# Platform Strategy > Expand from a single product into a multi-product platform — map vertical and horizontal growth vectors, score candidates, design validation experiments, and sequence the portfolio - Skill: `georgeqle/platform-strategy-3` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add georgeqle/platform-strategy-3` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/georgeqle/platform-strategy-3/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: GeorgeQLe (https://skillmd.com/u/georgeqle) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/georgeqle/platform-strategy-3 --- ## 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 `$pack install ` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack. # Platform Strategy — Multi-Product Expansion Planning Invoke as `$platform-strategy`. ## Report-First Approval Gate Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files. Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes. When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated. Takes a single-product company and maps the path to a multi-product platform. Identifies vertical (deeper into same customer base) and horizontal (new related product for new customer base) expansion vectors, scores them, designs cheap validation experiments, and produces a sequenced portfolio plan. ## Prerequisites **Required (at least one):** - `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md`) — who you serve today - A working product/codebase to analyse for extensibility If neither exists, tell the user: "Platform expansion requires a foundation. Run `$icp` first to define who you serve today, then come back." **Strongly recommended** (read if they exist): - `research/competitive-analysis.md` — market gaps - `research/journey-map.md` — user flows, drop-off points - `research/metrics.md` — retention, activation baselines **Optional:** `research/monetization.md`, `research/positioning.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/enterprise-icp.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md` ## Process ### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support) Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope: 1. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of `research/`, use it. 2. If `research/` contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically. 3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode). When app scope `{app}` is active: - Read/write research from `research/{app}/` instead of `research/` - Read/write specs from `specs/{app}/` instead of `specs/` - Also read `research/icp.md` (cross-app overview) for broader context ### 1. Assess Core Product Health Read the codebase, existing research, and metrics to evaluate: PMF signals (retention, activation, satisfaction), technical extensibility (shared infra — auth, billing, data — vs. tightly coupled), team/resource signals, revenue stability. **Checkpoint 1 — Present core health assessment.** Show health summary, shareable infrastructure, red flags. Ask: "Does this match your sense of where the core product is? Resource constraints to factor in?" ### 2. Map Expansion Vectors Use web search with **8-12 diverse queries**: adjacent markets, vertical depth (enterprise features, advanced use cases), horizontal breadth (related categories, tools used alongside), platform precedents, user workflow gaps, ecosystem opportunities, acquisition patterns, market trends, adjacent pain points, bundling precedents. Also analyse codebase and existing research for internal signals: adjacent feature requests from customer feedback, competitor product lines, journey map drop-offs, data/infra that could power new products. ### 3. Identify Expansion Candidates — Present & Validate Cluster findings into **4-8 candidates** across two axes: **Vertical:** advanced tiers, deeper workflow coverage, industry-specific variants, data products from existing data. **Horizontal:** complementary tools, adjacent persona products, same tech applied to different problem, marketplace/platform plays. For each: problem, audience, relationship to core, market signal, vertical vs. horizontal. **Checkpoint 2 — Present candidates.** Group by vertical/horizontal with rationale and evidence. Ask: "Expansion directions I missed? Any clearly wrong? Internal signals pointing toward any of these?" ### 4. Score Expansion Candidates Score each across five dimensions (1-5 each): - **Synergy** — shared users, data, infra, cross-sell potential - **Market Opportunity** — size, competitive density, willingness to pay, growth - **Effort & Risk** — build complexity, time to revenue, tech risk, cannibalization - **Strategic Value** — defensibility, brand coherence, sequencing value - **Validation Cost** — how cheaply can we test demand Build a scoring matrix with weighted totals. ### 5. Design Validation Experiments for Top Candidates For **top 2-3 candidates**: cheapest test method (landing page, fake-door, survey, pre-sale, concierge), audience, success criteria, timeline (1-4 weeks), decision rules (proceed/pivot/kill). Reference `$experiment` for full experiment design. ### 6. Sequence the Portfolio — Present & Validate Recommend a portfolio sequence: **Now** (next quarter), **Next** (quarter +1), **Later** (6-12 months), **Watch** (12+ months). For each: shared infra needed, dependencies, revenue expectation, kill criteria. **Checkpoint 3 — Present full portfolio plan.** Show scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations. Ask: "Sequencing match your priorities? Different experiments to run first? Dependencies I'm missing?" ### 7. Write Output Only after user validates, write the output files. ## Deliverables - `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{app}/platform-strategy.md`) — Full platform strategy: summary, core health, expansion vector map, scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations, next steps. - `research/platform-strategy-search-log.md` (or `research/{app}/platform-strategy-search-log.md`) — Raw research log: every query, findings, source attribution, scoring rationale. `## Next Steps` section with a **Recommended** item and **Other options** (2–4 alternatives). Use this format in the output: ## Next Steps **Recommended:** `$experiment [top candidate]` — validate demand for the highest-scored expansion candidate before committing resources Other options: - `$assumption-tracker` — track which platform assumptions need validation (if no `research/assumption-tracker.md`) - `$competitive-analysis [adjacent category]` — research the competitive landscape for the top expansion candidate - `$icp [new audience]` — define the ICP for the new audience the top candidate targets - `$enterprise-icp` — map enterprise requirements if the expansion targets enterprise (if no `research/enterprise-icp.md`) - `$spec-interview [top candidate]` — spec the top candidate in detail - `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist) The recommendation (`$experiment [top candidate]`) is always applicable — platform expansion should be validated before built. ## Task Classification When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics: - Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`. - Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`. - One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule. - Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions. - Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work. ## Constraints - Use web search extensively — every market signal must trace to research evidence. - Cite sources for market signals, competitor product lines, trend data. - Be honest about uncertainty. - Stay in strategy mode — no architecture, features, or technical solutions. - Core health is gating — flag PMF problems directly. - Score honestly — low-synergy, high-effort candidates should score low. - Present before writing — never write until findings are validated. - Do not overwrite existing `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{app}/platform-strategy.md`) without asking. - Keep validation experiments lightweight — full design belongs in `$experiment`. - `## Next Steps` must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other options. ## Alignment Page When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/platform-strategy-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename. **Full content requirement.** The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item. It is a thorough interactive review document, not a summary. Render the full deliverable content in clean, readable HTML with appropriate hierarchy, styling, and navigation. If the skill writes multiple scoped deliverables in one run, build one alignment page that contains all deliverables with anchor-linked navigation. Durable tracker artifacts, such as `research/assumption-tracker.md`, remain canonical markdown outputs but must also be fully rendered into the alignment page before approval. **Dark-mode styling.** Use a dark color scheme by default. Base CSS variables: `--bg: #0d1117; --surface: #161b22; --border: #30363d; --text: #c9d1d9; --text-muted: #8b949e; --accent: #58a6ff; --green: #3fb950; --red: #f85149; --orange: #d29922; --purple: #bc8cff;`. Apply `background: var(--bg); color: var(--text);` on body. Use `--surface` for cards, nav, and table headers. Use `--border` for all borders. Use `--purple` for question blocks and gate headings. Use `--accent` for links and section headings. Keep headings `color: #fff` or `var(--accent)` for hierarchy. Question block backgrounds should use `#1c2333`. **Alignment gates.** Treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization until its required inline questions are answered and compiled into YAML. Include every gate that applies to the skill output, and include these gate types whenever relevant: evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, scope/non-goals, candidate/verdict decisions, artifact destination, proposed file changes, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route. **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the alignment page must explicitly contain evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before any canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated. **Required inline questions.** Each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. **Gate YAML contract.** At the bottom of the page, include a "Compile Answers" button that aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with one item per gate answer using this stable shape: `section`, `gate_type`, `status` (`answered`, `other`, or `needs-clarification`), `answer`, optional `notes`, and optional `target_artifact` or `target_path` when the gate controls file output. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked. **Pre-approval stop.** Before user approval, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide the compiled YAML answers. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated. **Diff highlighting on updates.** When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving compiled answers, highlight what changed since the previous version. The agent chooses inline annotation or side-by-side layout per situation. **Archiving.** Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/platform-strategy-{topic}.html`. **Browser open.** Attempt to open the resulting HTML page in the browser and report whether the open succeeded or was blocked. A blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail when the files were written correctly. ## Archive-First Replacement Policy - Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/`. - Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it. - After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path. - Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output. - New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten. - Keep any existing user approval requirement before overwriting or replacing a document; archiving does not replace asking when the skill already requires approval. ## Default Shipping Contract - **Default next-step routing:** when reporting completion, include either `Recommended next skill: ` or the two-line pair `**Next work:** ` and `**Recommended next command:** ` so the next operator has a concrete handoff. - If this skill creates or modifies tracked repository files, finish by committing and pushing all intended changes to the repository primary branch (`main` when present, otherwise `master`) before stopping, even if the user did not explicitly ask for commit/push. - Do not leave tracked changes or unpushed commits behind. If unrelated tracked work is already present, either include it in sensible commits too or stop and explain the blocker. - This contract does not override stricter safety rules about secrets, destructive history changes, release publication/tag confirmation, or production deploy confirmation.