand-identity directory.
If none exists, this is a fresh start — confirm the brand name,
participants, and where to save the brand-identity files, then begin at
the first module.
2. **Read the current module file** if one is in progress, and scan its Raw
section for previously captured answers.
3. **Report to the user** in two or three sentences: which module we are
in, its status, and what remains. Then ask: "Continue here, or switch
module?"
## Interview discipline
Apply these rules throughout every module:
1. **One question at a time.** Never present a list of questions.
2. **After each answer:** short paraphrase → one deepening probe OR close
the thread if the topic is saturated. Never move on silently.
3. **Laddering:** for every "what" answer, follow with "Why does that
matter to you?" until a core value surfaces (typically two to four
iterations).
4. **5 Whys:** for beliefs or positioning claims — push until the root
reason, not the surface declaration, is on the table.
5. **Detect thin answers:** if generic, jargon-heavy, or vague, ask for
one concrete example, a client story, or a number.
6. **Projective techniques** (use once per module to break a plateau):
- "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
- Brand obituary: "If the organization closed in five years, what would
customers miss? What would you regret not having said?"
- Competitive contrast: "Name one peer you admire but would never want
to become. What specifically makes them the wrong model?"
7. **Saturation signal:** when two consecutive probes produce no new
information, summarise and close the module.
8. **End of module:** write a structured module file with two sections:
- `## Raw` — verbatim quotes and examples.
- `## Synthesis` — your interpretation, three candidate formulations,
open questions, contradictions between participants.
Then update the `state.json` checkpoint (see State protocol below).
## Module sequence
| File | Label | Frameworks used |
|------|-------|-----------------|
| `10_purpose-why.md` | Purpose / Why | Sinek Golden Circle, Lencioni |
| `20_positioning.md` | Positioning | Dunford "Obviously Awesome", Moore template |
| `30_audience-niche.md` | Audience & Niche | Baker "Business of Expertise", ICP |
| `40_personality-archetype.md` | Personality & Archetype | Mark & Pearson 12 archetypes, J. Aaker 5 dims |
| `50_voice-tone.md` | Voice & Tone | Brand voice guidelines |
| `60_narrative-story.md` | Narrative / Story | Neumeier trueline, brand story arc |
| `70_founder-tension.md` | Founder Brands vs Studio Brand | Enns "Win Without Pitching" |
| `90_SYNTHESIS.md` | Master Brandbook | Kapferer prism, Aaker brand system |
Complete modules in order. Honour a user request to jump modules and note
the skip in `state.json`.
## State write protocol
After each module reaches saturation or done status, write two files:
**Module file** at `modules/{moduleFile}` — full Raw and Synthesis content.
**`state.json`** — a lightweight checkpoint so a later session can resume.
Update `completedModules`, `inProgressModule`, `nextModule`, `lastUpdated`.
Schema:
```json
{
"session": "{brand_name}-brand-{YYYY-MM}",
"outputPath": "{path_to_brand_identity_directory}",
"completedModules": [],
"inProgressModule": "10_purpose-why.md",
"nextModule": "20_positioning.md",
"participants": ["founder-A"],
"lastUpdated": "{ISO-8601}"
}
```
After writing, confirm: "Module X saved. State updated. Next: Y."
**Terminal module (90_SYNTHESIS.md):** when writing the final synthesis,
set `inProgressModule` to `"90_SYNTHESIS.md"` and `nextModule` to `null`
in `state.json`. After writing, set `completedModules` to include
`"90_SYNTHESIS.md"`, then set `inProgressModule` to `null` — leaving it
populated would cause a future resumption to treat the completed brandbook
as still in progress. Confirm: "Brandbook complete. All modules saved."
## Multi-founder mode
When more than one founder participates, write each founder's answers to
`founders/{participant}.md` instead of the main module files. Validate the
`participant` name before writing: accept only alphanumeric characters and
hyphens (e.g. `founder-a`, `anna`); reject names containing path separators
(`/`, `\`, `..`) or special characters. Validate `moduleFile` against the
enumerated module sequence (10 through 90 only). Validate `outputPath` to
ensure it is an absolute path within the project directory — reject relative
paths and paths that escape via `..` segments. After all founders complete a
module, run a reconciliation pass: summarise convergences and divergences in
the module file, flag "productive tensions" for the group alignment workshop.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Starting without reading state first.** Every session must open by checking for existing module files and `state.json`. Skipping this loses all continuity from prior sessions.
- **Asking multiple questions at once.** One question at a time is not optional — lists produce checklist answers, not real insight.
- **Moving to Synthesis before saturation.** If the last two probes produced no new information, the module is done. If they did — it isn't.
- **Skipping multi-founder reconciliation.** When multiple stakeholders are involved, individual interviews must complete before reconciliation. Discussing the brand collectively first introduces anchoring bias.
- **Treating this as a one-shot session.** This skill is designed for multiple sessions. Rushing to `90_SYNTHESIS.md` in one conversation produces shallow output.
## Related Skills
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — after brand-discovery establishes the positioning brief, use this to scope and categorise the competitor set.
- `brand-voice` (ECC) — if the brand-discovery voice-and-tone module needs a separate, source-derived writing-style profile.

42
skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
# Module 10 — Purpose / Why
> **Frameworks:** Sinek Golden Circle · Lencioni organisational purpose
>
> **Goal:** Surface the brand's core belief — the Why that exists independently
> of what the organisation sells or how it delivers. Captures the founding
> conviction, not the elevator pitch.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes, stories, and examples captured during the interview.
Record exact language — paraphrase belongs in Synthesis, not here.
Include speaker attribution if multi-founder session. -->
### Core belief (why does this exist?)
### The behavioural How (values in action, not poster slogans)
### What the brand refuses to be or do
### Founder quotes strong enough to become internal anchors
---
## Synthesis
<!-- Your interpretation of the raw material.
Write three sections: formulations, open questions, contradictions. -->
### Candidate Why formulations (offer 2–3 versions, vary register and specificity)
1.
2.
3.
### Open questions / threads to pursue in later modules
### Contradictions or tensions between participants (multi-founder only)
### How does this Why constrain or enable positioning? (bridge to Module 20)

46
skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
# Module 20 — Positioning
> **Frameworks:** Dunford *Obviously Awesome* · Moore crossing-the-chasm template ·
> Jobs-to-be-done lens
>
> **Goal:** Define the brand's competitive frame — who it's for, what category it
> competes in, what it does uniquely, and why that matters to the target client.
> Output is the raw material for a positioning statement the brand can act on.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. Record exact language. -->
### Who is the target client? (role, company type, situation)
### What category does the brand compete in? (how clients currently solve this problem)
### What makes the brand different from alternatives in that category?
### What does the target client care about most? (the value they get that others can't match)
### Competitive alternatives named by the founder (include "do nothing" / "hire in-house")
### Phrases or metaphors the founder uses naturally to describe what they do
---
## Synthesis
### Positioning statement draft (Dunford template)
> For **[target client]** who **[situation / JTBD]**, **[brand name]** is the
> **[category]** that **[unique value]**. Unlike **[alternatives]**, we
> **[key differentiator]**.
### Alternative framings (vary the category or the differentiator)
1.
2.
### White-space hypothesis (what no competitor is claiming that this brand could own)
### Open questions / ambiguities
### Tensions with Module 10 Why (flag any contradictions for Module 90 reconciliation)

52
skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
# Module 30 — Audience & Niche
> **Frameworks:** Baker *The Business of Expertise* · Ideal Client Profile (ICP) ·
> Pain / trigger / desired outcome lens
>
> **Goal:** Make the target audience concrete enough to brief a copywriter or run
> a paid campaign — not a demographic sketch, but a psychographic and situational
> portrait of the best client the brand wants more of.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. -->
### Who is the ideal client? (describe a specific person, not a segment)
### What situation or trigger brings them to look for help?
### What have they tried before and why did it fall short?
### What does success look like to them? (in their words, not the brand's)
### What do they fear or want to avoid?
### Worst-fit clients (who the brand doesn't want to work with, and why)
### Quotes or stories from real past clients that illustrate the ideal fit
---
## Synthesis
### Ideal Client Profile (ICP)
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Role / title | |
| Organisation type & size | |
| Trigger situation | |
| Primary pain | |
| Desired outcome | |
| Budget signal | |
| Red-flag / disqualifier | |
### Psychographic portrait (2–3 sentences: how this person thinks, what they value, what they distrust)
### Niche hypothesis (the smallest viable market the brand could credibly own)
### Audience segments to test (if there is ambiguity about primary vs secondary ICP)
### Open questions / threads for Module 20 positioning reconciliation

59
skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
# Module 40 — Personality & Archetype
> **Frameworks:** Mark & Pearson 12 brand archetypes · J. Aaker 5 brand personality
> dimensions (sincerity / excitement / competence / sophistication / ruggedness)
>
> **Goal:** Establish the brand's character — how it would behave if it were a
> person. Personality governs tone, visual register, and what feels "on brand"
> versus "wrong". A sharp archetype makes a hundred small decisions automatic.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and projective-technique responses. -->
### "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
### Archetype instinct (which of the 12 resonates immediately, and why?)
> Creator · Caregiver · Ruler · Jester · Regular Person · Lover · Hero ·
> Outlaw · Magician · Innocent · Sage · Explorer
### Three adjectives the founder uses most naturally to describe the brand's character
### One brand or public figure the founder admires but the brand should NOT become (and specifically what to avoid)
### One brand or public figure whose personality register the brand aspires to
### How should the brand make clients feel? (not think — feel)
---
## Synthesis
### Primary archetype + shadow
| | |
|---|---|
| **Primary archetype** | (name + 1-line why) |
| **Secondary / shadow** | (what the primary archetype risks becoming; what keeps it honest) |
### J. Aaker personality scores (1–5, 5 = strongly applies)
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sincerity (warm, honest, down-to-earth) | | |
| Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative) | | |
| Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful) | | |
| Sophistication (upper-class, charming) | | |
| Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough) | | |
### Personality in action (3 behavioural guidelines derived from the archetype)
1.
2.
3.
### What the brand must never sound or look like (the anti-personality)
### Open questions / tensions with Module 50 Voice

61
skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
# Module 50 — Voice & Tone
> **Frameworks:** Brand voice spectrum (formal <-> casual, serious <-> playful,
> distant <-> warm, conventional <-> irreverent) · Content-type tone matrix
>
> **Goal:** Codify the brand's verbal register precisely enough that two different
> writers produce copy that sounds like the same person. Voice is constant;
> tone shifts by context (home page vs. error message vs. proposal cover).
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples from the interview.
Collect actual copy samples the founder likes or hates. -->
### Copy the founder admires (from their own brand or others) — include the source
### Copy the founder dislikes or finds "wrong register" — what specifically is wrong?
### Words or phrases the brand uses all the time (even informally)
### Words or phrases the brand actively avoids
### How should the brand sound on: a sales page? an error message? a proposal?
### "We always…" / "We never…" statements about how the brand communicates
---
## Synthesis
### Voice spectrum (mark the brand's position on each axis)
| Axis | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal ←→ Casual | | | | | | |
| Serious ←→ Playful | | | | | | |
| Distant ←→ Warm | | | | | | |
| Conventional ←→ Irreverent | | | | | | |
| Minimal ←→ Expressive | | | | | | |
### Voice statement (one paragraph a writer can internalise)
### Tone matrix by content type
| Content type | Tone shift | Example phrase |
|---|---|---|
| Homepage headline | | |
| Case study / evidence | | |
| Proposal / commercial | | |
| Error / apology | | |
| Social / informal | | |
### The three things to check every draft against
1.
2.
3.
### Open questions / tensions with Module 40 Personality

54
skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# Module 60 — Narrative / Story
> **Frameworks:** Neumeier trueline · Brand story arc (context → conflict →
> resolution → invitation) · Hero's journey (brand as guide, client as hero)
>
> **Goal:** Crystallise the brand's founding story and its narrative arc — the
> conflict it was built to resolve, the transformation it delivers, and the
> invitation it extends to clients. The trueline is the single sentence that
> holds every story the brand tells.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes and stories. -->
### The founding story (what happened, when, why this — not the polished version)
### The conflict or frustration that made the brand necessary
### What the world looks like when the brand's work succeeds (the transformation)
### A client story that best illustrates what the brand does and why it matters
### What would be lost if the brand didn't exist? (brand obituary prompt)
### The invitation: what does the brand ask clients to do or believe?
---
## Synthesis
### Trueline draft (Neumeier: "[Brand] is the only [category] that [unique claim].")
>
### Alternative truelines (2–3 variations, vary level of abstraction)
1.
2.
3.
### Brand story arc
| Beat | Content |
|---|---|
| **Context** (the world before) | |
| **Conflict** (what's broken / wrong) | |
| **Resolution** (what the brand does about it) | |
| **Invitation** (what the client is asked to do) | |
### The brand as guide (not hero) — what the client achieves, not the brand
### Open questions / tensions with Module 20 Positioning and Module 10 Why

49
skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
# Module 70 — Founder Brand vs Organisation Brand
> **Frameworks:** Enns *Win Without Pitching* · Personal brand vs institutional
> brand spectrum
>
> **Goal:** Map the relationship between the founder's personal reputation and the
> organisation's brand. Clarify how much equity each carries, what the healthy
> boundary is, and how to sequence personal vs organisation brand investment.
> Unresolved founder-brand tension is a common scaling bottleneck.
---
## Raw
<!-- Verbatim quotes. -->
### Is the founder personally known in the market? How?
### Do clients buy the founder or the organisation? (ask for evidence, not instinct)
### What happens to the brand if the founder steps back or is unavailable?
### What does the founder want for their personal brand in 3–5 years?
### What does the organisation's brand need to be able to do independently?
### Where has the founder-brand been an asset? Where has it been a constraint?
---
## Synthesis
### Current state: where on the spectrum?
```
[Founder IS the brand] ←————————→ [Organisation brand stands alone]
1 2 3 4 5
```
Current position: `___` Target position (3-year): `___`
### What the founder brand should own (and keeps owning)
### What the organisation brand needs to own (independently of the founder)
### Transition plan sketch (if moving from founder-centric toward institutional)
### Risk if nothing changes
### Open questions / threads for Module 90 Synthesis

133
skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
# Module 90 — Master Brandbook (Synthesis)
> **Frameworks:** Kapferer Brand Identity Prism · Aaker brand system (identity /
> personality / associations / equity)
>
> **Goal:** Reconcile all seven preceding modules into a single, actionable
> brandbook. This document is the source of truth the brand uses to brief
> designers, writers, and external collaborators. It resolves tensions between
> modules, commits to specific formulations, and translates them into practical
> guidelines.
---
## Raw
<!-- Module 90 consolidates outputs from Modules 10–70; minimal new raw input is
collected here. Capture any final founder statements or corrections made
during the synthesis pass below. -->
---
## Synthesis
### 1. The Why (from Module 10)
> **Core belief:**
>
> **Behavioural How (values in action):**
>
> **What we refuse to be:**
---
### 2. Positioning (from Module 20)
> **Positioning statement:**
> For **[target client]** who **[situation]**, **[brand name]** is the
> **[category]** that **[unique value]**. Unlike **[alternatives]**, we
> **[key differentiator]**.
>
> **White-space the brand owns:**
---
### 3. Audience (from Module 30)
> **Ideal Client Profile (one-paragraph portrait):**
>
> **Niche the brand is building toward:**
>
> **Red-flag / disqualifier:**
---
### 4. Kapferer Brand Identity Prism
| Facet | Content |
|---|---|
| **Physique** (visible, tangible brand attributes) | |
| **Personality** (character if the brand were a person) | |
| **Culture** (values and principles behind the brand) | |
| **Relationship** (how the brand relates to clients) | |
| **Reflection** (how clients see themselves using this brand) | |
| **Self-image** (how clients feel inside when using this brand) | |
---
### 4b. Aaker Brand System (from Module 40)
> **Primary archetype** (Mark & Pearson):
>
> **Secondary archetype** (if present):
>
> **Aaker brand identity** — four dimensions:
> - *Brand as product:*
> - *Brand as organisation:*
> - *Brand as person (personality):*
> - *Brand as symbol:*
>
> **Brand associations** (3–5 key associations the brand should own):
>
> **Brand equity signals** (what clients would lose if this brand disappeared):
---
### 5. Voice & Tone summary (from Module 50)
> **Voice statement (one paragraph):**
>
> **The three checks every draft must pass:**
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
---
### 6. Narrative assets (from Module 60)
> **Trueline:**
>
> **Brand story arc (one paragraph, usable as an About page starting point):**
---
### 7. Founder / organisation brand boundary (from Module 70)
> **What the founder brand owns:**
>
> **What the organisation brand owns:**
---
### 8. Tensions resolved (record any module-to-module conflicts and how they were settled)
| Tension | Module A | Module B | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
---
### 9. Open questions deferred to next session
<!-- Anything that couldn't be resolved with the current data. -->
---
### 10. Practical next steps
<!-- 3–5 concrete actions the brand can take based on this brandbook. -->
1.
2.
3.

214
skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
---
name: competitive-platform-analysis
description: >-
Use when scoping a competitive landscape — identifying, categorising, and
score-filtering a competitor set before any benchmarking begins. Decides who
counts as a competitor, which tier they belong to, and which sources to mine.
First step in the three-skill competitive pipeline; precedes
benchmark-methodology.
---
# Competitive Platform Analysis
Use this skill to decide **who to benchmark** and **where to find them** before
any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
## When to Activate
- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
- First step before running benchmark-methodology.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do **not**
invent one and do **not** scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
- **Identity / aesthetic register** — what kind of studio or company this is and
how it presents itself.
- **Offer** — what services or products it delivers.
- **Target clients** — who it sells to.
- **Differentiator** — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
- **Scoping consequence** — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
(e.g., memorability × hireability).
**Do not proceed without the positioning brief.** A competitor list scoped
without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
particular determines which competitors are *strong* rivals (those that contest
the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
## Selection criteria
For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
- **Size / model** — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
head-to-head set.
- **Niche / specialization** — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
- **Geography / market** — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
- **Pricing & engagement model** — productized sprints, retainer, project,
day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
- **Portfolio style** — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
distinctiveness.
- **Technical depth / craft maturity** — relevant if the client's credibility
story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
- **Brand strength** — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.
## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across
Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
most instructive.
1. **Positioning stance** — *brand-led / editorial* (competes on identity,
voice, POV) vs *capability-led* (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
2. **Specialization** — *specialist* (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
*generalist* (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
more direct.
3. **Size / model** — *solo / micro* vs *boutique* vs *mid-size* vs
*enterprise-scale*. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
4. **Engagement format** — *productized* (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
vs *bespoke* (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
5. **Distinctiveness posture** — *conventional / safe* vs *contrarian /
manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
benchmarking in any niche.
6. **Evidence / credibility model** — *outcome-led* (metrics, named clients,
case depth) vs *aesthetic-led* (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
earns trust.
7. **Brand strength of the operator** — *interchangeable* vs *cult / ownable
identity* (including senior independents who prove the "memorable solo brand"
model).
8. **Market / reach** — *local / regional* vs *global-remote*; note whether they
win the same clients the client targets.
Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is *direct* when it sits
near the client on positioning, specialization, size, and market at once.
## Competitive tiers (how the set resolves)
Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the
report:
- **Direct** — same band, overlapping offer, same client targets. The realistic
head-to-head.
- **Adjacent** — partial overlap (one capability, or a different client size)
that pressures at the edges.
- **Aspirational** — players the client is not competing with today but whose
brand or commercial maturity sets the bar to aim at.
- *(Watch also for substitutes: no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist
freelancers — note as a threat vector, not a profiled competitor unless
materially relevant.)*
## Data sources (where to look)
Match the source to the dimension you need. The platform *types* below are
generic; substitute the ones native to the client's niche (e.g. Dribbble/Behance
for design, showreel/Vimeo for motion, writing samples/published work for copy):
- **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft quality, range, aesthetic register
(e.g. Dribbble, Behance, Vimeo, or the niche's equivalent showcase).
- **Awards / curated showcases** — craft ambition and editorial recognition;
over-indexes on flashy, so cross-check commercial credibility (e.g. Awwwards,
industry award lists).
- **Competitor's own site** — primary source for positioning, voice, offer
packaging, pricing posture, named clients, manifesto/POV.
- **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, post cadence, client logos,
geography.
- **Review directories** — reviews, named clients, project sizes, engagement
models; strongest signal for commercial credibility and enterprise-readiness
(e.g. Clutch.co or the niche's equivalent).
- **Open / public work** — process repos, published samples, open creative
output: depth and craft-transparency evidence.
- **Conference talks / podcasts / newsletters** — thought-leadership depth and
POV ownership.
Always **verify claims across at least two sources** before treating a competitor
attribute as fact (self-reported site copy ≠ verified outcome). Carry an
adversarial-verification discipline into every profile.
## Scoring matrix template (selection stage)
A lightweight pre-filter to decide who graduates into full benchmarking. Score
1–5; keep candidates that score high on **either** distinctiveness **or**
credibility — the client's strategic tension means both poles are instructive.
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Tier | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Include? |
|-----------|--------------------|----------------|-----------|------|---------------------|------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------|
Rules of thumb (apply per the client's scoping consequence in the positioning brief):
- High distinctiveness **and** high credibility → must-profile (proves the
client's target tension is achievable).
- High distinctiveness, low credibility → cautionary case (memorable but
un-hireable — a potential failure mode to learn from).
- High credibility, low distinctiveness → "competent but forgettable" mass the
client defines itself against.
- Low on both → drop unless needed for landscape breadth.
## Output of this stage
A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 10–18 candidates → 8–12 profiled),
each tagged with its axis positions, tier, and source links, ready to hand to
`benchmark-methodology`.
## Anti-Patterns
- **Scoping without a positioning brief.** A competitor list built without the client's lens is noise. The brief determines what counts as a real rival.
- **Listing every similar company.** The goal is a defensible 10–18 candidate set, not a census. Breadth without pruning makes benchmarking unmanageable.
- **Blurring the Direct/Adjacent/Aspirational tiers.** These tiers serve different strategic purposes. Mixing them produces a flat list that can't drive decisions.
- **Relying on a single source per competitor.** Self-reported site copy is marketing, not fact. Verify attributes across at least two sources.
- **Jumping straight to scoring.** This skill scopes and tiers the set. Benchmark-methodology handles scoring. Don't conflate the two steps.
## Examples
**Scenario:** A boutique brand-identity studio (2-person, EU-remote, productized
sprints, contrarian/manifesto-driven aesthetic) wants to scope its competitive
set before benchmarking. The strategic tension from the positioning brief is
*memorability × hireability*.
**Step 1 — eight-axis population (sample candidates):**
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Engagement | Distinctiveness | Evidence model | Brand strength | Market |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | brand-led / editorial | identity only | micro | productized | contrarian | aesthetic-led | cult | global-remote |
| Studio B | capability-led | broad DS+motion | boutique | bespoke | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | US |
| Agency C | capability-led | brand+digital | mid-size | retainer | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | EU |
| Freelancer D | brand-led | brand voice only | solo | day-rate | editorial | aesthetic-led | ownable | global |
| Studio E | brand-led | brand strategy | micro | productized | manifesto-driven | outcome-led | cult | EU-remote |
**Step 2 — pre-filter scoring (client scoping consequence: weight distinctiveness
because the client's moat is POV-first, not capability breadth):**
| Candidate | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Tier | Include? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
| Studio B | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | Adjacent | ✓ credibility anchor |
| Agency C | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | Aspirational | ✓ scale reference |
| Freelancer D | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | Direct | ✓ cautionary case |
| Studio E | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
**Step 3 — output handed to `benchmark-methodology`:**
Five candidates (3 Direct, 1 Adjacent, 1 Aspirational), each tagged with
axis positions, tier, and source links. Studio A and Studio E are the
sharpest head-to-head rivals; Freelancer D is the "memorable but
un-hireable" cautionary case to learn from.
## Related Skills
- `brand-discovery` — use first to establish the positioning brief and strategic tension that scopes the competitor set.
- `benchmark-methodology` — the next step; takes the tiered set and scores each competitor across nine dimensions.

162
skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
---
name: competitive-report-structure
description: >-
Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards.
Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor
profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations,
and team alignment trigger questions. Final step in the three-skill competitive
pipeline.
---
# Competitive Report Structure
Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report.
The report must answer three questions for the client: **who do we compete with,
how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?** Every section
earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't.
## When to Activate
- All competitor profile cards from benchmark-methodology are complete and ready to assemble.
- Need to present competitive findings to a founder, leadership team, or board.
- The report must drive decisions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is) — not just document the landscape.
- Preparing a client deliverable that must be auditable and defensible.
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It
supplies:
- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes (e.g., memorability × hireability)
that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve
back to this tension.
- **Brand balance** — the intended proportional mix of the client's strategic
emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft).
Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that
would shift it.
- **Differentiator** — the framing principle for the executive summary and
white-space section.
- **Target quadrant** — where the client intends to sit in the tension map;
confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central
empirical question.
## Framing principle
The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and
recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance.
Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it
explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm
intent."
## Report sections
### 1. Executive summary
3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain
language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its
target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only
this and knows what to do. No methodology here.
### 2. Market landscape & category framing
Define the category and map it. Use a **multi-axis map** — at minimum a 2×2
(e.g., *brand-led <-> capability-led* × *boutique <-> enterprise-scale*), and
ideally the **client's tension plot** from `benchmark-methodology` as the
headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should
make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or
empty) it is.
### 3. Competitor tiers
Organize the set into **Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational** (from
`competitive-platform-analysis`). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's
in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before
the detail.
### 4. Benchmarking matrix
The full **competitors × dimensions** table — the quantitative spine. Rows =
competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note:
dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include
the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a **heatmap**
(color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do **not**
add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias
controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails.
### 5. Deep dives
3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards).
Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension
(high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but
forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each
deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should
avoid.
### 6. White-space & threats
The strategic heart. Two parts:
- **White-space:** the position the client can own that rivals don't — argued
from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant
(from the positioning brief) is genuinely open.
- **Threats:** who/what pressures the client — a rival closing the gap,
substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or
category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity
reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers).
### 7. Strategic recommendations
Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates,
and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership,
brand sharpening). **Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the
positioning brief** and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact ×
effort.
### 8. Sources / methodology appendix
The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per
competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the
report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline
through.
## How to present data
- **2×2 / positioning maps** — for landscape and the tension plot. Lead with
these; they carry the argument faster than prose.
- **Heatmap matrix** — for the competitors × dimensions comparison (section 4).
- **Profile cards** — the source unit feeding deep dives (section 5).
- **Quadrant callouts** — name who sits in each quadrant explicitly, especially
the client's target one.
- Keep tables scannable; push raw evidence and links to the appendix.
## Decision framework (the report must resolve these)
- **Who do we compete with?** — Name the Direct tier specifically; that's the
real fight.
- **How do we compete?** — State the client's differentiator in one sentence,
grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns).
- **Where are our differentiators defensible?** — Identify the
dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that
are table-stakes.
## Trigger questions for the team alignment session
End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis:
- Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in?
- Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and
what's the counter?
- Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis
shift?
- Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to
deliberately concede?
- What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness *without* costing
hireability / credibility?
## Anti-Patterns
- **Leading with methodology.** The executive summary opens with the most important finding, not an explanation of how the benchmark was run. Methodology belongs in the appendix.
- **Presenting scores without the tension plot.** The 2×2 tension map is the headline artefact. A table of numbers without the map buries the strategic insight.
- **Omitting the decision framework.** The report must resolve the three questions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is). Leaving these unanswered turns the report into a literature review.
- **Starting before all profile cards are complete.** Benchmark-methodology must finish before assembly begins. Partial data produces gaps that undermine the heatmap and white-space analysis.
- **Adding a blended total column to the matrix.** Explicitly excluded — it creates a false composite that obscures the asymmetry the client needs to act on.
## Related Skills
- `benchmark-methodology` — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles.
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3.
- `brand-discovery` — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.