ultra-builder-pro-cli 0.9.0 → 0.11.0

package/skills/ultra-research/steps/step-02-market-assessment.md

@@ -1,195 +0,0 @@
-# Step 02: Market Assessment
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES
-
-- WEB SEARCH REQUIRED — no market sizing without real data
-- USE DUAL APPROACH — both top-down and bottom-up estimates required
-- CROSS-VALIDATE — if top-down and bottom-up differ by >3x, investigate why
-- CITE EVERY NUMBER — no unsupported market figures
-- WRITE output to spec file BEFORE presenting to user
-- ALL output in English (spec files); conversation in Chinese
-
-## PREREQUISITES
-
-- Step 01 (Opportunity Discovery) completed with [C]
-- `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §0-1 exist
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES
-
-- Focus: How big is this market? Is it worth pursuing?
-- Use the prioritized opportunities from step-01 to scope the market
-- This is about MARKET SIZE, not competitive positioning (that's step-03)
-
-## SEARCH STRATEGY (MANDATORY)
-
-Execute these web searches in parallel:
-
-```
-Search: "{{product_domain}} market size TAM 2024 2025 2026"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} market growth rate CAGR forecast"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} industry revenue report"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} market segmentation analysis"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} pricing model average revenue per user"
-```
-
-**Source priority**: Industry reports (Gartner, Statista, IBISWorld, Grand View Research) > Company filings > News articles > Blog posts
-
-## EXECUTION SEQUENCE
-
-### 1. Top-Down Estimate (TAM → SAM → SOM)
-
-Start with the broadest market definition and narrow down:
-
-**TAM (Total Addressable Market)**:
-- What is the total global market for this category?
-- Search for industry reports with specific dollar figures
-- Include year and source for every number
-
-**SAM (Serviceable Available Market)**:
-- What slice of TAM can we actually serve?
-- Filter by: geography, customer segment, technology fit, regulatory access
-- Show the filtering logic explicitly
-
-**SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market)**:
-- What can we realistically capture in 1-3 years?
-- Consider: team size, distribution, brand, competition
-- Be honest — first-year SOM for a startup is tiny
-
-### 2. Bottom-Up Estimate
-
-Calculate independently from unit economics:
-
-```
-SOM = Target customers × Conversion rate × Average revenue per customer × Retention
-```
-
-For each variable:
-- **Target customers**: How many potential users in your target segment? (Source required)
-- **Conversion rate**: What % will actually adopt? (Industry benchmark required)
-- **ARPU**: What will they pay? (Comparable pricing data required)
-- **Retention**: Annual retention rate? (Industry benchmark required)
-
-### 3. Cross-Validation
-
-Compare top-down SOM vs bottom-up SOM:
-- If within 2x: Good — use the average
-- If 2-3x apart: Acceptable — note the range and explain the gap
-- If >3x apart: Investigate — one of your assumptions is wrong
-
-### 4. Growth Driver Analysis
-
-Identify 3-5 factors that will grow or shrink this market:
-
-For each driver:
-- **Direction**: Expanding or contracting?
-- **Magnitude**: How much impact?
-- **Timeline**: When does this take effect?
-- **Evidence**: Source URL
-
-### 5. Write Output
-
-**WRITE IMMEDIATELY** to `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §2:
-
-```markdown
-## §2 Market Assessment
-
-### Market Sizing Summary
-
-| Metric | Current Estimate | 2-3 Year Projection | Source |
-|--------|-----------------|---------------------|--------|
-| TAM | $[X]B | $[X]B | [URL] |
-| SAM | $[X]M | $[X]M | [URL] |
-| SOM | $[X]M | $[X]M | Calculated |
-
-### Top-Down Analysis
-
-#### TAM: $[X]B ([Year])
-- **Definition**: [What market category]
-- **Source**: [Report name + URL]
-- **Growth**: [X]% CAGR ([Year]-[Year])
-
-#### SAM: $[X]M
-- **TAM filter 1**: [Geographic] — reduces to $[X]B
-- **TAM filter 2**: [Segment] — reduces to $[X]M
-- **TAM filter 3**: [Technology fit] — reduces to $[X]M
-
-#### SOM: $[X]M (Year 1-3)
-- **Realistic capture**: [X]% of SAM
-- **Basis**: [Why this share is achievable]
-- **Comparable**: [Similar company achieved X% in Y time]
-
-### Bottom-Up Analysis
-
-| Variable | Value | Source |
-|----------|-------|--------|
-| Target customers | [N] | [URL or calculation] |
-| Conversion rate | [X]% | [Industry benchmark + URL] |
-| ARPU (annual) | $[X] | [Comparable pricing + URL] |
-| Retention rate | [X]% | [Industry benchmark + URL] |
-| **Year 1 Revenue** | **$[X]** | **Calculated** |
-| **Year 3 Revenue** | **$[X]** | **Calculated** |
-
-### Cross-Validation
-- **Top-down SOM**: $[X]M
-- **Bottom-up Year 3**: $[X]M
-- **Ratio**: [X]x
-- **Assessment**: [Within range / Gap explanation]
-
-### Growth Drivers
-
-| # | Driver | Direction | Impact | Timeline | Source |
-|---|--------|-----------|--------|----------|--------|
-| 1 | [Technology trend] | Expanding | High | 1-2yr | [URL] |
-| 2 | [Regulatory change] | Expanding | Medium | 2-3yr | [URL] |
-| 3 | [Demographic shift] | Expanding | Medium | 3-5yr | [URL] |
-| 4 | [Competitive pressure] | Contracting | Low | Now | [URL] |
-
-### Market Assessment Confidence
-- **Overall confidence**: [X]%
-- **Strongest data point**: [What we're most sure about]
-- **Weakest assumption**: [What could be most wrong]
-- **Recommendation**: [Market worth pursuing / Needs more validation / Too small]
-```
-
-### 6. Present to User and Gate
-
-Show the Market Assessment summary. Highlight:
-- Whether top-down and bottom-up estimates align
-- The single biggest growth driver
-- Any concerns about market size or timing
-
-```
-[C] Continue — Market assessed, proceed to Competitive Landscape
-[R] Revise — Adjust assumptions or investigate discrepancies
-[S] Search more — Need additional data on specific aspect
-```
-
-**HALT — wait for user response before proceeding.**
-
-### 7. Handle Response
-
-- **[C]**: Load next step: `./step-03-competitive-landscape.md`
-- **[R]**: Revise assumptions, update discovery.md §2, re-present
-- **[S]**: Execute targeted searches, update analysis, re-present
-
-## SUCCESS METRICS
-
-- Both top-down AND bottom-up estimates completed
-- Every dollar figure has a source citation
-- Cross-validation performed with gap analysis
-- At least 3 growth drivers identified with evidence
-- Confidence assessment is honest
-- Output written to discovery.md §2
-
-## FAILURE MODES
-
-- Using only top-down OR only bottom-up (need both)
-- Market figures without source citations
-- Inflating SOM to make the opportunity look bigger
-- Ignoring >3x gap between top-down and bottom-up
-- Using stale data (>2 years old) without noting limitations
-- Not writing output before presenting to user
-
-## NEXT STEP
-
-After user selects [C], read and follow: `./step-03-competitive-landscape.md`

package/skills/ultra-research/steps/step-03-competitive-landscape.md

@@ -1,197 +0,0 @@
-# Step 03: Competitive Landscape
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES
-
-- WEB SEARCH REQUIRED — identify real competitors, not imagined ones
-- INCLUDE "DO NOTHING" — the biggest competitor is often the status quo
-- ANALYZE 2-5 DIRECT competitors + 1-2 indirect alternatives
-- BE HONEST about where competitors are stronger
-- WRITE output to spec file BEFORE presenting to user
-- ALL output in English (spec files); conversation in Chinese
-
-## PREREQUISITES
-
-- Step 02 (Market Assessment) completed with [C]
-- `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §0-2 exist
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES
-
-- Focus: Who else is solving this problem? How do we differentiate?
-- Use the prioritized opportunities from step-01 to frame competitive analysis
-- Analyze CURRENT competitors, not hypothetical future ones
-- Include indirect competitors and the "do nothing" alternative
-
-## SEARCH STRATEGY (MANDATORY)
-
-Execute these web searches in parallel:
-
-```
-Search: "{{product_domain}} competitors comparison review"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} alternatives tools software"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} market leaders market share"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} startup funding competitors"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} vs [known competitor if any]"
-```
-
-For each identified competitor, execute:
-```
-Search: "[competitor name] pricing features review"
-Search: "[competitor name] weaknesses complaints"
-```
-
-## EXECUTION SEQUENCE
-
-### 1. Identify Competitive Players
-
-Categorize all competitors found:
-
-**Direct Competitors**: Products solving the same problem for the same segment
-- Search for 2-5 direct competitors
-- Include their funding, team size, and traction if available
-
-**Indirect Competitors / Alternatives**: What customers use today instead
-- Spreadsheets, manual processes, general-purpose tools
-- Adjacent products that partially solve the problem
-
-**"Do Nothing" Alternative**: What happens if the customer ignores the problem?
-- What does inaction cost? (Reference step-00 status quo analysis)
-- Why do some users choose to live with the pain?
-
-### 2. Deep-Dive Each Competitor
-
-For each direct competitor (2-5), research:
-
-| Dimension | What to find |
-|-----------|-------------|
-| Core value prop | What do they promise? |
-| Target segment | Who do they serve? |
-| Pricing model | How do they charge? |
-| Key strengths | What are they genuinely good at? |
-| Key weaknesses | Where do users complain? (check reviews, forums) |
-| Traction signals | Users, revenue, funding, growth |
-| Defensibility | What makes them hard to beat? |
-
-### 3. Porter's Five Forces (Brief)
-
-Assess competitive intensity:
-
-| Force | Rating (1-5) | Assessment |
-|-------|-------------|-----------|
-| Supplier power | | [Who controls key inputs?] |
-| Buyer power | | [Can customers easily switch?] |
-| New entrant threat | | [How easy to enter this market?] |
-| Substitute threat | | [What alternatives exist?] |
-| Rivalry intensity | | [How fierce is current competition?] |
-
-### 4. Identify Our Competitive Edge
-
-Based on the analysis, answer:
-- Where can we win? (specific dimensions where we have an advantage)
-- Where can we NOT win? (be honest — avoid head-to-head on competitor strengths)
-- What is the gap that no one is filling?
-
-### 5. Write Output
-
-**WRITE IMMEDIATELY** to `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §3:
-
-```markdown
-## §3 Competitive Landscape
-
-### Competitive Overview
-
-| Dimension | Us | [Competitor A] | [Competitor B] | [Competitor C] | Do Nothing |
-|-----------|-----|---------------|---------------|---------------|------------|
-| Core value prop | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [status quo] |
-| Target segment | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [everyone] |
-| Pricing | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | Free |
-| Key strength | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | Familiar |
-| Key weakness | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | Inefficient |
-| Traction | [ours] | [theirs] | [theirs] | [theirs] | N/A |
-
-### Direct Competitors
-
-#### [Competitor A]
-- **What they do**: [Description]
-- **Strengths**: [What they're genuinely good at]
-- **Weaknesses**: [Where users complain] — Source: [URL]
-- **Pricing**: [Model and price points] — Source: [URL]
-- **Traction**: [Users/revenue/funding] — Source: [URL]
-- **Threat level**: [High / Medium / Low] — [Why]
-
-#### [Competitor B]
-[Same structure]
-
-#### [Competitor C]
-[Same structure]
-
-### Indirect Competitors & Alternatives
-- **[Tool/Process A]**: [How it partially solves the problem]
-- **[Tool/Process B]**: [How it partially solves the problem]
-- **Do Nothing**: [Cost of inaction from step-00]
-
-### Porter's Five Forces Summary
-
-| Force | Rating | Assessment |
-|-------|--------|-----------|
-| Supplier power | [1-5] | [Brief assessment] |
-| Buyer power | [1-5] | [Brief assessment] |
-| New entrant threat | [1-5] | [Brief assessment] |
-| Substitute threat | [1-5] | [Brief assessment] |
-| Rivalry intensity | [1-5] | [Brief assessment] |
-| **Overall competitive intensity** | **[1-5]** | **[Summary]** |
-
-### Our Competitive Edge
-- **Where we can win**: [Specific dimensions with reasoning]
-- **Where we cannot win**: [Honest assessment of competitor strengths]
-- **Unfilled gap**: [What no one is doing that we can do]
-- **Timing advantage**: [Why now is the right time]
-
-### Competitive Confidence
-- **Overall confidence**: [X]%
-- **Best-researched competitor**: [Name] — [depth of analysis]
-- **Blind spot**: [What we might be missing]
-```
-
-### 6. Present to User and Gate
-
-Show the Competitive Landscape summary. Highlight:
-- The most dangerous competitor and why
-- The clearest gap in the market
-- Any surprising findings (e.g., a competitor we didn't expect)
-
-```
-[C] Continue — Competitive landscape mapped, proceed to Product Strategy
-[R] Revise — Adjust competitor analysis or add missing competitors
-[S] Search more — Deep-dive a specific competitor
-```
-
-**HALT — wait for user response before proceeding.**
-
-### 7. Handle Response
-
-- **[C]**: Load next step: `./step-04-product-strategy.md`
-- **[R]**: Revise analysis, update discovery.md §3, re-present
-- **[S]**: Execute targeted searches on specific competitor, update, re-present
-
-## SUCCESS METRICS
-
-- 2-5 direct competitors identified with evidence
-- "Do nothing" alternative analyzed
-- Comparison matrix completed for all competitors
-- Porter's Five Forces assessed
-- Honest assessment of where we can/cannot win
-- All claims have source citations
-- Output written to discovery.md §3
-
-## FAILURE MODES
-
-- "No competitors exist" (there are ALWAYS competitors, even if indirect)
-- Only analyzing competitor strengths, ignoring weaknesses
-- Only analyzing competitor weaknesses, ignoring strengths (cheerleading)
-- Missing the "do nothing" alternative
-- No source citations for competitor data
-- Not writing output before presenting to user
-
-## NEXT STEP
-
-After user selects [C], read and follow: `./step-04-product-strategy.md`

package/skills/ultra-research/steps/step-04-product-strategy.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# Step 04: Product Strategy
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES
-
-- STRATEGY IS ABOUT TRADE-OFFS — what we choose NOT to do matters more
-- REFERENCE previous steps — strategy must be grounded in validated problem + market + competition
-- WEB SEARCH for comparable strategies in the domain
-- WRITE output to spec file BEFORE presenting to user
-- ALL output in English (spec files); conversation in Chinese
-
-## PREREQUISITES
-
-- Steps 00-03 completed with [C]
-- `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §0-3 exist
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES
-
-- Focus: Define strategic direction — vision, segments, value prop, trade-offs, defensibility
-- This is a CONDENSED strategy canvas, not a full business plan
-- Must be grounded in evidence from previous steps
-- Strategy should be opinionated — "we serve everyone" is not a strategy
-
-## SEARCH STRATEGY (MANDATORY)
-
-Execute these web searches:
-
-```
-Search: "{{product_domain}} product strategy examples successful"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} go-to-market strategy startup"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} defensibility moat competitive advantage"
-Search: "{{product_domain}} pricing strategy models"
-```
-
-## EXECUTION SEQUENCE
-
-### 1. Vision Statement
-
-Collaborate with user to craft a 2-3 sentence vision that:
-- Inspires people (emotional, memorable)
-- Is specific enough to guide decisions
-- Is ambitious enough to attract talent and investment
-
-**Test**: Would someone quit their job to work on this? If not, it's too boring.
-
-Ask user via AskUserQuestion: "In 2-3 sentences, how can we inspire people? What are we aspiring to achieve?"
-
-### 2. Target Segments
-
-Define WHO we serve and WHO we explicitly do NOT serve.
-
-Using personas from step-00 (Q3: Desperate Specificity):
-
-**Serve** (defined by problems/JTBD, not demographics):
-- Segment 1: [Description] — [Why they need us most]
-- Segment 2: [Description] — [Why they need us]
-
-**Do NOT serve** (equally important):
-- Anti-segment 1: [Description] — [Why not]
-- Anti-segment 2: [Description] — [Why not]
-
-### 3. Value Proposition
-
-For each target segment, use the JTBD format:
-
-```
-When [situation], they want [motivation], so they can [outcome]
-```
-
-This must connect directly to the top opportunities from step-01.
-
-### 4. Strategic Trade-offs
-
-**This is the most important section.** A strategy without trade-offs is a wish list.
-
-Identify 3-5 strategic trade-offs:
-
-| We Choose | Over | Because |
-|-----------|------|---------|
-| [Focus A] | [Alternative A] | [Reasoning grounded in evidence] |
-| [Focus B] | [Alternative B] | [Reasoning grounded in evidence] |
-| [Focus C] | [Alternative C] | [Reasoning grounded in evidence] |
-
-Each trade-off should reference competitive analysis from step-03 — we avoid competing head-to-head on competitor strengths.
-
-### 5. Defensibility Analysis
-
-What makes this hard to copy? Evaluate each:
-
-| Moat Type | Applicability | Strength | Timeline to Build |
-|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
-| Network effects | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-| Data advantage | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-| Switching costs | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-| Brand / trust | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-| Technical IP | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-| Speed / execution | [Yes/No] | [Assessment] | [Time] |
-
-Be honest — most startups have weak defensibility early. That's okay if the execution advantage is strong.
-
-### 6. Write Output
-
-**WRITE IMMEDIATELY** to `.ultra/specs/discovery.md` §4:
-
-```markdown
-## §4 Product Strategy
-
-### Vision
-[2-3 sentences — inspiring, specific, ambitious]
-
-### Target Segments
-
-#### Primary: [Segment Name]
-- **Description**: [Who they are, defined by problem/JTBD]
-- **Why them**: [Why they need us most urgently]
-- **Value Proposition**: When [situation], they want [motivation], so they can [outcome]
-
-#### Secondary: [Segment Name]
-- **Description**: [Who they are]
-- **Why them**: [Why they need us]
-- **Value Proposition**: When [situation], they want [motivation], so they can [outcome]
-
-#### Explicitly NOT Serving
-- **[Anti-segment 1]**: [Why not — e.g., "Too enterprise for our current capabilities"]
-- **[Anti-segment 2]**: [Why not — e.g., "Their problem is different enough to require a different product"]
-
-### Strategic Trade-offs
-
-| # | We Choose | Over | Because |
-|---|-----------|------|---------|
-| 1 | [Focus] | [Alternative] | [Evidence-based reasoning] |
-| 2 | [Focus] | [Alternative] | [Evidence-based reasoning] |
-| 3 | [Focus] | [Alternative] | [Evidence-based reasoning] |
-| 4 | [Focus] | [Alternative] | [Evidence-based reasoning] |
-
-### Defensibility
-
-| Moat Type | Applicable | Strength (1-5) | Timeline |
-|-----------|-----------|----------------|----------|
-| Network effects | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-| Data advantage | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-| Switching costs | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-| Brand / trust | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-| Technical IP | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-| Speed / execution | [Yes/No] | [X] | [Time] |
-
-**Primary moat**: [Which moat type is strongest and why]
-**Moat timeline**: [When defensibility becomes meaningful]
-
-### Strategy Confidence
-- **Overall confidence**: [X]%
-- **Strongest element**: [What part of strategy is most grounded]
-- **Riskiest bet**: [What strategic choice is most uncertain]
-```
-
-### 7. Present to User and Gate
-
-Show the Product Strategy summary. Highlight:
-- Whether the trade-offs feel right
-- The defensibility assessment
-- Any concerns about the strategic direction
-
-```
-[C] Continue — Strategy defined, proceed to Assumptions Validation
-[R] Revise — Adjust strategy elements
-[D] Discuss — Explore specific trade-offs in more depth
-```
-
-**HALT — wait for user response before proceeding.**
-
-### 8. Handle Response
-
-- **[C]**: Load next step: `./step-05-assumptions-validation.md`
-- **[R]**: Revise strategy, update discovery.md §4, re-present
-- **[D]**: Deep-dive specific trade-offs, then re-present gate
-
-## SUCCESS METRICS
-
-- Vision is inspiring and specific (not generic)
-- Target segments defined by problems, not demographics
-- Anti-segments explicitly stated
-- At least 3 strategic trade-offs with evidence-based reasoning
-- Defensibility honestly assessed
-- Output written to discovery.md §4
-
-## FAILURE MODES
-
-- Generic vision ("We make the world better with AI")
-- "We serve everyone" (no segment focus)
-- No trade-offs stated (strategy without trade-offs is not strategy)
-- Defensibility assessment is all 5/5 (unrealistic)
-- Strategy not grounded in evidence from steps 00-03
-- Not writing output before presenting to user
-
-## NEXT STEP
-
-After user selects [C], read and follow: `./step-05-assumptions-validation.md`