Positioning

Positioning Skill

This skill produces a positioning document — the strategic frame that downstream content executes against. It generates a formal positioning statement grounded in your organization's background and competitive landscape, and registers the output as project context for reuse by cc-concept and cc-content skills.

This skill follows the shared step sequence in ../_shared/skill-contract.md. Steps below add only positioning-specific behavior.

Step 0: Recall learnings

If .claude/learnings.md exists, read it silently. Apply relevant entries — in particular, positioning preferences, rejected frameworks, or discovered constraints. Do not announce this step. If the file is absent, continue normally.

Step 1: Load context

Read the ## Context files table in CLAUDE.md. Match the following needs against the Summary column semantically — never against a label or filename:

• Organization background — mission, values, size, market position, customer segments, constraints
• Competitive landscape — competitors, positioning, market gaps, differentiation opportunities

Step 1.5: Offer competitive research (if missing)

This step is now handled by delegating to /competitive-research at Step 2 if the competitive landscape is absent. See Step 2 below.

Step 2: Gating — Three-State Model

This skill gates on exactly two needs: organization background and competitive landscape. Audience, language, and format preferences are noted silently if present and never block.

For each gated need, resolve one of three states:

1. Covered — present in the context table (Summary match) → use silently, no ask.
2. Absent-but-supplied — ask once (never twice in one invocation); user answers → use, non-degraded.
3. Absent-and-unanswered — asked once, no usable answer → that section is labelled ⚠ DEGRADED, never fabricated, and the rest of the document still generates.

Check organization background

Search the context table Summary column for semantic matches: organization, company, business model, background, profile, mission, values, size, market position, customer, constraints, team.

If covered, use silently.

If absent, ask once:

"I need to understand your organization to position it well. Briefly: Who are you? (name, type, size) What do you do? (products/services, market) Who do you serve? (customer segments, use cases) Any constraints I should know? (budget, team, timeline)"

If the user provides usable answers, proceed non-degraded. If the user declines or the answer is too vague to use, label the organization background section ⚠ DEGRADED in the output and continue. Example format: ## Organization Background ⚠ DEGRADED followed by a brief note such as "Information not provided."

Check competitive landscape

Search the context table Summary column for semantic matches: competitor, competitive, competitive landscape, differentiation, market gap, positioning, competitive set, pain points.

If covered, use the registered competitive landscape context silently.

If absent, offer once to delegate:

"The competitive landscape isn't yet loaded. Want me to run /competitive-research before we position? I'll pull messaging, positioning, and market gaps from 2–4 competitors you name — then use that for positioning against actual competition. This is optional; I can work with whatever competitive context you supply directly."

• Accepted → the user runs (or consents to) /competitive-research in a separate step. Pause here and wait for the competitive landscape to be registered; then re-run this skill. (Tip: "Run the skill, then come back with /positioning to pick up where we left off.")

• Declined → ask once (only if declined):

  "Understood. Tell me what you know: Who are your main competitors? (2–5 names

  • brief positioning) What are they doing well? Where are the market gaps or underserved needs? How do you want to differentiate?"

  If the user provides usable answers, proceed non-degraded. If the user declines or the answer is too vague to use, label the competitive landscape section ⚠ DEGRADED in the output and continue.

Step 3: Calibrate

Consult the brief in $ARGUMENTS, if present. Set positioning depth and scope:

• Narrow brief (e.g., "focus on SMB segment" or "emphasize price leadership") → scope the positioning tightly.
• Broad brief (e.g., "comprehensive positioning") → develop full positioning across all segments and value dimensions.
• No brief → develop comprehensive positioning across primary segments.

Step 4: Generate

Select a positioning framework from ../_shared/positioning-frameworks.md following that file's selection process. State the choice before generating:

"Using the [framework name] because [one-sentence reason]."

If the registered competitive landscape file is loaded (checked at Step 2), use its competitive teardown and messaging audit as the "competitive alternatives" input each framework below already asks for — Obviously Awesome's alternatives list, Geoffrey Moore's "differentiation" blank, the Perceptual Map's competitor plotting. This is richer input into the same framework logic, not a change to the frameworks themselves.

Apply the framework systematically:

• If using Obviously Awesome: list competitive alternatives, audit unique strengths, extract unique attributes, identify best-fit segment, frame the position.
• If using Geoffrey Moore's template: fill each blank (target, need, category, benefit, differentiation) thoughtfully. Be specific on alternatives.
• If using Value Proposition Canvas: map customer jobs/pains/gains to product features/pain relievers/gain creators; highlight alignment and gaps.
• If using Perceptual Map: choose two differentiating axes, plot competitors and your product, identify white space.

Generate a positioning document (400–600 words) that includes:

• Market position — how you define the category you compete in and why.
• Target customer — the specific segment(s) you serve best.
• Unique value — what makes you different and why it matters to that customer.
• Competitive differentiation — how you stand against key alternatives.
• Proof points — 2–3 concrete reasons customers believe this positioning.

Step 5: Internal quality check

Review the generated positioning for:

• Clarity: Can a colleague explain it in one sentence?
• Defensibility: Is it grounded in real product strengths or market gaps?
• Specificity: Does it avoid generic claims (e.g., "best-in-class")?
• Consistency: Do all sections reinforce the same core message?

Fix any gaps before proceeding.

Step 6: Delimited output

Return the positioning document inside clear delimiters:

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## [Organization Name] Positioning Document
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[Generated positioning document here]

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Register output

Write the positioning document to context/brand-positioning.md by convention. Apply collision-check logic to ensure the file does not overwrite or collide with an organization-profile file or any existing positioning context:

1. Check if context/brand-positioning.md exists.
2. If it exists, generate a distinct filename by appending a -N suffix before .md (e.g., context/brand-positioning-2.md). Keep incrementing N (try -2, then -3, etc.) until a filename that does NOT already exist is found. Never overwrite an existing file.
3. Write to the final, collision-checked filename.

Confirm the file was created, then add a row to the ## Context files table in CLAUDE.md. Use this format:

| Brand positioning | `context/brand-positioning.md` | Product positioning, target customer, unique value, and competitive differentiation |

The Summary must be semantic and describe what the file covers — use keywords so future coverage checks will find it. Do not hand-edit the Key Config Files table — the pre-commit hook owns that sync.

Step 7: Feedback

Store learnings tagged [cc-concept:positioning] in .claude/learnings.md. Examples:

[cc-concept:positioning] client prefers "differentiation" over "positioning" — 2026-07-17
[cc-concept:positioning] SMB segment values cost-of-ownership more than feature breadth — 2026-07-17

If the session revealed a rejected framework, positioning preference, or project constraint that future runs should apply, record it now.