arkaos 2.50.0 → 2.51.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/VERSION
CHANGED
|
@@ -1 +1 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
2.
|
|
1
|
+
2.51.0
|
|
@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
---
|
|
2
2
|
name: saas/gtm-strategy
|
|
3
3
|
description: >
|
|
4
|
-
|
|
4
|
+
Cross-departmental go-to-market strategy: ICP, positioning, motion selection,
|
|
5
|
+
channel mix, 90-day execution plan. Orchestrates SaaS + Strategy + Marketing
|
|
6
|
+
+ Sales + Landing.
|
|
5
7
|
allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, WebFetch, WebSearch]
|
|
6
8
|
---
|
|
7
9
|
|
|
@@ -19,14 +21,138 @@ treat them as your default source. External research supplements, it
|
|
|
19
21
|
does not replace the vault.
|
|
20
22
|
<!-- arka:kb-first-prefix end -->
|
|
21
23
|
|
|
22
|
-
#
|
|
24
|
+
# GTM Strategy — `/saas gtm <product>`
|
|
23
25
|
|
|
24
|
-
> **
|
|
26
|
+
> **Lead:** Tiago (SaaS Strategist) | **Cross-dept:** Tomas (Strategy) + Mateus (Brand) + Luna (Marketing) + Miguel (Sales) + Ines (Landing) | **Framework:** MOVE (Sangram Vajre) + Onlyness + AARRR
|
|
25
27
|
|
|
26
|
-
## What
|
|
28
|
+
## What ships
|
|
27
29
|
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
30
|
+
A production GTM package in 6 deliverables, each with a named owner and a measurable target:
|
|
29
31
|
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
32
|
+
1. **ICP profile** — firmographics + persona + pain triggers + buying signal
|
|
33
|
+
2. **Positioning statement** — Onlyness frame + competitive contrast table
|
|
34
|
+
3. **Motion selection** — primary + assist motion with feasibility math
|
|
35
|
+
4. **Channel mix** — budget allocation across channels with AARRR baseline
|
|
36
|
+
5. **90-day execution plan** — week-by-week with owners + checkpoints
|
|
37
|
+
6. **Executive summary** — 1-page printable to align stakeholders
|
|
31
38
|
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
39
|
+
## ICP Template (firmographic + persona + pain + signal)
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
Every ICP profile must carry these four blocks. Vagueness in any block invalidates the rest of the GTM stack.
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
### Firmographics (the company shape)
|
|
44
|
+
- Company size (employees, ARR range)
|
|
45
|
+
- Industry vertical (with NAICS / SIC code if relevant)
|
|
46
|
+
- Geo (countries, regulatory regions)
|
|
47
|
+
- Tech stack signal (what they already pay for that signals readiness)
|
|
48
|
+
- Funding stage (bootstrapped / seed / Series A+ / public)
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
### Persona (the human inside the company)
|
|
51
|
+
- Title and seniority
|
|
52
|
+
- Primary KPI they own
|
|
53
|
+
- Tools they use daily
|
|
54
|
+
- Information diet (newsletters, podcasts, communities)
|
|
55
|
+
- Decision authority (sole / committee / approval)
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
### Pain Triggers (the moment they realise they need this)
|
|
58
|
+
- The specific event that surfaces the pain (new hire, missed quarter, audit, regulation change)
|
|
59
|
+
- The cost of not solving it (revenue at risk, hours wasted, compliance exposure)
|
|
60
|
+
- The status quo workaround (Excel, agencies, internal builds)
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
### Buying Signal (how you find them in the wild)
|
|
63
|
+
- Observable behavior in the open web (job postings with specific keywords, tool reviews, talks at specific conferences)
|
|
64
|
+
- Account-level data signal (vendor footprint, hiring pattern, public infrastructure)
|
|
65
|
+
- Conversational signal (specific Slack/Discord communities, specific subreddits)
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
## Onlyness Statement (positioning frame)
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
The Onlyness frame forces a single defensible sentence:
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
> **We are the only [category] that [unique mechanism] for [ICP] who want [outcome].**
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
Worked example:
|
|
74
|
+
> "We are the only AI agent orchestration system that ships behavioral compliance telemetry baked into the runtime for technical founders who want measurable governance instead of vibes-based discipline."
|
|
75
|
+
|
|
76
|
+
The statement must pass three tests:
|
|
77
|
+
1. **Substitution test** — replace your name with a competitor's. Does the sentence still hold? If yes, the positioning isn't defensible.
|
|
78
|
+
2. **Customer-articulation test** — would a current customer say this sentence back unprompted in roughly these words?
|
|
79
|
+
3. **Mechanism test** — is "unique mechanism" a verifiable specific (a feature, a method, a metric) or marketing prose (an adjective, a vibe)?
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
## 6 GTM Motions (pick primary + assist)
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
Each motion has a default ICP shape and a default channel mix. Mixing motions without understanding the constraints below produces zero-momentum GTM.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
| Motion | Default ICP | Default Channels | Velocity | Typical CAC payback |
|
|
86
|
+
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
87
|
+
| **Product-Led (PLG)** | High-volume, low-ticket, self-serve adoption pattern | SEO + integrations + viral loops + product itself | Fast (weeks to first value) | 6-12 months |
|
|
88
|
+
| **Sales-Led (SLG)** | Enterprise, committee buying, regulated industries | Outbound + content + events + partner channel | Slow (months to close) | 12-18 months |
|
|
89
|
+
| **Community-Led** | High-affinity practitioners, identity-driven adoption | Owned community + open source + advocate program | Medium (compounds quarterly) | Variable (community creates own loop) |
|
|
90
|
+
| **Partner-Led** | Vertical specialists, complex installs, system integrator channel | Channel partnerships + reseller program + co-marketing | Slow start, faster scale | 9-18 months |
|
|
91
|
+
| **Inbound** | Information-seeking buyers researching solutions | SEO + content marketing + comparison content + reviews | Medium (3-6 month ramp) | 6-12 months |
|
|
92
|
+
| **Outbound** | Identified buyer set, account-based targeting | Cold email + cold call + LinkedIn + ABM | Fast pipeline, slow trust | 12-24 months |
|
|
93
|
+
|
|
94
|
+
The MOVE framework (Sangram Vajre): **M**arkets (who you're selling into), **O**perations (your repeatable engine), **V**elocity (deal cycle + expansion math), **E**xpansion (NRR > 110% target).
|
|
95
|
+
|
|
96
|
+
## Channel-Motion Matrix
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
98
|
+
```
|
|
99
|
+
Content/SEO Paid Community Partner Event Outbound
|
|
100
|
+
Product-Led ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ —
|
|
101
|
+
Sales-Led ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓
|
|
102
|
+
Community-Led ✓✓✓ — ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ —
|
|
103
|
+
Partner-Led ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓
|
|
104
|
+
Inbound ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ —
|
|
105
|
+
Outbound ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓✓
|
|
106
|
+
```
|
|
107
|
+
|
|
108
|
+
Pick exactly ONE primary channel that gets 50%+ of budget. Add at most TWO assist channels. More channels = no channel.
|
|
109
|
+
|
|
110
|
+
## 90-Day Execution Plan Template
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
Plan structure (every plan must follow this shape):
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
```
|
|
115
|
+
Week 1-2: Foundation
|
|
116
|
+
- [Owner] ICP doc validated with 5 customer conversations
|
|
117
|
+
- [Owner] Positioning statement live on homepage
|
|
118
|
+
- [Owner] Tracking baseline measured (current AARRR rates)
|
|
119
|
+
|
|
120
|
+
Week 3-4: Channel Activation (primary)
|
|
121
|
+
- [Owner] First 4 [channel-native content units] published
|
|
122
|
+
- [Owner] Conversion tracking live, first signals captured
|
|
123
|
+
- [Owner] Sales playbook v1 written for inbound responses
|
|
124
|
+
|
|
125
|
+
Week 5-8: Iteration
|
|
126
|
+
- [Owner] Top-funnel CAC measured, channel ROI computed
|
|
127
|
+
- [Owner] Pricing test A/B started
|
|
128
|
+
- [Owner] First 10 customer interviews completed and tagged
|
|
129
|
+
- [Owner] Assist channels activated based on primary signal
|
|
130
|
+
|
|
131
|
+
Week 9-12: Scale Decision
|
|
132
|
+
- [Owner] Channel-mix review — double down or pivot
|
|
133
|
+
- [Owner] First retention cohort analysis (D7, D30)
|
|
134
|
+
- [Owner] Next-90-day plan written based on real data
|
|
135
|
+
```
|
|
136
|
+
|
|
137
|
+
Every line must have: owner name, measurable output, due date.
|
|
138
|
+
|
|
139
|
+
## Executive Summary (1-page, mandatory output)
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
The full GTM package is dense. The 1-page exec summary captures:
|
|
142
|
+
|
|
143
|
+
```
|
|
144
|
+
Product: [name]
|
|
145
|
+
ICP: [one sentence: who, where, what pain]
|
|
146
|
+
Positioning: [Onlyness sentence]
|
|
147
|
+
Primary Motion: [name + why this one]
|
|
148
|
+
Primary Channel: [name + 90-day budget]
|
|
149
|
+
North Star Metric: [the one number that, if it moves, the strategy works]
|
|
150
|
+
Day-90 Target: [specific number tied to North Star Metric]
|
|
151
|
+
Top Risk: [what would invalidate this strategy + mitigation]
|
|
152
|
+
```
|
|
153
|
+
|
|
154
|
+
If the executive summary doesn't fit on one printable page, the strategy is overcomplicated.
|
|
155
|
+
|
|
156
|
+
## Output → Obsidian: `WizardingCode/GTM/<product>-<date>/`
|
|
157
|
+
|
|
158
|
+
Delivers: ICP profile + positioning statement + motion selection + channel mix + 90-day plan + executive summary. Plus the cross-departmental review trail (Strategy + Brand + Marketing + Sales + Landing signatures from each phase gate).
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
id: saas-gtm-strategy
|
|
2
|
+
name: GTM Strategy (Cross-Departmental)
|
|
3
|
+
description: Full go-to-market strategy from ICP to 90-day execution plan, orchestrating SaaS + Strategy + Marketing + Sales + Landing
|
|
4
|
+
department: saas
|
|
5
|
+
tier: enterprise
|
|
6
|
+
command: "/saas gtm"
|
|
7
|
+
requires_branch: false
|
|
8
|
+
requires_spec: false
|
|
9
|
+
quality_gate_required: true
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
phases:
|
|
12
|
+
- id: brief
|
|
13
|
+
name: GTM Brief
|
|
14
|
+
description: Define product, current stage, available budget/runway, and success metric
|
|
15
|
+
agents:
|
|
16
|
+
- agent_id: saas-strategist-tiago
|
|
17
|
+
role: Frame product context, current ARR/MRR, runway, win condition for the launch
|
|
18
|
+
gate:
|
|
19
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
20
|
+
description: User confirms product context, budget, and success metric
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
- id: icp-discovery
|
|
23
|
+
name: ICP Discovery
|
|
24
|
+
description: Define Ideal Customer Profile from existing user data and competitor analysis
|
|
25
|
+
agents:
|
|
26
|
+
- agent_id: strategy-director-tomas
|
|
27
|
+
role: ICP framework — firmographics, technographics, pain triggers, buying committee
|
|
28
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
29
|
+
- agent_id: saas-strategist-tiago
|
|
30
|
+
role: Current-user pattern extraction, look-alike modeling, willingness-to-pay signals
|
|
31
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
32
|
+
gate:
|
|
33
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
34
|
+
description: User approves the ICP (firmographics + persona + pain triggers + buying signal)
|
|
35
|
+
outputs:
|
|
36
|
+
- type: document
|
|
37
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
38
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/GTM/ICP/"
|
|
39
|
+
description: ICP profile with persona card, pain triggers, buying signals
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
- id: positioning
|
|
42
|
+
name: Positioning Statement
|
|
43
|
+
description: Position the product in the ICP's mental category using Ries/Trout template + Onlyness frame
|
|
44
|
+
agents:
|
|
45
|
+
- agent_id: brand-strategist-mateus
|
|
46
|
+
role: Onlyness statement (only X that Y for Z), category creation vs category capture analysis
|
|
47
|
+
- agent_id: strategy-director-tomas
|
|
48
|
+
role: Competitive contrast — 3-5 direct competitors with relative positioning
|
|
49
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
50
|
+
gate:
|
|
51
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
52
|
+
description: User approves positioning (one-sentence + competitive contrast)
|
|
53
|
+
outputs:
|
|
54
|
+
- type: document
|
|
55
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
56
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/GTM/Positioning/"
|
|
57
|
+
description: Positioning statement + competitive contrast table
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
- id: motion-selection
|
|
60
|
+
name: GTM Motion Selection
|
|
61
|
+
description: Pick the primary motion (PLG / SLG / community / partner / inbound / outbound) and the assist motion
|
|
62
|
+
agents:
|
|
63
|
+
- agent_id: saas-strategist-tiago
|
|
64
|
+
role: Apply Sangram Vajre's MOVE framework — Markets, Operations, Velocity, Expansion
|
|
65
|
+
- agent_id: sales-director-miguel
|
|
66
|
+
role: Sales motion feasibility — pipeline math, CAC payback, win-rate baseline
|
|
67
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
68
|
+
gate:
|
|
69
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
70
|
+
description: User approves primary motion + assist motion + 90-day target velocity
|
|
71
|
+
|
|
72
|
+
- id: channel-mix
|
|
73
|
+
name: Channel Mix
|
|
74
|
+
description: Map motion to channels — content / paid / community / partnerships / events / outbound — with budget allocation
|
|
75
|
+
agents:
|
|
76
|
+
- agent_id: marketing-director-luna
|
|
77
|
+
role: Channel mix design with AARRR baseline, growth loop selection
|
|
78
|
+
- agent_id: conversion-strategist-ines
|
|
79
|
+
role: Landing surface design per channel (one URL per channel intent)
|
|
80
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
81
|
+
gate:
|
|
82
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
83
|
+
description: User approves channel allocation and budget split
|
|
84
|
+
outputs:
|
|
85
|
+
- type: document
|
|
86
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
87
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/GTM/Channels/"
|
|
88
|
+
description: Channel mix with budget allocation and AARRR baseline
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
- id: ninety-day-plan
|
|
91
|
+
name: 90-Day Execution Plan
|
|
92
|
+
description: Concrete week-by-week deliverables, owners, success metrics — first 90 days
|
|
93
|
+
agents:
|
|
94
|
+
- agent_id: saas-strategist-tiago
|
|
95
|
+
role: Week-by-week deliverable plan with named owners and weekly checkpoints
|
|
96
|
+
- agent_id: marketing-director-luna
|
|
97
|
+
role: Marketing-side deliverables (content cadence, paid ramp, community)
|
|
98
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
99
|
+
- agent_id: sales-director-miguel
|
|
100
|
+
role: Sales-side deliverables (outbound cadence, demo book rate target)
|
|
101
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
102
|
+
gate:
|
|
103
|
+
type: user_approval
|
|
104
|
+
description: User approves the 90-day plan before Quality Gate
|
|
105
|
+
|
|
106
|
+
- id: self-critique
|
|
107
|
+
name: Self-Critique
|
|
108
|
+
description: Stress-test the plan — is the motion-channel-budget triple internally consistent? Are weekly checkpoints measurable?
|
|
109
|
+
agents:
|
|
110
|
+
- agent_id: strategy-director-tomas
|
|
111
|
+
role: Strategic coherence check — motion ↔ ICP ↔ positioning ↔ channels alignment
|
|
112
|
+
gate:
|
|
113
|
+
type: auto
|
|
114
|
+
|
|
115
|
+
- id: quality-gate
|
|
116
|
+
name: Quality Gate
|
|
117
|
+
model_override: opus
|
|
118
|
+
description: Mandatory quality review
|
|
119
|
+
agents:
|
|
120
|
+
- agent_id: cqo-marta
|
|
121
|
+
role: Orchestrate quality review
|
|
122
|
+
- agent_id: copy-director-eduardo
|
|
123
|
+
role: ICP language, positioning prose, plan readability — no clichés
|
|
124
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
125
|
+
- agent_id: tech-director-francisca
|
|
126
|
+
role: Plan executability — every action has an owner, a date, a metric
|
|
127
|
+
parallel: true
|
|
128
|
+
gate:
|
|
129
|
+
type: quality_gate
|
|
130
|
+
required_verdict: APPROVED
|
|
131
|
+
|
|
132
|
+
- id: delivery
|
|
133
|
+
name: GTM Package Delivery
|
|
134
|
+
description: Compile the full GTM package and produce the 1-page executive summary
|
|
135
|
+
agents:
|
|
136
|
+
- agent_id: saas-strategist-tiago
|
|
137
|
+
role: Full GTM package compilation + 1-page executive summary
|
|
138
|
+
gate:
|
|
139
|
+
type: auto
|
|
140
|
+
outputs:
|
|
141
|
+
- type: document
|
|
142
|
+
format: markdown
|
|
143
|
+
obsidian_path: "WizardingCode/GTM/"
|
|
144
|
+
description: Complete GTM package — ICP + positioning + motion + channel mix + 90-day plan + executive summary
|
package/package.json
CHANGED