mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code.git
synced 2026-06-16 16:36:53 +08:00
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>
161 lines
8.0 KiB
Markdown
161 lines
8.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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.
|