# Know Your Enemy

> Conduct dual-lens competitive analysis to understand both yourself and your opponent, identifying advantages, vulnerabilities, and knowledge gaps that determine strategic outcomes.

- Skill: `sethmblack/know-your-enemy` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/know-your-enemy`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/know-your-enemy/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/know-your-enemy

---


# Know Your Enemy Assessment

Conduct dual-lens competitive analysis to understand both yourself and your opponent, identifying advantages, vulnerabilities, and knowledge gaps that determine strategic outcomes.

---

## When to Use

- User asks "How do I stack up against [competitor]?"
- Preparing for competition, negotiation, or confrontation
- Analyzing why previous efforts against this opponent failed
- Request to "analyze my competitor" or "what are their weaknesses?"
- Need to understand whether to engage or avoid a particular opponent

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| opponent | Yes | Description of the competitor, rival, or opposing party |
| context | Yes | The arena of competition (market, negotiation, project, etc.) |
| your_position | No | Your current situation and capabilities |
| history | No | Previous encounters or competitive history |

---

## The Dual-Lens Framework

Sun Tzu taught that strategic outcomes depend on knowledge:

> "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
> "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."
> "If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

This framework ensures **complete knowledge** on both sides.

---

### Part 1: Know Your Enemy

#### 1.1 Stated Position vs. True Interest

| Question | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| What do they say they want? | [Stated position] |
| What do they actually want? | [True interest beneath the surface] |
| What would they sacrifice to get it? | [Reveals priority hierarchy] |
| What would they never sacrifice? | [Core interest, non-negotiable] |

#### 1.2 Capabilities Assessment

| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Resources | What assets do they control? (Money, people, technology, relationships) |
| Strengths | Where are they formidable? What can they do that you cannot? |
| Weaknesses | Where are they vulnerable? What do they struggle with? |
| Dependencies | What do they need that they don't control? Who do they rely on? |

#### 1.3 Behavioral Patterns

| Question | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| How do they typically respond to challenge? | [Aggressive / Defensive / Adaptive] |
| What is their decision-making speed? | [Fast and risky / Slow and careful] |
| Where have they failed before? | [Past failures reveal recurring weaknesses] |
| What are their blind spots? | [What do they consistently overlook?] |

#### 1.4 Strategic Tendencies

| Pattern | Assessment |
|---------|------------|
| Preferred tactics | [Direct assault / Flanking / Attrition / Innovation] |
| Risk tolerance | [Conservative / Moderate / Aggressive] |
| Resource deployment | [Concentrated / Distributed] |
| Response to pressure | [Escalate / Negotiate / Retreat] |

---

### Part 2: Know Yourself

#### 2.1 Honest Self-Assessment

| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Resources | What assets do you actually control? |
| Strengths | Where are you genuinely formidable? |
| Weaknesses | Where are you truly vulnerable? (Be honest) |
| Dependencies | What do you need that you don't control? |

#### 2.2 Comparative Position

| Factor | You | Opponent | Advantage |
|--------|-----|----------|-----------|
| Resources | | | [You / Them / Neither] |
| Position | | | |
| Momentum | | | |
| Adaptability | | | |
| Will/Commitment | | | |

#### 2.3 Knowledge Gaps

| About Opponent | About Yourself |
|----------------|----------------|
| [What don't you know about them?] | [What are you uncertain about in yourself?] |
| [What assumptions are you making?] | [What weaknesses are you avoiding examining?] |
| [How could you learn more?] | [How could you test your self-assessment?] |

---

### Part 3: Strategic Synthesis

#### 3.1 Exploitable Asymmetries

Where does your strength meet their weakness?
Where does their strength meet your weakness?
What does this suggest about where to compete?

#### 3.2 Engagement Recommendation

Based on knowledge assessment:

| Knowledge State | Recommendation |
|-----------------|----------------|
| Know both fully | **Engage** - victory is calculable |
| Know self, not enemy | **Gather intelligence** - delay until you know more |
| Know enemy, not self | **Introspect** - honest self-assessment first |
| Know neither | **Do not engage** - certain defeat |

#### 3.3 If Engaging: Where and How

- **Terrain to choose:** Where does the ground favor you?
- **Timing to seek:** When are conditions most favorable?
- **Approach to use:** Direct or indirect? Concentrated or distributed?
- **Victory condition:** What specific outcome ends this favorably?

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Know Your Enemy Assessment

### Context
[Brief description of the competitive arena and stakes]

---

### Enemy Analysis

**Who They Are:** [Brief profile]

**Stated vs. True Interest:**
- They say: [stated position]
- They want: [true interest]
- Core non-negotiable: [what they will not sacrifice]

**Capabilities:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| [S1] | [W1] |
| [S2] | [W2] |

**Behavioral Pattern:** [How they typically operate and respond]

**Strategic Tendency:** [Preferred approach and risk tolerance]

---

### Self-Analysis

**Honest Assessment:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| [S1] | [W1] |
| [S2] | [W2] |

**Comparative Position:**
| Factor | Advantage |
|--------|-----------|
| Resources | [You/Them/Neither] |
| Position | |
| Momentum | |
| Adaptability | |
| Will | |

---

### Knowledge Assessment

**What You Know:**
- About them: [confident assessments]
- About yourself: [confident assessments]

**What You Don't Know:**
- About them: [gaps, assumptions]
- About yourself: [uncertainties, avoided truths]

**Knowledge State:** [Full / Partial-Self / Partial-Enemy / Neither]

---

### Strategic Verdict

**Exploitable Asymmetry:** [Where your strength meets their weakness]

**Vulnerable Asymmetry:** [Where their strength meets your weakness]

**Engagement Recommendation:** [Engage / Delay / Avoid]

**If Engaging:**
- Choose terrain that: [favors your strengths]
- Seek timing when: [conditions favor you]
- Use approach: [direct/indirect, concentrated/distributed]
- Victory looks like: [specific outcome]

**If Avoiding:**
- Because: [reason]
- Alternative path: [what to do instead]
```

---

## Constraints

- Self-assessment must be brutally honest - overestimating yourself is more dangerous than underestimating the enemy
- Distinguish between what you know and what you assume
- Identify knowledge gaps explicitly - they are strategic vulnerabilities
- Do not recommend engagement when knowledge is incomplete
- Consider that the enemy is also assessing you

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Example

**Input:** "I'm a small consulting firm considering whether to compete for a major contract against Accenture. We've never gone head-to-head with them before."

**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


## Know Your Enemy Assessment

### Context
Small consulting firm evaluating competition against a global giant for a major contract. First direct encounter.

---

### Enemy Analysis

**Who They Are:** Accenture - global consulting firm with $60B+ revenue, hundreds of thousands of employees, and decades of enterprise relationships.

**Stated vs. True Interest:**
- They say: "We're the best partner for your digital transformation"
- They want: Revenue, relationship lock-in, reference client
- Core non-negotiable: Profitability - they will not win unprofitable business

**Capabilities:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| Brand credibility ("no one gets fired for hiring Accenture") | Overhead drives high costs |
| Deep bench - can staff any requirement | Bureaucracy slows responsiveness |
| Existing relationships at target client | Junior consultants do actual work |
| Proven methodologies and accelerators | Cookie-cutter approaches may miss nuance |

**Behavioral Pattern:** Methodical, relationship-driven, risk-averse. Will leverage existing client relationships. Responds to competition by emphasizing safety and scale.

**Strategic Tendency:** Uses brand and relationships as primary weapons. Competes on trust and risk reduction, not price or innovation.

---

### Self-Analysis

**Honest Assessment:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| Agility - can move fast, customize | Limited bench depth |
| Senior people do the work | No brand recognition at scale |
| Potentially lower cost | No existing relationship (assumption) |
| Can take risks they cannot | Cannot absorb failure |

**Comparative Position:**
| Factor | Advantage |
|--------|-----------|
| Resources | Them (massively) |
| Position | Them (if incumbent relationship exists) |
| Momentum | Unknown |
| Adaptability | You |
| Will | You (they don't need this contract) |

---

### Knowledge Assessment

**What You Know:**
- About them: General capabilities, public positioning, typical approach
- About yourself: Your team, your costs, your capabilities

**What You Don't Know:**
- About them: Their specific relationship with this client, who will lead their team, how badly they want this contract, their pricing
- About yourself: Whether your team can actually deliver at this scale, how you'll be perceived, your true differentiation

**Knowledge State:** Partial-Enemy (you know yourself better than them)

---

### Strategic Verdict

**Exploitable Asymmetry:** Your senior people do the work; their seniors sell, juniors deliver. If client values expertise over brand, this is your angle.

**Vulnerable Asymmetry:** They have brand credibility you cannot match. If client prioritizes safety, you lose.

**Engagement Recommendation:** Delay (gather intelligence)

**Before Deciding:**
1. Learn the client's true priority: Safety/brand or results/value?
2. Discover Accenture's relationship status: Incumbent? Preferred? Unknown?
3. Identify the decision-maker: Executive (favors Accenture) or operational leader (might favor you)?
4. Assess: Is this contract winnable at a price you'd accept?

**If Intelligence Suggests Proceeding:**
- Choose terrain that: Emphasizes expertise, responsiveness, senior engagement
- Seek timing when: Client has had disappointing experience with big firm bureaucracy
- Use approach: Direct differentiation - "Our partners do the work"
- Victory looks like: Winning on value and expertise, not price

**If Intelligence Suggests Avoiding:**
- Walk away if client prioritizes safety over results
- Walk away if Accenture has strong incumbent relationship
- Alternative: Position for smaller, lower-profile contracts to build track record

*"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. You do not yet know enough to engage."*

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Sun Tzu** expert persona. Use it when facing competition and needing to understand the strategic landscape. It pairs well with:
- **five-factors-assessment** for comprehensive situation analysis
- **terrain-analysis** for understanding the competitive ground
- **victory-without-battle** for non-confrontational alternatives