diff --git a/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..bc75367f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md
@@ -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.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/agents/openai.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..18c2a2e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/benchmark-methodology/agents/openai.yaml
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5ba79b92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+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."
+
+## Multi-founder mode
+
+When more than one founder participates, write each founder's answers to
+`founders/{participant}.md` instead of the main module files. 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.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/agents/openai.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a1b6d986
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/agents/openai.yaml
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8788b945
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md
@@ -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)
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fe32d241
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md
@@ -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)
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2f18e0c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5b5ba29e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# 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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..edc17436
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..11a8376c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5c414e27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1bce2f12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# 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.
+
+---
+
+## 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) | |
+
+---
+
+## 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. 
diff --git a/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2877d323
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+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.
+
+## 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.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/agents/openai.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a3afbc89
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/agents/openai.yaml
@@ -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
diff --git a/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c20f1d73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+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 dimensions. 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.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/agents/openai.yaml b/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/agents/openai.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..86df7c04
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/competitive-report-structure/agents/openai.yaml
@@ -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
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index cb3ad85a..768e7636 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -149,12 +149,12 @@ This repo is the raw code only. The guides explain everything.
 
 ### v2.0.0 — The Agent Harness Operating System (Jun 2026)
 
-Stable graduation of the 2.0 line: 261 skills, the control-pane substrate (session adapters + MCP inventory), the worktree-lifecycle service, the `orch-*` orchestrator family, and the launch of the [ECC Discord community](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR). Full notes: [docs/releases/2.0.0/release-notes.md](docs/releases/2.0.0/release-notes.md).
+Stable graduation of the 2.0 line: 265 skills, the control-pane substrate (session adapters + MCP inventory), the worktree-lifecycle service, the `orch-*` orchestrator family, and the launch of the [ECC Discord community](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR). Full notes: [docs/releases/2.0.0/release-notes.md](docs/releases/2.0.0/release-notes.md).
 
 ### 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.
-- **Public surface synced to the live repo** — metadata, catalog counts, plugin manifests, and install-facing docs now match the actual OSS surface: 64 agents, 262 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: 64 agents, 269 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.
 - **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.
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ If you stacked methods, clean up in this order:
 /plugin list ecc@ecc
 ```
 
-**That's it!** You now have access to 64 agents, 262 skills, and 84 legacy command shims.
+**That's it!** You now have access to 64 agents, 269 skills, and 84 legacy command shims.
 
 ### Dashboard GUI
 
@@ -1498,7 +1498,7 @@ The configuration is automatically detected from `.opencode/opencode.json`.
 |---------|---------------------|----------|--------|
 | Agents | PASS: 64 agents     | PASS: 12 agents | **Claude Code leads** |
 | Commands | PASS: 84 commands   | PASS: 35 commands | **Claude Code leads** |
-| Skills | PASS: 262 skills    | PASS: 37 skills | **Claude Code leads** |
+| Skills | PASS: 269 skills    | PASS: 37 skills | **Claude Code leads** |
 | Hooks | PASS: 8 event types | PASS: 11 events | **OpenCode has more!** |
 | Rules | PASS: 29 rules      | PASS: 13 instructions | **Claude Code leads** |
 | MCP Servers | PASS: 14 servers    | PASS: Full | **Full parity** |
@@ -1659,7 +1659,7 @@ ECC is the **first plugin to maximize every major AI coding tool**. Here's how e
 |---------|-----------------------|------------|-----------|----------|----------------|
 | **Agents** | 64                    | Shared (AGENTS.md) | Shared (AGENTS.md) | 12 | N/A |
 | **Commands** | 84                    | Shared | Instruction-based | 35 | 5 prompts |
-| **Skills** | 262                   | Shared | 10 (native format) | 37 | Via instructions |
+| **Skills** | 269                   | Shared | 10 (native format) | 37 | Via instructions |
 | **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 |
 | **Rules** | 34 (common + lang)    | 34 (YAML frontmatter) | Instruction-based | 13 instructions | 1 always-on file |
diff --git a/README.zh-CN.md b/README.zh-CN.md
index 3e29edcf..411bec87 100644
--- a/README.zh-CN.md
+++ b/README.zh-CN.md
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
 
 ### v2.0.0 — 智能体 Harness 操作系统（2026年6月）
 
-2.0 主线稳定版：261 个技能、control-pane 基底（会话适配器 + MCP 清单）、worktree 生命周期服务，以及 [ECC Discord 社区](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR)。
+2.0 主线稳定版：265 个技能、control-pane 基底（会话适配器 + MCP 清单）、worktree 生命周期服务，以及 [ECC Discord 社区](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR)。
 
 ### v2.0.0-rc.1 — 表面同步、运营工作流与 ECC 2.0 Alpha（2026年4月）
 
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ Copy-Item -Recurse rules/typescript "$HOME/.claude/rules/"
 /plugin list ecc@ecc
 ```
 
-**完成！** 你现在可以使用 64 个代理、262 个技能和 84 个命令。
+**完成！** 你现在可以使用 64 个代理、269 个技能和 84 个命令。
 
 ### multi-* 命令需要额外配置
 
diff --git a/docs/zh-CN/README.md b/docs/zh-CN/README.md
index 49303d97..62c30de0 100644
--- a/docs/zh-CN/README.md
+++ b/docs/zh-CN/README.md
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@
 
 ### v2.0.0 — 智能体 Harness 操作系统（2026年6月）
 
-2.0 主线稳定版：261 个技能、control-pane 基底（会话适配器 + MCP 清单）、worktree 生命周期服务，以及 [ECC Discord 社区](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR)。
+2.0 主线稳定版：265 个技能、control-pane 基底（会话适配器 + MCP 清单）、worktree 生命周期服务，以及 [ECC Discord 社区](https://discord.gg/36yGMHGFbR)。
 
 ### v2.0.0-rc.1 — 表面同步、运营工作流与 ECC 2.0 Alpha（2026年4月）
 
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ Copy-Item -Recurse rules/typescript "$HOME/.claude/rules/"
 /plugin list ecc@ecc
 ```
 
-**搞定！** 你现在可以使用 64 个智能体、262 项技能和 84 个命令了。
+**搞定！** 你现在可以使用 64 个智能体、269 项技能和 84 个命令了。
 
 ***
 
@@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ opencode
 |---------|---------------|----------|--------|
 | 智能体 | PASS: 64 个    | PASS: 12 个 | **Claude Code 领先** |
 | 命令 | PASS: 84 个    | PASS: 35 个 | **Claude Code 领先** |
-| 技能 | PASS: 262 项   | PASS: 37 项 | **Claude Code 领先** |
+| 技能 | PASS: 269 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！** |
 | 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** |
@@ -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** | 64                    | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 共享 (AGENTS.md) | 12 |
 | **命令** | 84                    | 共享 | 基于指令 | 35 |
-| **技能** | 262                   | 共享 | 10 (原生格式) | 37 |
+| **技能** | 269                   | 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 |
diff --git a/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md b/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..950784c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+---
+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.
+origin: community
+---
+
+# 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.
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md b/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c5e59358
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+---
+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).
+origin: community
+---
+
+# 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."
+
+## Multi-founder mode
+
+When more than one founder participates, write each founder's answers to
+`founders/{participant}.md` instead of the main module files. 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.
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8788b945
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md
@@ -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)
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fe32d241
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md
@@ -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)
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2f18e0c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5b5ba29e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# 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
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..edc17436
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..11a8376c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5c414e27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/70_founder-tension.md
@@ -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
diff --git a/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md b/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1bce2f12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/brand-discovery/references/90_SYNTHESIS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# 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.
+
+---
+
+## 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) | |
+
+---
+
+## 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. 
diff --git a/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md b/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..97633807
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+---
+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.
+origin: community
+---
+
+# 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.
+
+## 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.
diff --git a/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md b/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cc81a078
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+---
+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.
+origin: community
+---
+
+# 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 dimensions. 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.