value-chain-analysis
Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Activate when: user asks 'where does our competitive advantage come from', 'why are our margins lower than competitors', 'which activities create value', 'how is the competitor doing it cheaper', 'cost structure analysis', 'make vs. buy decision', 'which activities should we outsource', or is evaluating an acquisition for synergies or designing competitive strategy.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jacarty/claude-toolkittheir own version, first seen May 23, 2026
- CAPP-Financials/Consulting_Braintheir own version, first seen Apr 24, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- CAPP-Financials/Consulting_Brain★ 0same name
- jacarty/claude-toolkit★ 0same 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 repository252 other files it gives its agents.
- 10-10-10Skill
- aarrr-pirate-metricsSkill
- abductive-reasoningSkill
- activation-onboarding-playbookSkill
- aeo-answer-engine-optimizationSkill
- agent-delegability-assessmentSkill
- agent-ops-monitoringSkill
- agent-outreach-lead-nurturingSkill
- agent-ready-product-dataSkill
- ai-content-factory-brand-consistencySkill
- ai-disruption-risk-auditSkill
- ai-output-verification-trust-tiersSkill
- ai-pilot-to-scaleSkill
- ai-risk-compliance-baselineSkill
- ai-roi-business-caseSkill
- anchoringSkill
- ansoff-matrixSkill
- antifragileSkill
- ar-dso-disciplineSkill
- arrow-information-paradoxSkill
- authority-biasSkill
- availability-heuristicSkill
- batna-zopaSkill
- bayesian-reasoningSkill
- bcg-matrixSkill
- black-swanSkill
- blue-ocean-strategySkill
- bootstrapping-vs-raisingSkill
- build-buy-partner-aiSkill
- bullseye-traction-channelsSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- cash-conversion-cycleSkill
- change-and-constantsSkill
- checklistSkill
- chestertons-fenceSkill
- circle-of-competenceSkill
- cognitive-evolution-stagesSkill
- cognitive-load-theorySkill
- cognitive-science-landscapeSkill
- commitment-consistencySkill
- comparative-advantageSkill
- compound-interestSkill
- confirmation-biasSkill
- content-led-growthSkill
- continuous-discoverySkill
- contrarian-questionSkill
- cpa-doc-chaseSkill
- cpa-form-finderSkill
- cpa-irs-representationSkill
- cpa-return-reviewSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- cross-disciplinary-creativitySkill
- curiosity-learning-curveSkill
- customer-relationship-ladderSkill
- customs-adcvd-tariff-exposureSkill
- customs-duty-optimization-opportunity-costSkill
- customs-hts-classification-meceSkill
- customs-origin-usmca-decisionSkill
- customs-reasonable-care-isf-checklistSkill
- cynefinSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 105
No cost allocation estimates · Differentiation claims without customer evidence · No competitor comparison
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Value Chain Analysis
Overview
Porter (1985) separates firm activities into primary (inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing/sales, service) and support (firm infrastructure, HR management, technology development, procurement). Competitive advantage — cost leadership or differentiation — emerges from performing one or more activities better than rivals. Margin is the residual after all activity costs are subtracted from customer willingness to pay.
Linkages between activities are often where the most powerful levers hide. Limit: linear value chain framework does not fit platform/multisided market businesses.
Composes with: porters-five-forces · bcg-matrix · economic-moat.
When to Use
- Margins below industry average without a clear explanation; designing competitive strategy; evaluating M&A synergies; new market entry planning
- Someone says: "value chain," "cost structure analysis," "strategic cost analysis," "make vs. buy," "which activities create value"
- Locating where margin actually pools in a multi-layer tech stack — e.g. "who captures the value in the AI stack," "is our AI capex a pass-through," "where does margin sit: chips, cloud, models, or apps," or facing AI-native competition that competes value away at the app layer
When NOT to use: platform/multisided market (use network effects); portfolio health check (use BCG); industry-level question (use Five Forces); pre-PMF firm.
Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- Engine mode: user has a specific firm → run The Process directly.
- Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.
- One-line: Value chain analysis breaks your business into every activity that creates value, then asks: which is the real source of your competitive edge or cost problem?
- Check fit — stable cost structure? Platform business? Pre-PMF? Flag limits before proceeding.
- Elicit the real case — "Margin problem or identifying what makes you different from competitors?"
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Run The Process — map primaries → supports → allocate cost → compare competitor → linkages → recommend.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Name the payoff — "Value chain analysis revealed [specific activity] is the real source of [problem/advantage]."
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
The Process
Produce a Value Chain Audit — mapped activities with cost allocation, differentiation sources, competitive comparison, and strategic recommendations.
Step 1: Map All Activities. List every primary and support activity using Porter's nine-module structure. Be specific — not "sales" but "enterprise direct sales in North America." Stop rule: if two people assign the same cost item to different activities, break down further.
Step 2: Allocate Cost. Estimate cost % of total for each activity. Identify top 3 cost consumers, below-benchmark (potential advantages), above-benchmark (value leakage). Regress-test: cannot estimate to ±50% → fix data or definition.
Step 3: Identify Differentiation Sources. Does each activity produce output customers pay a premium for? Evidence required: price realization, win rates, or retention. List 2–3 genuine sources with evidence.
Step 4: Compare to Key Competitor. Estimate per-activity relative cost (lower / comparable / higher). Identify structural sources of competitor advantages. Be explicit about estimated vs. observed.
Step 5: Map Linkages. Does investment in A reduce cost in B? Does excellence in A enable price premium in C? Most powerful interventions often optimize a linkage, not a single activity.
Step 6: Formulate Activity-Level Strategy.
| Activity type | Strategic disposition |
| High-value, differentiation source, hard to replicate | Invest, internalize, protect |
| High-cost, commoditized, no differentiation | Outsource, automate, minimize |
| Strategic bottleneck | Fix or acquire |
| High-cost but essential linkage to differentiated activity | Accept cost as investment |
Output: Value Chain Audit
# Value Chain Audit: <company> | Date: <date> | vs. <competitor>
| Activity | Cost % rev | Differentiation source? | vs. Competitor |
|---|---|---|---|
| [each of 9 activities] | <X>% | Yes/No | Lower/Comp/Higher |
Differentiation sources (top 2–3): <activity + evidence>
Value-leaking activities: <activity + cost gap>
Key linkages: <A × B + optimization opportunity>
Strategic recommendations: invest / outsource / fix / immediate priority→ Method in Action: Apple's Value Chain and the iPhone Margin Structure (2007–2023) · Zara's Vertically Integrated Fast Fashion → 2026 lens: The AI Value Chain — Where the Margin Pools Sit (2024–2026)
Activity Packs
SaaS: Operations = engineering/product dev; Outbound Logistics = deployment infra (often overlooked cost driver); differentiation trap: firms claim R&D as source when actual differentiation is customer success (Service).
Manufacturing: Procurement is highest-ROI for cost leadership — supplier contracts, geographic sourcing, commodity hedging. Inbound Logistics × Operations linkage: just-in-time reduces working capital but increases operational risk — optimize at system level, not per-activity.
→ Primary sources: references/sources.md
Common Rationalizations
[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.
| Fake move | Reality |
| [D] Listing activities without cost allocation | A map without cost percentages is an org chart. Every activity needs at least an order-of-magnitude cost estimate. |
| [D] Treating all activities as equally important | 2–3 activities account for 80% of differentiation. Distributing attention evenly across all nine modules wastes focus. |
| [D] Claiming differentiation without customer evidence | "Best-in-class operations" is an assertion. Win/loss data, NPS, or price realization must back the claim. |
| [D] Ignoring linkages and optimizing activities independently | Apple's chip-to-software-to-service linkage is the source of ecosystem lock-in — not any single activity. |
| [D] Applying linear template to a platform business | Uber's advantage is matching algorithm and driver density, not "inbound logistics." Force-fitting produces misleading analysis. |
| [D] Treating "make vs. buy" as purely a cost question | Outsourcing a differentiation source destroys durable advantage. Weigh cost and strategic control together. |
| [D] Confirming an already-held conclusion | If differentiation sources match current marketing claims exactly, the analysis added no information. Start from cost data. |
| → Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern | What went wrong and why |
Red Flags
- No cost allocation estimates · Differentiation claims without customer evidence · No competitor comparison
- Platform business analyzed using linear template without acknowledging limitations
- Recommendations call for investing in everything — no explicit outsource or exit decisions
- Linkages not analyzed · Value chain not refreshed in 2+ years despite competitive changes
Verification
- All nine activity modules mapped with specific sub-activity names (not generic labels)
- Cost allocation estimates made for each activity (order-of-magnitude acceptable)
- Differentiation sources identified with customer evidence (not just internal assertion)
- Competitor comparison completed for at least the top 3 cost-consuming activities
- At least two linkages identified with an optimization opportunity stated
- Each activity assigned a strategic disposition (invest/outsource/fix/accept linked cost)
- Platform-type business limitation noted if applicable
Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 253 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/value-chain-analysis · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/value-chain-analysis.json
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
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.

