positioning-statement
Skill12 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create a Geoffrey Moore-style positioning statement. Use when clarifying who you serve, what problem you solve, your category, and why you're different from alternatives.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 58
Exposes assumptions: If you can't fill in "unlike X," you may not have defensible differentiation
- Distinctive: line 64
Not a feature list: Don't say "that provides AI, automation, and integrations"
- Distinctive: line 72
Before writing PRDs, launch plans, or sales collateral
- Distinctive: line 76
When you're still in problem validation (position after you know the problem)
- Very specific: line 83
Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.
- Distinctive: line 95
Before drafting, ensure you have:
- Distinctive: line 101
If missing context: Use discovery interviews, market research, or customer interviews to fill gaps.
- Distinctive: line 149
Would a customer recognize themselves?: Read the "For [target]" aloud.
- Distinctive: line 153
Does this guide decisions?: If someone asked "Should we build feature X?" would this positioning help answer it?
- Distinctive: line 155
If any answer is "no" or "sort of," revise.
- Distinctive: line 162
Test with customers: Read it aloud. Do they nod or look confused?
- Very specific: line 169
When in guided mode, use the workshop-facilitation A/B/C/D/Other pattern.
- Very specific: line 180
After all rounds, compile using template.md and present for review.
- Distinctive: line 205
Consequence: No one feels like it's *for them*.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Purpose
Create a Geoffrey Moore-style positioning statement that clearly articulates who your product serves, what need it addresses, how it's categorized, what benefit it delivers, and how it differs from alternatives. Use this when you need to align stakeholders on product strategy, guide messaging, or test if your value proposition is crisp and defensible.
This is not a tagline or elevator pitch—it's a strategic clarity tool that forces you to make hard choices about target, need, and differentiation.
Input
Works best with: The product and its target customer. Also useful: The unmet need, product category, primary benefit, and nearest alternative — the skill drafts from what you give and asks only for what's missing.
Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill asks for product and target customer first, then works through the Moore template slots.
Example invocation: Positioning statement for LaunchDarkly-style feature flags aimed at platform engineering leads at 200+ eng orgs.
Key Concepts
The Geoffrey Moore Framework
From Crossing the Chasm, Moore's framework splits positioning into two parts:
Value Proposition:
- For [target customer]
- that need [underserved need]
- [product name]
- is a [product category]
- that [benefit statement]
Differentiation Statement:
- Unlike [primary competitor or competitive alternative]
- [product name]
- provides [unique differentiation]
Why This Structure Works
- Forces specificity: You can't say "for everyone" or "unlike all competitors"
- Exposes assumptions: If you can't fill in "unlike X," you may not have defensible differentiation
- Focuses on outcomes, not features: "That reduces churn by 40%" beats "that has analytics"
- Category anchors perception: Saying "is a CRM" vs. "is a workflow tool" changes how buyers evaluate you
Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- Not a tagline: "Positioning" ≠ "Nike: Just Do It"
- Not a feature list: Don't say "that provides AI, automation, and integrations"
- Not generic: "For businesses that need efficiency" = positioning theater
- Not aspirational fluff: "That revolutionizes productivity" without specifics is noise
When to Use This
- Defining a new product or major pivot
- Aligning exec/founder/PM/marketing on strategy
- Testing if your differentiation is real or imagined
- Before writing PRDs, launch plans, or sales collateral
When NOT to Use This
- For internal tools with captive users (positioning is for markets)
- When you're still in problem validation (position after you know the problem)
- As a substitute for customer research (this synthesizes insights, doesn't create them)
Application
Use template.md for the full fill-in structure. Follow the workshop-facilitation protocol for pacing, progress, and the A/B/C/D assumption clarification pattern.
Entry Mode
How do you want to define this positioning?
1) Guided — I'll ask one positioning element at a time [5-6 rounds]
2) Context dump — paste what you know, I'll fill the template
3) Best guess — I'll infer from context, label all assumptions [ASSUMED]Step 1: Gather Context
Before drafting, ensure you have:
- Target customer segment: Demographics, behaviors, role (not just "SMBs" or "developers")
- Underserved need: Pains, gains, jobs-to-be-done (reference
skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.mdif needed) - Product category: How buyers mentally file your solution (CRM, analytics platform, etc.)
- Competitive landscape: Direct competitors AND substitute behaviors (e.g., "Excel" is often the real competitor)
If missing context: Use discovery interviews, market research, or customer interviews to fill gaps. Don't guess.
Step 2: Draft the Value Proposition
Fill in the template:
## Value Proposition
**For** [specific target customer/persona]
- **that need** [statement of underserved need—focus on pains, gains, JTBD]
- [product or service name]
- **is a** [product category]
- **that** [benefit statement—focus on outcomes, not features]Quality checks:
- Target specificity: Could you describe this person to a recruiter? If not, narrow it.
- Need clarity: Does this need resonate emotionally? Or is it generic ("need efficiency")?
- Category fit: Does this category help or hurt you? (Sometimes creating a new category is strategic, but risky.)
- Outcome focus: Are you saying what the user gets, not what the product has?
Step 3: Draft the Differentiation Statement
Fill in the template:
## Differentiation Statement
- **Unlike** [primary competitor or competitive alternative]
- [product or service name]
- **provides** [unique differentiation—outcomes, not features]Quality checks:
- Competitor honesty: Is this the real alternative buyers consider? (Not just who you wish they compared you to.)
- Differentiation substance: Could a competitor copy this in 6 months? If yes, it's not durable differentiation.
- Outcome framing: Are you saying what users achieve differently, not just what you do differently?
Step 4: Stress-Test the Positioning
Ask these questions:
- Would a customer recognize themselves? Read the "For [target]" aloud. Does it feel specific or generic?
- Is the need defensible? Can you point to research, interviews, or data that validates this need?
- Does the category help or hurt? Does it anchor you against the right competitors? Or does it box you in?
- Is differentiation believable? Could you prove this claim with a demo, case study, or data?
- Does this guide decisions? If someone asked "Should we build feature X?" would this positioning help answer it?
If any answer is "no" or "sort of," revise.
Step 5: Socialize and Iterate
- Share with stakeholders: Founders, execs, product, marketing, sales
- Test with customers: Read it aloud. Do they nod or look confused?
- Refine ruthlessly: Positioning is never done on the first draft. Cut words, sharpen specificity, test alternatives.
Interactive Assumption Surfacing (Guided Mode)
When in guided mode, use the workshop-facilitation A/B/C/D/Other pattern. One positioning element per round, 5-6 total:
| # | Element | Example |
| 1 | Target customer | A) Mid-market SaaS CTOs, B) Enterprise procurement, C) SMB founders, D) Individual developers |
| 2 | Underserved need | A) Reduce tool sprawl, B) Speed up deployment, C) Lower costs, D) Improve collaboration |
| 3 | Market category | A) Analytics platform, B) DevOps tool, C) Collaboration suite, D) Security solution |
| 4 | Key benefit | A) 10x faster than alternatives, B) Half the cost, C) Only solution with X, D) Easiest to adopt |
| 5 | Primary alternative | A) Competitor X, B) Manual process, C) In-house build, D) Status quo (doing nothing) |
| 6 | Differentiation | A) Proprietary data, B) Unique integration, C) Superior UX, D) Open source |
After all rounds, compile using template.md and present for review.
Examples
See examples/sample.md for full positioning examples.
Mini example excerpt:
**For** software development teams
- **that need** to reduce email overload and improve real-time collaboration
- Slack
- **is a** team messaging platform
- **that** centralizes communication and makes conversations searchableCommon Pitfalls
Pitfall 1: "For Everyone"
Symptom: "For businesses that want to grow" or "For anyone who uses software"
Consequence: No one feels like it's for them. Positioning becomes invisible.
Fix: Pick the first customer segment you'll serve. You can expand later, but positioning works when it's narrow.
Pitfall 2: Feature Creep in Benefit Statement
Symptom: "That provides AI, automation, analytics, and integrations"
Consequence: Sounds like a feature list, not a benefit. Buyers tune out.
Fix: Lead with the outcome: "That reduces churn by 30% through predictive analytics." The features are how, not why.
Pitfall 3: Imaginary Competitor
Symptom: "Unlike outdated legacy systems" or "Unlike traditional approaches"
Consequence: You're positioning against a straw man. Real buyers don't recognize this alternative.
Fix: Name the actual competitor or substitute behavior. If buyers use Excel, say "Unlike Excel." If they use a competitor, name them.
Pitfall 4: Differentiation Without Proof
Symptom: "Provides revolutionary AI" or "Delivers unmatched speed"
Consequence: Claims without evidence = marketing fluff. Buyers ignore it.
Fix: Make it falsifiable: "Provides 10x faster query performance than Snowflake on datasets under 1TB" (can be tested).
Pitfall 5: Category Confusion
Symptom: "Is a next-generation platform for digital transformation"
Consequence: Buyers don't know how to evaluate you. Category = mental shelf. No shelf = no sale.
Fix: Pick a category buyers already understand (CRM, analytics, messaging) OR commit to category creation (requires $$$ and time).
References
Related Skills
skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md— Defines the problem positioning addressesskills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md— Informs the "that need" statementskills/proto-persona/SKILL.md— Defines the "For [target]" segmentskills/press-release/SKILL.md— Positioning informs press release messaging
External Frameworks
- Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm (1991) — Origin of this framework
- April Dunford, Obviously Awesome (2019) — Modern positioning playbook
- Al Ries & Jack Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind (1981) — Foundational positioning theory
Dean's Work
- [Link to relevant Dean Peters' Substack articles if applicable]
Provenance
- Adapted from
prompts/positioning-statement.mdin thehttps://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-promptsrepo.
Skill type: Component
Suggested filename: positioning-statement.md
Suggested placement: /skills/components/
Dependencies: References skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md, skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md, skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills★ 7.7k97% same
- agrivisionai/claude-skills★ 197% same
- NinjaSln-labs/agent-skills★ 178% same
Wrote their own version · 3
- gokulsvision/Crewm8-Social-Media-Manager-Skill-Graph★ 17same name
- nandanosql/all_in_one_pm_skills★ 1same name
- SkillMedev/gtm-launch★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository58 other files it gives its agents.
- acquisition-channel-advisorSkill
- agent-orchestration-advisorSkill
- ai-shaped-readiness-advisorSkill
- altitude-horizon-frameworkSkill
- business-health-diagnosticSkill
- company-intelSkill
- company-researchSkill
- context-engineering-advisorSkill
- customer-journey-mapping-workshopSkill
- customer-journey-mapSkill
- derisk-measurement-advisorSkill
- director-readiness-advisorSkill
- discovery-interview-prepSkill
- discovery-processSkill
- eol-messageSkill
- epic-breakdown-advisorSkill
- epic-hypothesisSkill
- executive-onboarding-playbookSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- feature-investment-advisorSkill
- finance-based-pricing-advisorSkill
- finance-metrics-quickrefSkill
- growth-plg-advisorSkill
- jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- lean-ux-canvasSkill
- opportunity-solution-treeSkill
- organic-growth-advisorSkill
- pestel-analysisSkill
- pm-skill-creatorSkill
- pol-probe-advisorSkill
- pol-probeSkill
- positioning-workshopSkill
- prd-developmentSkill
- press-releaseSkill
- prioritization-advisorSkill
- problem-framing-canvasSkill
- problem-statementSkill
- product-sense-interview-answerSkill
- product-strategy-sessionSkill
- proto-personaSkill
- recommendation-canvasSkill
- roadmap-planningSkill
- saas-economics-efficiency-metricsSkill
- saas-revenue-growth-metricsSkill
- skill-authoring-workflowSkill
- stakeholder-engagement-advisorSkill
- stakeholder-identificationSkill
- stakeholder-mappingSkill
- storyboardSkill
- strategy-canvasSkill
- tam-sam-som-calculatorSkill
- tpm-artifactsSkill
- user-story-mappingSkill
- user-story-mapping-workshopSkill
- user-storySkill
- user-story-splittingSkill
- vp-cpo-readiness-advisorSkill
- workshop-facilitationSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

