map-the-terrain
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when a founder needs the market, competitor, and regulatory terrain mapped before building - when they say "who are my competitors", "what's the regulatory path", "how long is EFSA or Novel Foods or CE", "is the market real", "what's the TAM", "where's the wedge", "we'll just be better than them", or are entering a regulated sector and planning as if build time were the constraint. Triggers when a founder underweights the approval clock or maps features instead of gaps. Produces the approval clock in months, the one wedge naming the incumbent's failure, an AI-read filing map, and a citation-surface scan. Run after frame-the-hypothesis, before architect-before-code.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/ai-native-os.mdcCursor rule
- agentic-build-loopSkill
- ai-assisted-salesSkill
- apply-ai-native-modelsSkill
- architect-before-codeSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- cognitive-architecture-reviewSkill
- compliance-readinessSkill
- customer-discovery-that-doesnt-lieSkill
- design-a-loopSkill
- design-the-mvaSkill
- eval-and-safety-harnessSkill
- frame-the-hypothesisSkill
- gateway-agent-opsSkill
- geo-contentSkill
- hypothesis-miningSkill
- measure-ai-native-pmfSkill
- moat-strategySkill
- pay-down-agentic-debtSkill
- red-team-the-agentSkill
- secure-the-connectorsSkill
- self-healing-fallbacksSkill
- share-of-model-auditSkill
- start-hereSkill
- write-the-claude-mdSkill
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 40
Never invent a regulatory timeline or a market number.
≈ “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
Map the Terrain
In hard mode the binding constraint is the approval clock, not the tech. AI collapsed the cost of building and did nothing to the cost of waiting, so the part you can now compress was never the part that decided whether you lived. Map the clock and the wedge before you write a line of code, or you will ship a beautiful product years late into a market someone else already framed.
The method
Four moves, in order. The first reorders everything after it. Full framework, the wedge rubric, GEO
versus SEO, the EU timeline cautions, and a worked terrain map:
references/terrain-method.md.
Step 1: Map the approval clock
Find the longest queue between you and a paying customer, and measure it in months: EFSA opinion, Novel Foods dossier, clinical validation, CE mark. Approval time, not build time, sets your real timeline, because it sits in a process you do not own. Put that number at the top of the page and sequence entry around it. Start the dossier first; build in the shadow of the queue. If you cannot name the number, you are not ready to build. You are ready to research.
Step 2: Find the wedge
Name the one gap worth attacking. Where do incumbents solve half the problem and leave the rest to the customer? Where is the manual cost so high that a slow, expensive human process is begging to be undercut? Write it in one sentence that names what the incumbent fails to do. If it comes out as "we will be better", that is a slogan, not a wedge. Keep digging until it names a hole.
Step 3: Point AI at the terrain
The regulatory record is enormous and largely text. Use a long-context model to digest dossiers, prior authorisations, opinions, and competitor filings into one regulation-aware map: who is in which queue, what data requirements sank earlier applicants, where the gap between filings is wide enough to walk through. The machine reads. You decide which wedge, which risk, which sequence. Confuse the two and you outsource the one job that is yours.
Step 4: Scan the citation surface
A growing share of buyers arrive through an answer engine that cites a few sources and skips the rest. Check which buyer queries the engines answer in your category, and who they cite. A competitor who is the model's default reference starts every buyer conversation a step ahead of you. Park the full treatment for the GEO skill; for now, mark it on the map.
Output
- A regulation-aware market-entry map: the approval clock in months, the competitor and filing landscape, and where a citation gap sits.
- The single wedge worth attacking, in one sentence that names the incumbent's failure.
- Next: run
architect-before-code.
Constraints
- Never invent a regulatory timeline or a market number. Ground the model on the live record; mind the knowledge cutoff. Label every unverified figure an assumption.
- A demo is not a market. The clock and the wedge decide whether the build is worth starting.
- Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the domain, you supply the rigour.
Dictionary
GEO · Share of Model · vertical data moat
Copy-paste version
For non-coders: paste into any chatbot or no-code builder (Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Lovable, Bolt, v0).
Act as my hard-mode market strategist. Domain: [DOMAIN]. Customer: [ICP]. Problem they fail to
get done today: [PROBLEM]. Binding limit: [CONSTRAINT].
1. Map the approval clock. Name the longest regulatory queue between me and a paying customer
(EFSA, Novel Foods, clinical, CE), measured in months. If you do not know the real number, say
so and label it an assumption I must verify. Then sequence my entry around that clock.
2. Find the wedge. In one sentence, name the specific thing the incumbent fails to do, or the
manual cost they cannot shake. If it reads as "we will be better", reject it and dig again.
3. Map the terrain. List the named competitors and their regulatory filings in one table, and flag
the gap between them that is wide enough to walk through.
4. Scan the citation surface. Tell me which buyer queries the answer engines cover in my category
and who they cite, so I can see where a competitor is already the default reference.
Do not invent timelines or market sizes; label anything unverified. End with the one next action
I should take this week.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.

