agentleFS
Sign inStart free
kritikosgns-webkritikosgns-web/indie-launch-skills-lite/skills/positioning/SKILL.md

positioning

Skill0 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub

Define who a product is for, what it replaces, and why the buyer would switch, as one testable positioning statement. Use before writing any landing page or launch copy, or when the user asks "who is this for", "how do I describe my product", or says signups are low.

19 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use tov-guidelines, icp-research and 2 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • matteotittaSkill

    tov-guidelines

    Analyzes existing client content (website, blog, social, docs) to extract voice patterns, vocabulary preferences,

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • growthack88Skill

    icp-research

    Scrapes case studies, testimonials, and solutions pages from a target website to build structured ICP documentation. Produces TAM analysis, firmographic segments, champion and economic buyer personas, use case mapping, customer proof points, and voice-of-customer synthesis with normalized attributes. Requires website URL as primary input. Upstream: recommended company-context. Downstream: feeds positioning, product-messaging, landing-page-copy, content-strategy, and outreach-emails.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • dachi-jp3Skill

    level

    表示レベル（auto / low / medium / high）を切り替える。

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • YepAPISkill

    competitor-research

    Competitive analysis between domains using YepAPI.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 15 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Test results with the fix for any failure.

    line 34

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 15 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

Positioning

Copy fails when positioning is vague. Fix the positioning first; every other launch skill reads its output.

Inputs (ask in one message for whatever is missing)

  • What the product does, in the user's words
  • Who has used it so far (even 3 people) and what they said
  • What those people did before (spreadsheet, competitor, hiring someone, nothing)
  • Price or intended price

Steps

  1. Current alternative — name what the buyer uses today. "Nothing" is valid only if the problem is new; otherwise it is usually a spreadsheet, a manual process, or a bigger tool they half-use.
  2. Switching trigger — the moment the alternative hurts (end of month, a new hire, a failed deadline). Positioning is aimed at that moment.
  3. Differentiator — at most 2 capabilities the alternative lacks. Each must be checkable in a demo, not an adjective.
  4. Audience — the narrowest group that has the trigger often and can pay. Job title + context ("solo bookkeepers with 10–40 clients"), not "small businesses".
  5. Statement: For [audience] who [trigger], [product] is a [category] that [differentiator]. Unlike [alternative], it [proof].

Tests (run all three, report pass/fail)

  • Swap test: replace the product name with a competitor's. If the statement is still true, the differentiator is wrong.
  • Stranger test: could someone in the audience repeat it after one read? Under 30 words?
  • Evidence test: is each claim backed by a user quote, a number, or a demo step? Mark any that are not.

Output

  1. The statement.
  2. Test results with the fix for any failure.
  3. A 6-word headline candidate and a 15-word subheadline derived from it, for the landing-page-copy skill.
  4. One sentence: the riskiest assumption in this positioning and the cheapest way to check it this week.

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.

Check your setup, free