Moore Positioning

Pack Availability Guard

Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check .agents/project.json.enabled_packs. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend npx skillpacks install <pack> from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Only the currently running skill and skills verified available in the active session or project-local install state are directly recommendable. For unavailable pack skills, recommend npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>; for unavailable base skills, recommend npx skillpacks init before the skill.

Moore Positioning — Crossing the Chasm Template

Parent Orchestrator Routing

Run only through the parent orchestrator /positioning as part of its Research Session Loop. If the user needs to continue pending framework work, tell them to clear context and re-invoke /positioning with the same product/research path argument when present, for example /positioning research/afps-tracker.

Do not ask users to invoke this framework directly or with a path-shaped child framework command. Do not emit downstream routing labels or command recommendations from this framework subskill; parent synthesis owns downstream routing after canonical artifacts are approved.

Report-First Approval Gate

Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a review alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.

Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.

After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the review alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.

Do not include downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Parent synthesis owns downstream routing after approved artifacts are written or updated.

Staged Research Workflow

Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.

1. Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval. Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the review HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
2. Stage 2 - Research and artifact review. Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved needs-clarification, unresolved down feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md; product-path mode uses research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md. Replace <skill> with this skill's name value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the review HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a Full Preliminary Packet or Full Working Packet raw Markdown dump, giant <pre><code> block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
3. Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts. Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved needs-clarification, unresolved down feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to confirmed with the approval record preserved.

Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.

Evidence And Feedback Handling

Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.

• For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
• For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
• When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
• When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.

Prerequisites

• Hard: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run /customer-discovery first and stop.
• Hard: research/competitive-analysis.md (or research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run /competitive-analysis first and stop.
• Soft: Any existing positioning framework outputs (research/positioning-*.md) — read these if present to build on prior analysis rather than starting from scratch.

Process

0. Product-Path Scope Resolution

Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:

1. If $ARGUMENTS names a non-archived research/{slug}/ directory or a product-path ID whose scope_path points there, use that path. Treat {slug} as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
2. If $ARGUMENTS names only research/_archive/{slug}/ or a manifest entry with status: archived or legacy status: abandoned, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
3. Read research/.progress.yaml when present. Normalize legacy active_path to active_paths on read and write back active_paths on manifest updates. Treat legacy abandoned as archived; exclude archived, abandoned, deferred, revisit_candidate, promoted, and any scope_path under research/_archive/ from active target selection.
4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under research/, excluding research/_archive/ and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
6. If no product directories exist, use flat research/ single-product mode.
7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing research/{slug}/ product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using research/{slug}/.

When product path {slug} is active, read and write research under research/{slug}/, specs under specs/{slug}/, and treat top-level research/*.md files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.

1. Load Context

• Read research/icp.md — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events
• Read research/competitive-analysis.md — competitor landscape, primary alternatives, differentiation
• Read any existing research/positioning-*.md files — prior framework outputs to build upon
• Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context

2. Generate Positioning Hypothesis

Using the Geoffrey Moore positioning template from "Crossing the Chasm":

For [target customers]
who [statement of need/opportunity]
[product name] is a [market category]
that [key benefit]
Unlike [primary competitive alternative]
our product [primary differentiation]

Fill each element by drawing from evidence:

• Target customers: From ICP — the specific segment, not "everyone"
• Statement of need/opportunity: The pain point or trigger event that creates urgency
• Market category: The frame of reference buyers use to find and evaluate solutions
• Key benefit: The primary value — what customers get that matters most
• Primary competitive alternative: The strongest alternative the buyer would otherwise use
• Primary differentiation: What is genuinely different — not table stakes

3. Map Evidence Status

For each element of the positioning template, classify its evidence basis:

Status definitions:

• Evidenced: Directly supported by research artifacts (ICP interviews, competitive data, customer feedback)
• Hypothesized: Reasonable inference from available evidence, but not directly confirmed
• Unvalidated: Assertion without supporting evidence — needs testing

4. Identify Weakest Link

Determine which element of the positioning chain has the least evidence support:

• Which element is most likely to be wrong?
• What would change if this element were different?
• What evidence would strengthen or invalidate it?
• What is the cost of being wrong about this element?

5. Consider Alternative Hypotheses

Generate 1-2 alternative positioning hypotheses that use different elements:

• Alternative target customer
• Alternative market category
• Alternative competitive frame
• Alternative key benefit

For each alternative, note why it was considered and why the primary hypothesis was preferred.

6. Validate with User

Use AskUserQuestion to present the hypothesis and validate:

• "Does this positioning hypothesis ring true? Which elements need correction or stronger grounding?"
• Present the filled template, evidence map, weakest link, and alternatives
• Ask whether the primary hypothesis or an alternative feels more accurate

Output

research/positioning-moore.md (or research/{slug}/positioning-moore.md)

# Moore Positioning Hypothesis

> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/positioning-*.md]
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Geoffrey Moore — Crossing the Chasm

## Positioning Hypothesis

For **[target customers]**
who **[statement of need/opportunity]**
**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
that **[key benefit]**
Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
our product **[primary differentiation]**

## Evidence Mapping

| Element | Content | Status | Evidence Source | Confidence |
|---------|---------|--------|----------------|------------|
| Target customers | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
| Statement of need | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
| Market category | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
| Key benefit | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
| Competitive alternative | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
| Primary differentiation | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |

## Weakest Link Analysis

**Weakest element**: [element name]
**Why it's weak**: [explanation]
**What would change if wrong**: [impact on positioning]
**Evidence needed**: [what would strengthen or invalidate]
**Cost of being wrong**: [consequences]

## Validation Needs

| Element | Validation Method | Priority |
|---------|-------------------|----------|
| [element] | [how to validate — customer interviews, A/B test, market research] | High/Med/Low |

## Alternative Hypotheses Considered

### Alternative 1: [brief label]

For **[target customers]**
who **[statement of need]**
**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
that **[key benefit]**
Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
our product **[primary differentiation]**

**Why considered**: [rationale]
**Why not preferred**: [rationale]

### Alternative 2: [brief label]

[Same format]

**Why considered**: [rationale]
**Why not preferred**: [rationale]

Create the research/ directory if it doesn't exist.

Task Classification

When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:

• Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in tasks/todo.md.
• Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in tasks/manual-todo.md with _(blocks: Step N.X)_ or _(after: Step N.X)_; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in tasks/todo.md.
• One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in tasks/record-todo.md with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
• Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in tasks/recurring-todo.md with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
• Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in tasks/todo.md unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.

Constraints

• This is explicitly a hypothesis, not a declaration. The output is a testable positioning hypothesis, not final positioning. Label it as such.
• Clearly label hypothesized vs evidenced elements. Transparency about evidence quality is the core value of this framework.
• Do not conflate "key benefit" with feature list. The key benefit is the outcome, not the mechanism.
• Primary competitive alternative must be what customers actually use. Not what the company wishes they competed against.
• Present before writing. Never write output files until the hypothesis has been presented and validated.
• Do not overwrite existing research/positioning-moore.md without asking the user first.

Alignment Page

When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md in this skill's directory. Output: alignment/moore-positioning-{topic}.html.

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.