startup-ideation-kit 1.0.0 → 2.0.0

package/skills/sk-positioning/references/frameworks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Positioning Frameworks Reference
+
+Canonical definitions for the 5 positioning frameworks used in this skill. Apply them in order: Dunford's process first (primary engine), then express the result through Moore and Neumeier formats, grounded by JTBD thinking, and sanity-checked against Ries & Trout principles.
+
+---
+
+## 1. April Dunford — Obviously Awesome
+
+Positioning defines how your product is the best in the world at providing something that a well-defined set of customers cares a lot about.
+
+**The 5 components (work through in this order):**
+
+1. **Competitive Alternatives** — What would customers do if your solution didn't exist? Not just direct competitors — include manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing. This grounds the positioning in reality.
+
+2. **Unique Attributes** — What do you have that the alternatives don't? Be specific and factual. Not "better UX" but "drag-and-drop workflow builder that requires zero code." Capabilities, features, expertise, integrations, data, speed, etc.
+
+3. **Value Themes** — What do those attributes enable for the customer? Map each attribute to a customer benefit. Attributes are features; value themes are outcomes. "Drag-and-drop builder" → "Non-technical teams can build workflows without waiting for engineering." Group related attributes into 2-3 themes.
+
+4. **Best-Fit Customers** — Who cares the most about these value themes? The best customers are those for whom your unique value is critical, not just nice-to-have. Define by characteristics that make them care more than others.
+
+5. **Market Category** — The context you position your product in so the value is obvious. Three options:
+   - **Existing category**: You're a better version of something people already buy (e.g., "CRM for real estate agents")
+   - **New sub-category**: You take an existing category and add a qualifier (e.g., "AI-powered recruiting platform")
+   - **New category**: Rare and expensive to do. Only if nothing else frames your value well.
+
+**Adapted 10-step process for AI-guided positioning:**
+
+1. Understand your best customers — who loves your product and why
+2. Form the positioning team — in our case: the AI + the founder
+3. Align on vocabulary — define terms, abandon preconceptions about current positioning
+4. List your true competitive alternatives — EVERYTHING customers would do instead
+5. Isolate your unique attributes — what you have that alternatives don't
+6. Map attributes to value themes — attribute → "so what" → customer outcome
+7. Determine who cares most — best-fit customer characteristics
+8. Find your best market frame — category that makes value obvious
+9. Layer on a trend — only if genuine, optional
+10. Capture the positioning — multiple formats: Moore statement, Onliness, elevator pitch
+
+**Common pitfalls by component:**
+
+- **Alternatives:** Only listing direct competitors. Miss the status quo — manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing. These are often the real competition.
+- **Attributes:** Listing features that alternatives also have. That is table stakes, not differentiation. If two competitors also have it, it is not unique.
+- **Value Themes:** Staying at the feature level instead of translating to outcomes. "AI-powered" is an attribute. "Get answers in seconds instead of hours" is a value theme.
+- **Best-Fit Customers:** Too broad ("SMBs") or demographic ("25-34 year olds") instead of characteristic-based. Define by behaviors, situations, and needs that make them care more.
+- **Category:** Inventing a category nobody searches for. If customers cannot Google it, they cannot find you.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Geoffrey Moore — Crossing the Chasm Positioning Statement
+
+**The template:**
+
+> **For** [target customer]
+> **who** [statement of need/opportunity],
+> **the** [product name] **is a** [market category]
+> **that** [statement of key benefit].
+> **Unlike** [primary competitive alternative],
+> **our product** [statement of primary differentiation].
+
+**Field definitions:**
+
+- **Target customer** = Dunford component 4: Best-Fit Customers
+- **Need** = The job to be done (from JTBD analysis)
+- **Category** = Dunford component 5: Market Category
+- **Key benefit** = Dunford component 3: Value Themes (pick the strongest)
+- **Alternative** = Dunford component 1: top Competitive Alternative
+- **Differentiation** = Dunford component 2: Unique Attributes (most defensible)
+
+**Example:**
+
+For mid-market engineering teams who need to track deployment reliability across microservices, DeployWatch is a deployment observability platform that surfaces breaking changes before they reach production. Unlike generic APM tools, DeployWatch correlates deployments with performance regressions in real-time.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Marty Neumeier — Zag (Onliness Statement)
+
+**Basic template:**
+
+> Our [brand/product] is the only [category] that [point of radical differentiation].
+
+**Extended template (6 elements):**
+
+> - **WHAT:** The category you are in
+> - **HOW:** Your point of differentiation
+> - **WHO:** Your target audience
+> - **WHERE:** Your market geography
+> - **WHY:** The customer need you fulfill
+> - **WHEN:** The trend or moment that makes this relevant
+
+**Example (Harley-Davidson):**
+
+"The only motorcycle manufacturer [WHAT] that makes big, loud motorcycles [HOW] for macho guys and macho wannabes [WHO] mostly in the United States [WHERE] who want to join a gang of cowboys [WHY] in an era of decreasing personal freedom [WHEN]."
+
+**How to use as validation:**
+
+- If you cannot complete the basic statement convincingly, your positioning lacks a clear differentiator
+- If "only" feels like a stretch, you have not found genuinely unique ground yet
+- The extended version forces completeness — every element should feel natural, not forced
+- Try completing it from the customer's perspective: would THEY describe you this way?
+
+---
+
+## 4. JTBD — Jobs to Be Done
+
+**Core concept:** Customers do not buy products — they "hire" products to get a job done. The job is stable even as products come and go.
+
+**Three types of jobs:**
+
+- **Functional:** The practical task (e.g., "track my team's project status")
+- **Social:** How they want to be perceived (e.g., "look organized and in control to stakeholders")
+- **Emotional:** How they want to feel (e.g., "feel confident nothing is falling through the cracks")
+
+**Application to positioning:**
+
+- JTBD broadens the competitive alternative set — ALL solutions hired for the same job compete, regardless of category
+- Understanding the emotional and social jobs reveals positioning angles that feature comparisons miss
+- The language customers use to describe their job IS the language your positioning should use
+- Underserved jobs (important but poorly satisfied) = strongest positioning opportunities
+
+---
+
+## 5. Ries & Trout — Positioning Principles
+
+**Core principles from "Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind":**
+
+- **Positioning lives in the customer's mind, not your product.** It is about perception, not reality. You cannot force a position — you claim one that is available.
+- **Simplicity wins.** In an over-communicated world, only simple messages get through. One idea, clearly stated.
+- **The mental ladder.** Customers organize brands on mental ladders by attribute. You need to claim a rung. If the top rung is taken, find a different ladder.
+- **First beats best.** Being first in a category (in the customer's mind) is more powerful than being better. If you cannot be first in an existing category, create a subcategory where you ARE first.
+- **Consistency over time.** Positioning takes time to stick. Do not change it every quarter. Pick a position and hold it.
+
+**Application:** These principles act as a final sanity check. After building positioning through Dunford's process, test it: Is it simple? Does it claim one clear rung? Is that rung available? Would it stick over time?

package/skills/sk-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Radical Honesty Protocol
+
+This skill exists to help founders make good decisions — not to feel good. An AI that cheerleads every idea is actively harmful: it wastes the founder's time, money, and emotional energy. These principles are non-negotiable and apply to every phase.
+
+## Tell the truth, even when it's uncomfortable
+
+- If the market is too small, say so directly. Don't soften "$12M and shrinking" into "room for a focused player."
+- If the idea has a fatal flaw, name it up front. Don't bury it in a list of minor risks.
+- If the founder's assumptions contradict research, flag it explicitly: "You assumed X, but the data shows Y."
+- Challenge "everyone needs this" (who specifically?), "there's no competition" (there's always competition, even if it's doing nothing), and unsupported market claims.
+- Never use vague positive language to avoid delivering bad news. Replace "interesting opportunity" with the specific finding.
+
+## Separate facts from opinions
+
+- Label every major claim with its basis:
+  - **[Data]** — sourced finding with citation
+  - **[Estimate]** — calculated projection with stated assumptions
+  - **[Assumption]** — unverified belief that needs testing
+  - **[Opinion]** — your analytical judgment
+- When data is missing or weak, say so.
+- Never present estimates as facts.
+- A confident-sounding fabrication is worse than an honest "I don't know."
+
+## Surface flags proactively
+
+In every output file, include a **Flags** section at the end:
+
+- **Red Flags** — Issues that could undermine the positioning or the business.
+- **Yellow Flags** — Concerns that need investigation or monitoring.
+
+If there are no flags, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section.
+
+## Challenge the founder's assumptions
+
+Don't just accept what the user says at face value:
+- Ask "What evidence do you have for that?" when the founder makes positioning claims
+- Push back on "we're unique" — in what way, specifically?
+- Question "there's no competition" — there's always competition, even doing nothing
+- When the founder is emotionally attached to a positioning or category, note it and test it against data
+
+## Positioning-Specific Rules
+
+1. **No aspirational positioning.** Position based on current capabilities, not roadmap promises. "We plan to add AI" is not a positioning attribute — it's a hope. If the product doesn't deliver on the positioning TODAY, it will fail at first customer contact.
+
+2. **Challenge "we're unique."** If the Onliness Statement isn't convincing, say so directly. Most products aren't truly unique — the skill's job is to find the angle where they ARE unique for a specific customer in a specific context. Generic uniqueness claims are lazy positioning.
+
+3. **Test against customer reality.** If customer language from research doesn't match the proposed positioning, the research wins. Positioning that sounds great in a boardroom but doesn't resonate with actual buyers is worse than no positioning — it creates false confidence.
+
+4. **Flag category creation risk.** If the recommended positioning requires educating buyers on a new category, explicitly flag the cost, time, and risk. Most startups don't have the resources, patience, or market power to create a new category. Default to existing categories or subcategories unless the evidence is overwhelming.
+
+5. **Rate positioning strength honestly.** The final positioning doc must include an honest strength assessment:
+   - **Strong** — Clear, defensible, resonant with customer language, occupies available mental position
+   - **Moderate** — Works but has gaps (e.g., differentiation is real but narrow, or best-fit segment is small)
+   - **Needs Work** — Positioning is weak, generic, or untestable. Don't deliver weak positioning as if it's strong.
+
+## Positioning Anti-Patterns
+
+| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say |
+|---|---|---|
+| "We're for everyone" | No target segment defined | "If you're for everyone, you're for no one. Who cares MOST about this value?" |
+| Feature-based positioning | Leading with features not outcomes | "Customers don't buy features. What outcome do they get? What changes for them?" |
+| Aspirational positioning | "We'll be the AI-powered..." | "Position on what you deliver today. The roadmap isn't positioning — it's hope." |
+| Category-of-one | Inventing a category to avoid comparison | "New categories cost millions to establish. Is there an existing frame that works?" |
+| Copycat positioning | Same message as the market leader | "You can't out-position the leader on their own terms. Find genuinely different ground." |
+| "Better and cheaper" | Claiming to beat incumbents on everything | "Pick your battle. You can't be best at everything — where do you win decisively?" |
+| Positioning by negation | "We're NOT like them" | "What ARE you? Buyers remember what you stand for, not what you stand against." |
+
+## Ground rules
+
+- **Ground in evidence.** Every positioning claim should trace to research findings.
+- **Make it actionable.** Positioning that can't be implemented is worthless.
+- **No fabrication.** If data not found, say so.

package/skills/sk-positioning/references/research-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Research Principles
+
+These principles apply to ALL research agents across all waves. Every agent must follow them.
+
+## Iterative Deep Research
+
+Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper:
+- Round 1: Broad overview queries
+- Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1
+- Round 3: Cross-reference and validate
+- Round 4: Reality check and edge cases
+
+Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight.
+
+## Source Quality Tiers
+
+Rank every finding by source reliability:
+
+| Tier | Source Type | Use For |
+|------|-----------|---------|
+| **Tier 1** | Industry reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, IBISWorld), SEC filings, government data, G2/Capterra aggregate data | Hard numbers, market share, verified metrics |
+| **Tier 2** | Reputable tech press (TechCrunch, Bloomberg, WSJ), company press releases, Crunchbase, investor presentations | Funding data, company news, expert opinions |
+| **Tier 3** | Blog posts, Reddit threads, individual reviews, social media | Sentiment, customer voice, anecdotal evidence |
+
+For positioning research, Tier 3 sources are ESPECIALLY valuable — customer reviews and forum posts reveal how buyers describe their problems and what "better" means to them. This is the language map that drives positioning. But don't use them for hard numbers.
+
+## Positioning-Specific Search Strategies
+
+When researching alternatives and buyer behavior:
+- Search for "what do you use for [problem]", "[competitor] vs", "switching from [tool]", "alternative to [tool]"
+- These queries surface the language customers actually use, revealing positioning opportunities
+
+When researching category definitions:
+- Search for analyst reports on category definitions, Gartner/Forrester quadrants, buyer guides
+- Track how the category is evolving — new subcategories and adjacent spaces signal positioning white space
+
+## Cross-Referencing
+
+Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding:
+- Look for 2-3 independent sources
+- If sources agree: note convergence and cite all
+- If sources disagree: note both figures, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why
+
+## Quantification
+
+Vague claims are worthless. Always push for numbers:
+- Bad: "They're a big player"
+- Good: "$12M ARR, 2,500+ customers, Series B ($28M from Accel)"
+- Bad: "Their pricing is high"
+- Good: "$49/seat/mo for Pro, $99/seat/mo for Enterprise, vs. market median of $35/seat/mo"
+
+## Dating
+
+Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 12 months as potentially outdated. Positioning landscapes shift fast — a funding round, pivot, or acquisition can change everything in weeks.
+
+## Handling Research Failures
+
+Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need:
+
+1. **Try alternative queries.** Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap.
+2. **Use proxy data.** If you can't find a competitor's revenue, estimate from team size, funding, pricing × estimated customers. Show your math.
+3. **Declare the gap explicitly.** Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low."
+4. **Never fabricate.** An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number.
+5. **Suggest how to fill the gap.** Point to specific reports or recommend reaching out to the competitor's customers directly.

package/skills/sk-positioning/references/research-scaling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Research Scaling Protocol
+
+Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins.
+
+## Complexity Score
+
+Assess three factors from the intake data:
+
+| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) |
+|--------|---------|------------|----------|
+| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players |
+| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified |
+| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region |
+
+**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9)
+
+## Research Depth Tiers
+
+| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description |
+|------|-----------|----------------|-------------|
+| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds |
+| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth |
+| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage |
+
+**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep.
+
+## User Communication
+
+After calculating the score, show this to the user:
+
+```
+## Research Depth
+
+Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity:
+
+| Factor           | Assessment          | Score |
+|------------------|---------------------|-------|
+| Market breadth   | {description}       | {1-3} |
+| Known competitors| {N} identified      | {1-3} |
+| Geographic scope | {description}       | {1-3} |
+
+**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}**
+
+You can override this. Here's what each depth means:
+
+| Depth        | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for                                      |
+|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
+| **Light**    | {N}    | 2-3 rounds         | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions |
+| **Standard** | {N}    | 3-4 rounds         | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed           |
+| **Deep**     | {N}    | 5-6 rounds         | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence |
+
+→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation.
+```
+
+The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below).
+
+## Wave Configuration: startup-positioning
+
+### Light (3-4 score or user override)
+
+**Wave 1** (1 wave, 2 agents)
+- A1: Alternative Mapping & Customer Intelligence (merge A1+A2 into one agent)
+- B1: Market Category & Trends (merge B1+B2 into one agent)
+
+Merge both waves into a single wave since there's no dependency between them at this scale.
+
+**Total: 2 agents** (vs. 4 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent
+
+### Standard (5-7 score, default)
+
+No changes to current wave structure:
+- Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2)
+- Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2)
+
+**Total: 4 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent
+
+### Deep (8-9 score or user override)
+
+**Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer** (3 agents)
+- A1: Alternative Mapping (unchanged)
+- A2: Customer Intelligence (unchanged)
+- A3: Positioning Perception Audit (NEW: research how competitors position themselves, what messaging they use, what category they claim, where buyer perception differs from positioning intent)
+
+**Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends** (2 agents)
+- B1: Market Category Analysis (unchanged)
+- B2: Trend & Timing Analysis (unchanged)
+
+**Total: 5 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent
+
+## PROGRESS.md
+
+Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md:
+
+```markdown
+- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto})
+```