agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/competitive-positioning/SKILL.md

competitive-positioning

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a strategy, offer, pitch, or account plan needs sharper differentiation. Use when applying the Competitive Positioning consulting method and when a user asks for Competitive Positioning, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

5 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Competitive Positioning as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 25
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not use without a target segment, relevant alternatives, buying criteria, and evidence of why customers choose.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 86

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Competitive Positioning

Use this skill to run Competitive Positioning as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Compare against direct competitors, substitutes, and the status quo.
  • A differentiator must matter to the buyer and be credible to prove.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • offering
  • target customer
  • competitors or alternatives
  • proof points

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use without a target segment, relevant alternatives, buying criteria, and evidence of why customers choose. Positioning is a defensible choice, not a slogan or feature inventory.

Adjacent Methods

  • pestel-analysis: macro environment.
  • porter-five-forces: industry economics.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Define target buyerSegment, buying trigger, use case, decision criteria.State whose choice you are trying to win and against what alternatives.Positioning frame.
Map alternativesDirect competitors, substitutes, status quo.List alternatives and the buyer reason to choose each.Competitive alternative map.
Compare value dimensionsCustomer criteria, proof, features, outcomes, price, risk.Compare each option on buyer-relevant dimensions.Positioning comparison.
Test differentiatorsComparison and evidence.Keep only differentiators that matter, are credible, and are hard to dismiss.Defensible differentiators.
Write position and proofDifferentiators, objections, sales/channel context.Create positioning statement, proof points, and objection responses.Positioning package.

Output Template

### 1. Buyer And Choice Frame
Target buyer:
Decision situation:
Alternatives considered:
Evidence base:

### 2. Comparison
| Buyer criterion | Us | Alternative | Evidence | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Defensible Differentiation
| Differentiator | Why buyer cares | Proof | Competitor response risk |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 4. Position And Validation
Positioning statement:
Proof needed next:
Buyer test:
Decision threshold:

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Buyer And Choice Frame, Comparison, Defensible Differentiation; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.