skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/business-discovery/claude/positioning/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+---
+name: positioning
+description: Strategic positioning (April Dunford style) — competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value, target segment, market category
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"category\", \"vs competitor X\"]"
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Positioning — Strategic Product Positioning
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.
+
+When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+Develops rigorous product positioning using the "Obviously Awesome" methodology (April Dunford). Determines competitive alternatives, unique attributes, customer value, target segment, and market category. Positioning is upstream of messaging — it determines *how you frame the product category itself*.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/icp` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Strong default**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{app}/journey-map.md`) should exist before writing canonical positioning. If missing, recommend `/journey-map` first unless the user explicitly needs a provisional category/alternatives hypothesis. Early positioning may be discussed as provisional working notes, but do not write canonical `research/positioning.md` without clear user approval to proceed without journey evidence.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where value is delivered, the aha moment
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer language about what makes the product different
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing context for value perception
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)
+
+Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of `research/`, use it.
+2. If `research/` contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically.
+3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).
+
+When app scope `{app}` is active:
+- Read/write research from `research/{app}/` instead of `research/`
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events, current-state journey
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, positioning, strengths/weaknesses, market gaps
+- Read other soft prerequisite files if they exist
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Research Positioning Approaches
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Category definition** — "how [category] is defined", "[category] vs [adjacent category]"
+2. **Positioning examples** — "[competitor] positioning statement", "how [competitor] describes itself"
+3. **Category creation** — "creating new category [domain]", "[domain] category leadership"
+4. **Customer language** — "[category] how customers describe", "[domain] buyer vocabulary"
+5. **Positioning frameworks** — "obviously awesome positioning", "April Dunford [category]"
+
+### 3. Step 1 — Competitive Alternatives (What Would Customers Use Instead?)
+
+NOT just direct competitors. Include:
+- **Direct competitors** — products in the same category
+- **Adjacent solutions** — products in nearby categories that solve the same pain differently
+- **DIY/manual workarounds** — spreadsheets, manual processes, hiring someone
+- **Do nothing** — the status quo (this is often the real competitor)
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present and validate:
+- "Here are the competitive alternatives I see. What would your best customers actually use if your product disappeared tomorrow?"
+
+### 4. Step 2 — Unique Attributes (What Do You Have That Alternatives Don't?)
+
+For each competitive alternative, identify what's genuinely different about this product:
+- Features that alternatives lack
+- Approach or philosophy that's fundamentally different
+- Technical advantages (speed, accuracy, simplicity)
+- Business model advantages (pricing structure, no lock-in)
+- Community or ecosystem advantages
+
+**Be ruthless.** Only include attributes that are truly unique, not "we also do X." If competitors also have it, it's table stakes, not positioning.
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Are these genuinely unique? Would your most discerning customer agree these are different?"
+
+### 5. Step 3 — Value (What Does Uniqueness Enable for Customers?)
+
+Map each unique attribute to the customer value it creates:
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | [from ICP, feedback, or research] |
+
+Value categories:
+- **Saves time** — enables faster outcomes
+- **Saves money** — reduces cost vs. alternatives
+- **Reduces risk** — prevents failures, compliance issues
+- **Unlocks capability** — enables something previously impossible
+- **Improves quality** — better outcomes than alternatives
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Is this the value your customers actually experience, or the value you hope they'll experience?"
+
+### 6. Step 4 — Target Segment (Who Cares Most About This Value?)
+
+From the ICP analysis, identify the segment that values these unique attributes THE MOST. This is not the broadest market — it's the best-fit customer:
+
+- Who has the most acute pain that your unique attributes address?
+- Who would be most disappointed if the product disappeared?
+- Who gets the most value from what makes you different (not just from the category)?
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "This is the segment I'd position for. Does this feel right, or is there a segment that values your uniqueness even more?"
+
+### 7. Step 5 — Market Category (What Context Makes Your Value Obvious?)
+
+This is the most consequential decision. The market category determines:
+- Who you're compared against
+- What features are expected (table stakes)
+- What "good" looks like
+- How buyers find you
+
+Three strategies:
+1. **Existing category** — position within a known category (e.g., "project management tool"). Best when the category is well-understood and you can win on a specific dimension.
+2. **Subcategory** — carve out a niche within an existing category (e.g., "project management for creative teams"). Best when you serve a specific segment much better than generic tools.
+3. **New category** — create a new category (e.g., "collaborative work management"). Best when existing categories don't capture your value — but expensive and slow.
+
+Use WebSearch to research how customers and analysts describe the space. Present recommendation with reasoning:
+- "I recommend positioning in [category/subcategory/new category] because [rationale]. Here's how it frames you against alternatives..."
+
+### 8. Synthesize Positioning Statement
+
+Combine all five steps into a positioning statement:
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+Present the full positioning framework and statement to the user. Ask:
+- "Does this positioning feel true to what your best customers experience?"
+- "Would this change how you describe the product on your homepage?"
+- "Ready to write this to `research/positioning.md`?"
+
+### 9. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- ALWAYS: `/ux-variations [positioning-backed product direction]` — Explore prototype directions now that ICP, competitive, journey, and positioning evidence are aligned
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: `/journey-map` — Map the customer journey before writing canonical positioning
+- IF solution-customer fit is weak, disputed, or needs explicit scoring: `/value-prop-canvas` — Optional detour to validate contested fit before UX or spec work
+- IF revenue, channels, cost, defensibility, or unfair-advantage assumptions are material risks: `/lean-canvas` — Optional business-model synthesis before growth or ops work
+- IF no `research/gtm.md`: `/gtm` — Build go-to-market plan grounded in this positioning
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists: `/gtm` — Refresh messaging framework to align with positioning
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: `/monetization` — Positioning informs pricing — "premium" vs "value" positioning changes price expectations
+- IF codebase exists: `/mvp-gap` — Check if the product delivers on the positioning promise
+
+### 10. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 11. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{app}/` prefix when app scope is active):
+- `research/gtm.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `## Messaging Framework` and `## Positioning vs. Competitors`
+2. Identify conflicts where messaging doesn't align with the new positioning
+3. Note each conflict: file, section, stale claim, what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream docs exist, or no conflicts. Skip display.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR market category changed, primary alternative shifted, value framing changed): Display and recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Positioning
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/journey-map.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: "Obviously Awesome" (April Dunford)
+
+## Positioning Statement
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the positioning thesis — what category you're in, why, and what makes you different]
+
+## Step 1: Competitive Alternatives
+
+What customers would use if this product didn't exist:
+
+| Alternative | Type | Strengths | Weaknesses |
+|------------|------|-----------|------------|
+| [alternative] | Direct / Adjacent / DIY / Status quo | [strengths] | [weaknesses] |
+
+**Primary competitive alternative**: [the one most customers would default to]
+
+## Step 2: Unique Attributes
+
+What this product has that alternatives genuinely don't:
+
+| Attribute | Why It's Unique | Table Stakes? |
+|-----------|----------------|---------------|
+| [attribute] | [explanation] | No — alternatives lack this |
+
+**Attributes explicitly excluded** (table stakes):
+- [common feature] — [which alternatives also have this]
+
+## Step 3: Value Mapping
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Value Type | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | Time / Money / Risk / Capability / Quality | [source] |
+
+**Primary value**: [the single most important value customers get from what's unique]
+
+## Step 4: Best-Fit Target Segment
+
+**Segment**: [specific description]
+**Why they care most**: [why this segment values the unique attributes more than others]
+**From ICP**: [reference to ICP segment — how this aligns or narrows the ICP]
+
+### Characteristics of Best-Fit Customers
+- [characteristic 1]
+- [characteristic 2]
+- [characteristic 3]
+
+### Who This Is NOT For
+- [segment that's a bad fit and why]
+
+## Step 5: Market Category
+
+**Category**: [chosen category]
+**Strategy**: [Existing category / Subcategory / New category]
+**Why**: [rationale for this category choice]
+
+### How This Category Frames Us
+- **Compared against**: [who buyers will compare us to in this category]
+- **Table stakes**: [what's expected in this category — we must have these]
+- **Our edge**: [where we excel relative to category expectations]
+
+### Categories Considered & Rejected
+| Category | Why Considered | Why Rejected |
+|----------|---------------|-------------|
+| [category] | [reason] | [reason] |
+
+## Positioning Implications
+
+### For Messaging
+[How this positioning should shape homepage copy, tagline, and pitch]
+
+### For Product
+[What this positioning means for feature prioritization — what to build, what to skip]
+
+### For Sales
+[How to talk about the product in sales conversations — what to emphasize, what to avoid]
+
+### For Pricing
+[How this positioning affects price perception — premium vs. value, what to anchor against]
+
+<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
+## Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote]"
+   - **Now**: [what positioning says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `/reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 9]
+```
+
+### `research/positioning-search-log.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each positioning decision.
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP + competitive analysis.** Positioning without knowing the customer and the competition is guesswork.
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every positioning decision must connect to real customer behavior or research evidence, not aspirational branding.
+- **Be honest about uniqueness.** If nothing is truly unique, say so — that's a critical finding. Don't manufacture differentiation.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the positioning has been presented and validated.
+- **Positioning ≠ messaging.** This skill produces the strategic foundation. Messaging (the actual copy and taglines) is `/gtm`'s job.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **One positioning per product.** Don't try to position differently for different segments — pick the best-fit segment and position for them.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+Follow the shared Alignment Page convention in CLAUDE.md. Output: `alignment/positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-discovery/claude/positioning/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+---
+name: positioning
+description: Strategic positioning (April Dunford style) — competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value, target segment, market category
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"category\", \"vs competitor X\"]"
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Positioning — Strategic Product Positioning
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.
+
+When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+Develops rigorous product positioning using the "Obviously Awesome" methodology (April Dunford). Determines competitive alternatives, unique attributes, customer value, target segment, and market category. Positioning is upstream of messaging — it determines *how you frame the product category itself*.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/icp` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Strong default**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{app}/journey-map.md`) should exist before writing canonical positioning. If missing, recommend `/journey-map` first unless the user explicitly needs a provisional category/alternatives hypothesis. Early positioning may be discussed as provisional working notes, but do not write canonical `research/positioning.md` without clear user approval to proceed without journey evidence.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where value is delivered, the aha moment
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer language about what makes the product different
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing context for value perception
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)
+
+Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of `research/`, use it.
+2. If `research/` contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically.
+3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).
+
+When app scope `{app}` is active:
+- Read/write research from `research/{app}/` instead of `research/`
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events, current-state journey
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, positioning, strengths/weaknesses, market gaps
+- Read other soft prerequisite files if they exist
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Research Positioning Approaches
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Category definition** — "how [category] is defined", "[category] vs [adjacent category]"
+2. **Positioning examples** — "[competitor] positioning statement", "how [competitor] describes itself"
+3. **Category creation** — "creating new category [domain]", "[domain] category leadership"
+4. **Customer language** — "[category] how customers describe", "[domain] buyer vocabulary"
+5. **Positioning frameworks** — "obviously awesome positioning", "April Dunford [category]"
+
+### 3. Step 1 — Competitive Alternatives (What Would Customers Use Instead?)
+
+NOT just direct competitors. Include:
+- **Direct competitors** — products in the same category
+- **Adjacent solutions** — products in nearby categories that solve the same pain differently
+- **DIY/manual workarounds** — spreadsheets, manual processes, hiring someone
+- **Do nothing** — the status quo (this is often the real competitor)
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present and validate:
+- "Here are the competitive alternatives I see. What would your best customers actually use if your product disappeared tomorrow?"
+
+### 4. Step 2 — Unique Attributes (What Do You Have That Alternatives Don't?)
+
+For each competitive alternative, identify what's genuinely different about this product:
+- Features that alternatives lack
+- Approach or philosophy that's fundamentally different
+- Technical advantages (speed, accuracy, simplicity)
+- Business model advantages (pricing structure, no lock-in)
+- Community or ecosystem advantages
+
+**Be ruthless.** Only include attributes that are truly unique, not "we also do X." If competitors also have it, it's table stakes, not positioning.
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Are these genuinely unique? Would your most discerning customer agree these are different?"
+
+### 5. Step 3 — Value (What Does Uniqueness Enable for Customers?)
+
+Map each unique attribute to the customer value it creates:
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | [from ICP, feedback, or research] |
+
+Value categories:
+- **Saves time** — enables faster outcomes
+- **Saves money** — reduces cost vs. alternatives
+- **Reduces risk** — prevents failures, compliance issues
+- **Unlocks capability** — enables something previously impossible
+- **Improves quality** — better outcomes than alternatives
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Is this the value your customers actually experience, or the value you hope they'll experience?"
+
+### 6. Step 4 — Target Segment (Who Cares Most About This Value?)
+
+From the ICP analysis, identify the segment that values these unique attributes THE MOST. This is not the broadest market — it's the best-fit customer:
+
+- Who has the most acute pain that your unique attributes address?
+- Who would be most disappointed if the product disappeared?
+- Who gets the most value from what makes you different (not just from the category)?
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "This is the segment I'd position for. Does this feel right, or is there a segment that values your uniqueness even more?"
+
+### 7. Step 5 — Market Category (What Context Makes Your Value Obvious?)
+
+This is the most consequential decision. The market category determines:
+- Who you're compared against
+- What features are expected (table stakes)
+- What "good" looks like
+- How buyers find you
+
+Three strategies:
+1. **Existing category** — position within a known category (e.g., "project management tool"). Best when the category is well-understood and you can win on a specific dimension.
+2. **Subcategory** — carve out a niche within an existing category (e.g., "project management for creative teams"). Best when you serve a specific segment much better than generic tools.
+3. **New category** — create a new category (e.g., "collaborative work management"). Best when existing categories don't capture your value — but expensive and slow.
+
+Use WebSearch to research how customers and analysts describe the space. Present recommendation with reasoning:
+- "I recommend positioning in [category/subcategory/new category] because [rationale]. Here's how it frames you against alternatives..."
+
+### 8. Synthesize Positioning Statement
+
+Combine all five steps into a positioning statement:
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+Present the full positioning framework and statement to the user. Ask:
+- "Does this positioning feel true to what your best customers experience?"
+- "Would this change how you describe the product on your homepage?"
+- "Ready to write this to `research/positioning.md`?"
+
+### 9. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- ALWAYS: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-design` — if `product-design` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-design` first; if `product-design` is enabled, recommend `/ux-variations [positioning-backed product direction]` — Explore prototype directions now that ICP, competitive, journey, and positioning evidence are aligned
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map` — Map the customer journey before writing canonical positioning
+- IF solution-customer fit is weak, disputed, or needs explicit scoring: `/value-prop-canvas` — Optional detour to validate contested fit before UX or spec work
+- IF revenue, channels, cost, defensibility, or unfair-advantage assumptions are material risks: `/lean-canvas` — Optional business-model synthesis before growth or ops work
+- IF no `research/gtm.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-growth` — if `business-growth` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-growth` first; if `business-growth` is enabled, recommend `/gtm` — Build go-to-market plan grounded in this positioning
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-growth` — if `business-growth` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-growth` first; if `business-growth` is enabled, recommend `/gtm` — Refresh messaging framework to align with positioning
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-growth` — if `business-growth` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-growth` first; if `business-growth` is enabled, recommend `/monetization` — Positioning informs pricing — "premium" vs "value" positioning changes price expectations
+- IF codebase exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if `business-ops` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` first; if `business-ops` is enabled, recommend `/mvp-gap` — Check if the product delivers on the positioning promise
+
+### 10. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 11. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{app}/` prefix when app scope is active):
+- `research/gtm.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `## Messaging Framework` and `## Positioning vs. Competitors`
+2. Identify conflicts where messaging doesn't align with the new positioning
+3. Note each conflict: file, section, stale claim, what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream docs exist, or no conflicts. Skip display.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR market category changed, primary alternative shifted, value framing changed): Display and recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Positioning
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/journey-map.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: "Obviously Awesome" (April Dunford)
+
+## Positioning Statement
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the positioning thesis — what category you're in, why, and what makes you different]
+
+## Step 1: Competitive Alternatives
+
+What customers would use if this product didn't exist:
+
+| Alternative | Type | Strengths | Weaknesses |
+|------------|------|-----------|------------|
+| [alternative] | Direct / Adjacent / DIY / Status quo | [strengths] | [weaknesses] |
+
+**Primary competitive alternative**: [the one most customers would default to]
+
+## Step 2: Unique Attributes
+
+What this product has that alternatives genuinely don't:
+
+| Attribute | Why It's Unique | Table Stakes? |
+|-----------|----------------|---------------|
+| [attribute] | [explanation] | No — alternatives lack this |
+
+**Attributes explicitly excluded** (table stakes):
+- [common feature] — [which alternatives also have this]
+
+## Step 3: Value Mapping
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Value Type | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | Time / Money / Risk / Capability / Quality | [source] |
+
+**Primary value**: [the single most important value customers get from what's unique]
+
+## Step 4: Best-Fit Target Segment
+
+**Segment**: [specific description]
+**Why they care most**: [why this segment values the unique attributes more than others]
+**From ICP**: [reference to ICP segment — how this aligns or narrows the ICP]
+
+### Characteristics of Best-Fit Customers
+- [characteristic 1]
+- [characteristic 2]
+- [characteristic 3]
+
+### Who This Is NOT For
+- [segment that's a bad fit and why]
+
+## Step 5: Market Category
+
+**Category**: [chosen category]
+**Strategy**: [Existing category / Subcategory / New category]
+**Why**: [rationale for this category choice]
+
+### How This Category Frames Us
+- **Compared against**: [who buyers will compare us to in this category]
+- **Table stakes**: [what's expected in this category — we must have these]
+- **Our edge**: [where we excel relative to category expectations]
+
+### Categories Considered & Rejected
+| Category | Why Considered | Why Rejected |
+|----------|---------------|-------------|
+| [category] | [reason] | [reason] |
+
+## Positioning Implications
+
+### For Messaging
+[How this positioning should shape homepage copy, tagline, and pitch]
+
+### For Product
+[What this positioning means for feature prioritization — what to build, what to skip]
+
+### For Sales
+[How to talk about the product in sales conversations — what to emphasize, what to avoid]
+
+### For Pricing
+[How this positioning affects price perception — premium vs. value, what to anchor against]
+
+<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
+## Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote]"
+   - **Now**: [what positioning says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `/reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 9]
+```
+
+### `research/positioning-search-log.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each positioning decision.
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP + competitive analysis.** Positioning without knowing the customer and the competition is guesswork.
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every positioning decision must connect to real customer behavior or research evidence, not aspirational branding.
+- **Be honest about uniqueness.** If nothing is truly unique, say so — that's a critical finding. Don't manufacture differentiation.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the positioning has been presented and validated.
+- **Positioning ≠ messaging.** This skill produces the strategic foundation. Messaging (the actual copy and taglines) is `/gtm`'s job.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **One positioning per product.** Don't try to position differently for different segments — pick the best-fit segment and position for them.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+Follow the shared Alignment Page convention in CLAUDE.md. Output: `alignment/positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.