codeply-cli 0.3.1 → 0.4.0

package/skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md

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