startup-ideation-kit 1.0.0 → 2.0.1

package/skills/sk-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now
+
+Read `research-principles.md` first. Use findings from Wave 1 (audience expectations, comparable narratives) to focus the research.
+
+---
+
+## Agent B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch
+
+```
+Research task: Build pitch-aware competitive frame for {product description}
+Context: {product summary from intake}
+Known competitors: {list from intake or prior sessions}
+Wave 1 findings: {investor expectations, comparable narratives}
+
+IMPORTANT — PITCH-FOCUSED COMPETITIVE FRAMING:
+This is NOT a full competitive analysis (startup-competitors does that).
+This is specifically: how do competitors position themselves to investors,
+what narratives have worked for them, and where are the gaps this pitch can exploit.
+
+RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
+
+ROUND 1 — Competitor investor positioning (4-5 searches):
+- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement"
+- "{competitor 2} funding round {current year}"
+- "{product category} funded startups {current year}"
+- "{competitor} investor presentation" OR "{competitor} demo day"
+- "why {competitor} raised" OR "{competitor} investor thesis"
+
+ROUND 2 — Competitive narrative gaps (3-4 searches):
+- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" investor perspective
+- "{product category} startup weaknesses"
+- "{competitor} criticism" OR "{competitor} limitations investor"
+- "what's missing in {product category}" OR "{product category} underserved"
+
+ROUND 3 — Investor objections about competition (2-3 searches):
+- "investor concerns {product category} crowded market"
+- "{product category} competitive moat" investor perspective
+- "why invest {product category} despite competition"
+
+ROUND 4 — Cross-reference and validate (2-3 searches):
+- Verify key claims from rounds 1-3
+- Search for contrarian views
+- Look for recent changes (new entrants, acquisitions, pivots)
+
+OUTPUT FORMAT:
+
+## Competitive Framing for Pitch
+
+### How Competitors Position to Investors
+For each funded competitor:
+- **{Competitor}:** Raised {amount} with narrative: "{their story}"
+  - What resonated with investors: {specifics}
+  - Where their narrative is weak: {gaps}
+  - Source: {citation}
+
+### Narrative Gaps to Exploit
+Rank by pitch impact (strongest first):
+
+1. **{Gap name}** — {description}
+   - Why competitors can't claim this: {reasoning}
+   - How to frame it in the pitch: {specific suggestion}
+   - Evidence: {data point}
+
+### Likely Investor Objections About Competition
+| Objection | Why They'll Ask | Prepared Reframe |
+|-----------|----------------|-----------------|
+| "{objection}" | {reasoning} | "{how to respond}" |
+
+### Competitive Positioning One-Liner
+For the pitch, craft ONE sentence that captures competitive differentiation:
+- Candidate 1: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
+- Candidate 2: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
+- Recommended: {which and why}
+
+> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
+> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Agent B2: Why Now & Market Timing
+
+```
+Research task: Build "why now" timing thesis for {product description}
+Context: {product summary from intake}
+Market: {market/category from intake}
+Wave 1 findings: {trends mentioned in comparable narratives}
+
+IMPORTANT — THE "WHY NOW" QUESTION:
+Every investor asks "why now?" — why is this the right moment for this company?
+A pitch without a credible timing thesis leaves investors wondering
+"why hasn't someone done this already?" or "why will this work NOW vs. 2 years ago?"
+
+RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
+
+ROUND 1 — Technology and market shifts (4-5 searches):
+- "{product category} market growth {current year}"
+- "{technology enabling this product} adoption rate {current year}"
+- "{product category} inflection point" OR "{product space} tipping point"
+- "why now {product category}" OR "{product space} momentum {current year}"
+- "{enabling technology} cost reduction" OR "{enabling technology} democratization"
+
+ROUND 2 — Behavioral and regulatory changes (3-4 searches):
+- "{customer behavior change} driving {product category}"
+- "{regulatory change} affecting {product space} {current year}"
+- "COVID / remote work / AI impact on {product category}"
+- "{product space} buyer behavior shift {current year}"
+
+ROUND 3 — Adoption curves and precedents (2-3 searches):
+- "{product category} adoption curve"
+- "{comparable market} adoption timeline" (analog from adjacent space)
+- "{product category} early adopters vs mainstream"
+- "when did {similar product category} take off"
+
+ROUND 4 — Counter-arguments (2-3 searches):
+- "why {product category} won't work" OR "{product space} headwinds"
+- "{product category} too early" OR "{product space} not ready"
+- Skeptical takes on the timing thesis
+
+OUTPUT FORMAT:
+
+## Why Now: Timing Thesis
+
+### Primary Timing Driver
+- **What changed:** {specific shift — technology, regulation, behavior}
+- **When it changed:** {date or timeframe}
+- **Evidence:** {data with source}
+- **Impact on this company:** {how it enables or accelerates the pitch}
+
+### Supporting Timing Signals
+1. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
+   - Source: {citation}
+   - Strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak
+
+2. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
+   [same structure]
+
+### "Why Now" Narrative for the Pitch
+Craft a 2-3 sentence "why now" that can slot into the pitch:
+- Version 1 (data-led): "{version}"
+- Version 2 (story-led): "{version}"
+- Recommended: {which and why}
+
+### Counter-Arguments (Investor Skepticism)
+| Skeptical View | Evidence For It | How to Address |
+|---------------|-----------------|----------------|
+| "{concern}" | {data} | "{response with evidence}" |
+
+### Timing Assessment
+- **Is the timing genuinely strong?** Yes / Partially / No
+- **Risk of being too early:** {assessment}
+- **Risk of being too late:** {assessment}
+- **Honest recommendation:** {use the timing thesis / downplay timing / find a different angle}
+
+If the timing isn't genuinely strong, say so. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, recommend leading with a different pitch element instead.
+
+> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
+> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]
+```

package/skills/sk-pitch/references/verification-agent.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+# Verification Agent Protocol
+
+After pitch construction completes, spawn a **Verification Agent (V1)** that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- After all pitch deliverables are written (before the scorecard/review phase)
+- Uses one agent: **V1: Verification**
+
+## Agent Task
+
+The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a `verification-report.md` in the project directory.
+
+## Universal Checks
+
+These apply to every skill in the startup plugin:
+
+### 1. Claims Without Source
+Every quantitative claim must have a data label: **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, or **[Opinion]**. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label.
+
+### 2. Internal Contradictions
+Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when:
+- The same metric appears with different values in two files
+- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another
+- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium)
+
+### 3. Confidence Rating Consistency
+Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence:
+- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated **High**
+- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated **Low**
+- Every major section must have a confidence rating
+
+### 4. Data Gaps Declared
+Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag:
+- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely
+- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared
+- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables
+
+### 5. Flags Present
+Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag:
+- Files missing these sections
+- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks
+
+### 6. Stale Data
+Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.
+
+### 7. Duplicate Sources
+Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification.
+
+## Skill-Specific Checks: startup-pitch
+
+In addition to the universal checks above, verify:
+
+### Pitch Claims vs. Source Data
+- Every numerical claim in the pitch narratives (traction, market size, revenue, growth rate) must be traceable to either intake data or prior session files
+- If the pitch was built on startup-design data, verify that market size numbers match `market-analysis.md`
+- If built on startup-competitors data, verify competitive claims match `competitors-report.md`
+- Flag any number in the pitch that doesn't appear in any source file
+
+### Cross-Format Consistency
+- The 2-sentence opener must be identical (or a faithful compression) across all pitch formats
+- Market size, traction numbers, and the ask must be consistent across pitch-full, pitch-5min, pitch-2min, pitch-1min, and pitch-email
+- The unique insight must be the same concept across all formats (phrased differently but same core idea)
+- Team credentials must not vary between formats (no inflated version in one, modest in another)
+
+### Pitch vs. Appendix Alignment
+- Every objection in `pitch-appendix.md` must have a corresponding answer
+- Known weaknesses in the appendix must match the Red/Yellow Flags in pitch files
+- Q&A answers must not contradict claims made in the pitch narratives
+- If competitive backup references battle cards, verify the competitor names and claims match
+
+### Honesty Checks
+- Flag any traction claim without a timeframe ("10K users" without "in X months")
+- Flag top-down TAM without bottom-up math
+- Flag team credentials that are titles without accomplishments
+- Flag "no competition" or equivalent claims
+
+## Output: verification-report.md
+
+```markdown
+# Verification Report: {project-name}
+*Generated: {date}*
+
+## Summary
+- **Critical issues:** {count}
+- **Warnings:** {count}
+- **Info:** {count}
+
+## Critical Issues
+Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review.
+
+### {Issue title}
+- **File(s):** {affected files}
+- **Section:** {section name}
+- **Problem:** {description}
+- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}
+
+## Warnings
+Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions.
+
+### {Issue title}
+- **File(s):** {affected files}
+- **Problem:** {description}
+- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}
+
+## Info
+Minor improvements and observations.
+
+- {observation}
+- {observation}
+
+## Verification Checklist
+- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled
+- [ ] No internal contradictions found
+- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence
+- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables
+- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables
+- [ ] No stale data unmarked
+- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration
+- [ ] Pitch claims traceable to source data (skill-specific)
+- [ ] Cross-format consistency verified (skill-specific)
+- [ ] Pitch and appendix aligned (skill-specific)
+- [ ] Honesty checks passed (skill-specific)
+```
+
+## Flow Control
+
+- **If Critical issues > 0:** Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?"
+- **If only Warnings/Info:** Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See `verification-report.md` for details." Continue to scorecard/review phase.

package/skills/sk-positioning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
+---
+name: sk-positioning
+description: "Phase 4: Market positioning strategy using April Dunford's framework, enriched with JTBD discovery, Moore positioning statement, and Neumeier's Onliness Test. Produces a complete positioning document, positioning statements, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Informed by your Gold niche and competitive research from prior phases."
+---
+
+# Startup Positioning
+
+Market positioning strategy that produces a complete positioning document, Moore + Neumeier positioning statements, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Built on April Dunford's framework, enriched with JTBD discovery and stress-tested with Neumeier's Onliness Test.
+
+## How It Works
+
+```
+INTAKE -> RESEARCH (2 parallel waves) -> POSITIONING SYNTHESIS
+```
+
+The process: understand the product and its customers, research competitive alternatives and market context, then build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components. Typical runtime: 10-15 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 20-30 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential).
+
+### Language
+
+Default output language is **English**. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Intake
+
+Short and focused -- 1-2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to research alternatives and build positioning.
+
+### Check for Prior StartupKit Session
+
+Before asking questions, ask the user for their session name, then check for prior phase data:
+
+**From Phase 2 (Niche):**
+- `workspace/sessions/{name}/02-niches.md` -- Gold niche (Person, Problem, Promise)
+
+**From Phase 3 (Competitors):**
+- `workspace/sessions/{name}/03-competitors.md` -- Competitive research summary
+- `workspace/sessions/{name}/03-competitors/competitors-report.md` -- Full strategic analysis
+- `workspace/sessions/{name}/03-competitors/battle-cards/` -- Per-competitor battle cards
+- `workspace/sessions/{name}/03-competitors/pricing-landscape.md` -- Pricing analysis
+
+If `02-niches.md` exists, extract the Gold Niche (Person, Problem, Promise) and any scoring data.
+
+If `03-competitors.md` exists, extract:
+- Key competitors and their strengths/weaknesses
+- Pricing landscape (market price range, value metrics, whitespace)
+- Strategic opportunities and risks
+
+If battle cards exist, read them to seed the competitive alternatives map.
+
+Tell the user: "I found your Gold niche and competitive research from prior phases. I'll use this as the starting point for positioning: [Person] who [Problem], with [X] competitors mapped."
+
+If `03-competitors.md` does not exist, tell the user: "For the strongest positioning, consider running `/sk-competitors` first. But we can proceed with what we have."
+
+If no prior data exists at all, fall back to the intake questions below.
+
+### What to Ask (if no prior data exists)
+
+**Round 1 -- Core context:**
+- What's your product? (one sentence is fine)
+- What problem does it solve and for whom?
+- What do your customers do today instead of using you? (alternatives, workarounds, doing nothing)
+- Who are your best existing customers? (if any -- describe them, not demographics)
+
+**Round 2 -- Sharpening (only if needed):**
+- How is your product different from the alternatives you mentioned?
+- Have you tried positioning before? What didn't work?
+- Are there competitors you're often compared to?
+
+Don't over-interview. If the user gives a clear description upfront, move to research. The positioning process itself will surface what matters.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment
+
+After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user.
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/research-scaling.md` for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template.
+
+### Process
+
+1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3)
+2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9)
+3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see `research-scaling.md` for the exact template)
+4. Wait for user response: **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation
+5. Record the selected tier
+
+The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See `research-scaling.md` for exact wave configurations per tier.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Research
+
+Two parallel research waves exploring competitive alternatives and market context. Together they provide the raw material for Dunford's 5+1 positioning components.
+
+### Environment Detection
+
+Check if the `Agent` tool is available:
+
+- **Agent tool available (Claude Code):** Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster.
+- **Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web):** Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower.
+
+### Web Search
+
+This skill requires WebSearch for real data. If WebSearch is unavailable or denied, fall back to **Knowledge-Based Mode**: use training data, mark all findings with **[Knowledge-Based -- verify independently]**, and reduce confidence ratings by one level.
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/research-principles.md` before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps.
+
+### Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer Context
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md` for agent templates.
+
+Two agents (or two sequential blocks):
+
+**A1: Alternative Mapping (JTBD Lens)** -- Map ALL competitive alternatives, not just direct competitors. Include: direct competitors, adjacent tools competing for the same budget, manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing / status quo. For each: what job does the customer hire it for, where does it fall short, what triggers switching? The goal is the full set of things your product replaces.
+
+**A2: Customer Intelligence** -- Mine voice-of-customer data: reviews, forums, communities. Extract: pain points with current alternatives, exact language customers use, what "better" means to them, best-fit customer profile (who gets the most value fastest), switching triggers (what makes someone finally change). Build a **language map** -- the words customers use to describe their problem and desired outcome.
+
+### Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md` for agent templates.
+
+Two agents (or two sequential blocks):
+
+**B1: Market Category Analysis** -- Identify 3-5 candidate market categories. For each: what do buyers expect from this category, who are the leaders, what's the competitive dynamic, how mature is it? Apply Dunford's category types: head-to-head (existing category), big fish/small pond (subcategory), or category creation. Assess which frame makes your unique strengths matter most.
+
+**B2: Trend & Timing Analysis** -- Identify relevant trends: technology shifts, behavioral changes, regulatory moves. For each: is it real or hype, how does it affect buyer expectations, does it make your positioning stronger or weaker? Assess timing -- are you early, on-time, or late to the trend? Only include trends that genuinely change how buyers evaluate solutions.
+
+---
+
+### Post-Research Checkpoint
+
+After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the competitive alternative landscape (how many direct, adjacent, status quo), the strongest customer pains, and the most promising category candidates. Ask: "Does this align with your expectations? Anything to adjust before I synthesize the positioning?"
+
+Keep it to one message -- this is a quick alignment check, not a full report.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Positioning Synthesis
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/research-synthesis.md` for synthesis protocol and Dunford process details.
+
+After the checkpoint, build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components **in order**. The sequence matters -- each step builds on the previous.
+
+### The 5+1 Components
+
+1. **Competitive Alternatives** -- From Wave 1. What would customers use if your product didn't exist? This is the anchor -- positioning is always relative.
+
+2. **Unique Attributes** -- What do you have that the alternatives lack? Be specific and honest. Features, architecture, team expertise, business model, speed -- anything defensible.
+
+   **PAUSE -- User Input Required.** Present the research-derived attributes to the user. Ask them to confirm, add, or remove before proceeding to Value Themes. The founder knows capabilities that research can't surface.
+
+3. **Value Themes** -- Translate each unique attribute into a customer outcome. Attribute -> "so what?" -> value. Group related attributes into 2-3 value themes. Use customer language from Wave 1's language map.
+
+4. **Best-Fit Customers** -- From Wave 1 customer intelligence. Who cares most about your value themes? Define by characteristics that make them care, not demographics. These customers should be reachable, recognizable, and willing to pay.
+
+5. **Market Category** -- From Wave 2. Choose the category frame that makes your value obvious. Present 3-5 options with trade-offs. Recommend one. The right category triggers the right buyer expectations.
+
+6. **Trend Overlay (optional)** -- From Wave 2. Only include if a genuine trend makes your positioning stronger. Forced trend alignment is worse than none.
+
+### Validation
+
+Two stress tests before finalizing:
+
+**Neumeier Onliness Test:**
+
+Basic form:
+> "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator]."
+
+Extended form (6 elements -- WHAT/HOW/WHO/WHERE/WHY/WHEN):
+> "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator] for [target] who [need] in [context]."
+
+If you can't fill the basic form convincingly -- if "only" feels like a stretch -- the positioning is too weak. Iterate.
+
+**Ries/Trout Mental Ladder:**
+- Is it simple enough to remember?
+- Does it claim one clear rung?
+- Is that rung available (not owned by a competitor)?
+- Can you explain it in one sentence?
+
+If either test fails, revisit the 5+1 components. Don't ship weak positioning.
+
+### Output Files
+
+Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: `# {Title}: {product}` followed by `*Skill: sk-positioning | Generated: {date}*`. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections (see templates in `references/research-synthesis.md`).
+
+**`workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/positioning-doc.md`** -- The main deliverable:
+- Executive summary (positioning in 3 sentences)
+- The 5+1 components with supporting evidence
+- Strength assessment per component (Strong / Moderate / Needs Work)
+- Strategic recommendations and next steps
+- Data gaps & limitations
+
+**`workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/positioning-statement.md`** -- Statements and messaging:
+- Moore template: "For [target] who [need], [product] is a [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [alternative], we [differentiator]."
+- Neumeier Onliness Statement (basic + extended)
+- Elevator pitch (30-second version)
+- Tagline candidates with stress-tested "Possible Misread" column
+- One-liner variants for different channels (GitHub, marketplace, social, elevator)
+- Freemium positioning (if applicable)
+
+**`workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/competitive-alternatives.md`** -- Complete alternatives map:
+- All alternatives (direct, adjacent, manual, status quo)
+- Per alternative: job hired for, strengths, shortcomings, switching triggers
+- Your unique attributes vs. each alternative
+
+**`workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/market-category-analysis.md`** -- Category strategy:
+- 3-5 candidate categories with buyer expectations
+- Category type assessment (head-to-head / subcategory / creation)
+- Recommendation with reasoning
+- Implementation (category label, tagline direction, buyer expectation alignment)
+- Red flags and yellow flags
+
+**`workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/messaging-implications.md`** -- Bridge from positioning to copy:
+- Messaging hierarchy (what to communicate first, second, third)
+- Category label (exact phrase to use everywhere)
+- Value anchor (what to compare value to, separate from category)
+- Customer language vs. category language map (which words are customer verbs, which are category nouns)
+- Words to use / avoid
+- Social proof guidelines
+- Freemium positioning (if applicable)
+
+### Raw Data
+
+Each agent saves its raw output to `workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/raw/`. The synthesis phase reads these raw files and produces the polished deliverables above. Agents must NOT write directly to deliverable paths -- raw and synthesized output are separate.
+
+Raw research files:
+- `alternative-mapping.md`
+- `customer-intelligence.md`
+- `market-categories.md`
+- `trends-timing.md`
+
+### Summary File
+
+After completing synthesis, generate a summary file at `workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning.md` containing:
+
+- **Positioning (3-Sentence Summary)**: Concise positioning overview
+- **Positioning Statement (Moore)**: For [target] who [need], [product] is a [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [alternative], we [differentiator].
+- **Onliness Statement (Neumeier)**: Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator].
+- **Market Category**: Category name + type (Head-to-head / Subcategory / Category creation)
+- **Value Themes**: 2-3 numbered value themes
+- **Best-Fit Customer**: Characteristics-based description
+- **Elevator Pitch (30 seconds)**: Ready-to-use pitch
+- **Full Deliverables**: Links to files in `04-positioning/` subdirectory
+
+This summary file is what downstream phases (offer, leads, pitch) will read. Keep it concise.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3.5: Research Verification
+
+After all positioning deliverables are written, run a verification pass.
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/verification-agent.md` for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks.
+
+### Process
+
+1. Spawn agent **V1: Verification** -- it reads all deliverable files and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration
+2. V1 also runs startup-positioning-specific checks: positioning statement vs. research data, JTBD vs. customer intelligence, cross-deliverable coherence, validation test integrity
+3. V1 produces `workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/verification-report.md`
+4. **If Critical issues found:** Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is?
+5. **If only Warnings/Info:** Show one-line summary
+
+In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol.
+
+---
+
+## Honesty Protocol
+
+> **Reference:** Read `references/honesty-protocol.md` for full protocol and anti-pattern details.
+
+Positioning is only useful if it's honest. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus positioning-specific additions:
+
+1. **No aspirational positioning.** Position on what you ARE, not what you hope to become. Aspirational positioning crumbles at first customer contact.
+2. **Challenge "we're unique."** The Onliness Test must be genuinely convincing. If it reads like marketing fluff, iterate.
+3. **Research wins over narrative.** When customer data contradicts internal beliefs about positioning, the data wins.
+4. **Flag category creation risk.** Most startups can't afford to educate a market. Default to existing categories unless the evidence is overwhelming.
+
+| 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?" |
+| Feature-based positioning | Leading with features not outcomes | "Customers don't buy features. What outcome do they get?" |
+| Aspirational positioning | "We'll be the AI-powered..." | "Position on what you deliver today, not the roadmap." |
+| Category-of-one | Inventing a category to avoid comparison | "New categories cost millions. Is there an existing frame?" |
+| Copycat positioning | Same message as the market leader | "Find genuinely different ground -- you can't out-position the leader." |
+
+See `references/honesty-protocol.md` for the full anti-pattern table (7 entries) and detailed protocol.
+
+---
+
+## Reference Files
+
+Read only what you need for the current phase.
+
+| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose |
+|------|-------------|--------|---------|
+| `honesty-protocol.md` | Start of session | ~73 | Full honesty protocol with anti-patterns |
+| `research-principles.md` | Before starting Phase 2 | ~65 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps |
+| `research-wave-1-alternatives.md` | When running Wave 1 | ~235 | Agent templates for alternatives + customer intel |
+| `research-wave-2-market-frame.md` | When running Wave 2 | ~210 | Agent templates for categories + trends |
+| `research-synthesis.md` | After both waves complete | ~380 | Synthesis protocol, Dunford process, validation tests, messaging implications |
+| `frameworks.md` | During Phase 3 | ~133 | Dunford/Moore/Neumeier/JTBD/Ries reference |
+| `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 2 | ~75 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations |
+| `verification-agent.md` | After synthesis | ~80 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks |
+
+---
+
+## Save & Next
+
+1. Save the main summary to `workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning.md`.
+2. Save full deliverables to `workspace/sessions/{name}/04-positioning/` directory.
+3. Update `workspace/sessions/{name}/00-session.md`:
+   - Change Phase 4 Positioning status from `[ ] Not Started` to `[x] Complete`
+   - Set Active Phase to "Phase 5: Offer"
+   - Set Next Recommended to "Phase 5: Offer"
+   - Fill in the "Positioning" section:
+     - **Positioning Statement:** [Moore template one-liner]
+     - **Market Category:** [category name]
+4. Tell the user: "Positioning complete! Your position: [Moore statement]. When you're ready, run `/sk-offer` to build your Grand Slam Offer informed by this positioning."