mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code.git
synced 2026-06-16 16:36:53 +08:00
fe37e5426a
Adds four community skills covering brand identity discovery and a three-skill competitive benchmarking pipeline. **brand-discovery** — Adaptive multi-session brand identity interview spanning 8 modules (purpose, positioning, audience, personality, voice, narrative, founder-brand tension, synthesis). Uses laddering, 5 Whys, and projective techniques. State persisted to disk via state.json so sessions resume across conversations without losing elicited knowledge. Frameworks: Sinek, Dunford, Baker, Enns, Kapferer, Aaker, Neumeier, Mark & Pearson, Lencioni. Includes 8 module output templates in references/. **competitive-platform-analysis** — Scopes and tiers a competitor set before benchmarking begins. Categorizes candidates along 8 generic creative-industry axes (positioning stance, specialization, size/model, engagement format, distinctiveness posture, evidence model, brand strength, market/reach) into Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers. Includes a pre-filter scoring matrix. First step in the pipeline. **benchmark-methodology** — Scores each competitor across 9 weighted dimensions (positioning 18%, brand voice 15%, visual craft 15%, offer packaging 12%, evidence 12%, enterprise-readiness 10%, thought leadership 8%, pricing 5%, client's strategic tension 5%) with explicit 1–5 rubrics and bias controls. Produces one profile card per competitor. **competitive-report-structure** — Assembles scored cards into a decision-grade report: executive summary, landscape map, competitor tiers, heatmap matrix, deep dives, white-space and threats, strategic recommendations, sources appendix. brand-discovery complements brand-voice (ECC): brand-voice extracts a style profile from existing source material; brand-discovery elicits identity from scratch through structured interviews when no prior material exists. A competitive set scoped without the client's positioning brief is noise, not intelligence — each skill enforces this by requiring the brief before proceeding. The 9-dimension scoring framework deliberately reports the client's strategic tension as two separate poles (never averaged) because the gap between them is the strategic finding. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
47 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# 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)
|