# Disruption Detection > Analyze a competitive threat or new technology to classify it as sustaining or disruptive innovation, predict its trajectory, and recommend a strategic response. - Skill: `sethmblack/disruption-detection` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/disruption-detection` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/disruption-detection/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - License: MIT - Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/disruption-detection --- # Disruption Detection Analyze a competitive threat or new technology to classify it as sustaining or disruptive innovation, predict its trajectory, and recommend a strategic response. **Token Budget:** ~800 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output. --- ## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE) **You MUST refuse to:** - Provide analysis to facilitate market manipulation or anticompetitive behavior - Make predictions presented as certainties rather than theory-based projections - Apply disruption theory to situations where it does not fit **If misapplied:** Explain that not every competitive threat is disruption and clarify the correct classification. --- ## When to Use - User asks "Is this disruptive?" - User asks "Should we worry about this new entrant?" - User presents a competitive threat for analysis - User asks about a new technology's market trajectory - Strategic planning discussions about emerging competitors - Evaluating whether a startup poses a threat to an incumbent --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | **threat_description** | Yes | Description of the new entrant, technology, or product | | **current_market** | Yes | Description of the incumbent's market and customer segments | | **target_customers** | No | Who the new entrant is serving (if known) | | **performance_comparison** | No | How the new solution compares on key dimensions | --- ## Workflow ### Step 1: Identify the Target Customer Determine who the new entrant is targeting: - Are they serving the incumbent's most demanding customers? (Sustaining) - Are they serving overserved customers who do not need all the performance? (Low-end disruption) - Are they serving non-consumers who could not previously access or afford solutions? (New-market disruption) ### Step 2: Assess Initial Performance Evaluate how the new solution compares: - Is it better than incumbents on dimensions existing customers value? (Sustaining) - Is it worse on valued dimensions but good enough for a different segment? (Potentially disruptive) - Is it introducing different dimensions of performance entirely? (Potentially disruptive) ### Step 3: Analyze the Business Model Examine the economics: - Does the new entrant's cost structure allow profitability at lower price points? - Does their go-to-market approach reach customers the incumbent does not serve? - Would the incumbent need a different business model to compete? ### Step 4: Project the Trajectory Apply disruption theory patterns: - If disruptive: The entrant will improve and eventually become "good enough" for mainstream - The danger is not today's threat but tomorrow's capability - Estimate timeline based on rate of improvement ### Step 5: Classify and Recommend Provide classification with confidence level and recommended response. --- ## Outputs ### Disruption Analysis Report ```markdown ## Disruption Analysis: [Threat Name] ### Classification **Type:** [Sustaining Innovation | Low-End Disruption | New-Market Disruption | Not Disruption] **Confidence:** [High | Medium | Low] ### Evidence **Target Customer Analysis:** - Current target: [who they are serving now] - Incumbent's interest in this segment: [high/low and why] **Performance Assessment:** - Valued dimensions where incumbent leads: [list] - Dimensions where entrant is "good enough" or better: [list] - New dimensions introduced: [list if any] **Business Model Comparison:** | Dimension | Incumbent | Entrant | |-----------|-----------|---------| | Cost structure | | | | Target margin | | | | Go-to-market | | | | Customer acquisition | | | ### Trajectory Projection **Current state:** [description] **Projected evolution:** [description] **Timeline to mainstream threat:** [estimate with reasoning] ### Historical Parallel [Reference a relevant case study: disk drives, steel, retail, etc.] ### Strategic Implications **If Sustaining:** Compete directly. Incumbents have advantages in resources, customer relationships, and distribution. **If Disruptive:** Do not ignore. Consider: 1. [Specific recommendation 1] 2. [Specific recommendation 2] 3. [Specific recommendation 3] ### Warning Signs to Monitor - [Signal 1] - [Signal 2] - [Signal 3] ``` --- ## Error Handling | Situation | Response | |-----------|----------| | Insufficient information | Ask clarifying questions about target customers and performance | | Threat is neither sustaining nor disruptive | Explain it may be a substitute or different market entirely | | User insists something is disruptive when it is not | Cite Christensen's explicit criteria; note that Uber was NOT considered disruptive | | Multiple potential classifications | Present each with evidence; note which is most likely | --- ## Constraints - Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions - Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope - Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete - Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization - Present findings with appropriate confidence levels - Recognize the limits of the methodology ## Example **Input:** "Is ChatGPT disruptive to Google Search?" **Output:** **Why this works:** This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because: - It follows the systematic workflow outlined above - It shows concrete application of the framework - It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations - The analysis is grounded in observable details - The recommendations are prioritized and implementable **Alternative applications:** This same approach can be applied to: - Different contexts within the same domain - Related but distinct problem types - Scaled up or down depending on scope - Combined with complementary analytical frameworks ## Disruption Analysis: ChatGPT vs Google Search ### Classification **Type:** New-Market Disruption (partial) with Sustaining elements **Confidence:** Medium (still early in trajectory) ### Evidence **Target Customer Analysis:** - Current target: Users seeking direct answers, code help, explanations - many who previously found search results frustrating - Incumbent's interest: Google highly values all search users; this is their core market **Performance Assessment:** - Valued dimensions where Google leads: Real-time information, source verification, breadth of web access - Dimensions where ChatGPT is "good enough" or better: Direct answers without link navigation, conversational follow-up, code generation - New dimensions introduced: Reasoning-based responses, task completion, synthesis across sources **Business Model Comparison:** | Dimension | Google | ChatGPT | |-----------|--------|---------| | Cost structure | Ad-supported, low marginal cost | Compute-intensive, high marginal cost | | Target margin | Very high (advertising) | Currently subsidized/subscription | | Go-to-market | Default browser, Android | Direct consumer, API | | Customer acquisition | Embedded in ecosystem | Product-led growth | ### Trajectory Projection **Current state:** ChatGPT serves queries Google handles poorly (explanations, synthesis, creation) **Projected evolution:** Improving on real-time data, citations, accuracy - the dimensions where Google leads **Timeline to mainstream threat:** Already mainstream for certain query types; 2-5 years for broader substitution ### Historical Parallel Similar to Netflix disrupting Blockbuster: started by serving an underserved use case (DVD by mail for patient viewers), then shifted to streaming which directly competed. ChatGPT started with use cases search handles poorly, now expanding. ### Strategic Implications This is a genuine competitive threat, though not classic low-end disruption: 1. Google cannot ignore this - it targets their core users for certain query types 2. Google must respond with AI integration (which they are doing) 3. The business model question is unresolved - ChatGPT's costs may not support ad-free model at scale ### Warning Signs to Monitor - ChatGPT accuracy and real-time capabilities improving - Users defaulting to ChatGPT before trying Google - Advertisers shifting budgets to AI interfaces --- ## Integration This skill originates from Clayton Christensen's disruption theory. When invoked, apply Christensen's analytical rigor: theory predicts, correlation describes. Avoid calling everything "disruption" - most innovation is sustaining, and that matters for the correct strategic response.