codeply-cli 0.5.6 → 0.6.0

package/skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md

@@ -1,162 +1,162 @@
----
-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 benchmark dimensions (note:
-dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
-Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
-represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). 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.
+---
+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 benchmark dimensions (note:
+dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
+Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
+represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). 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.