Market positioning strategy using the April Dunford framework, enriched with JTBD discovery, Moore positioning statement, and Neumeier's Onliness Test. Produces a complete positioning document, positioning statement, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Use when the user wants

Startup Positioning Market positioning strategy that produces a complete positioning document, Moore + Neumeier positioning statements, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Built on April Dunford's framework, enriched with JTBD discovery and stress tested with Neumeier's Onliness Test. How It Works The process: understand the product and its customers, research competitive alternatives and market context, then build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components. Typical runtime: 10 15 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 20 30 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential). Language Default output language is English . If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead. Phase 0: Resume Check Before anything else, check if a PROGRESS.md created by this skill exists in the working directory or a project subdirectory (the skill name field says startup positioning ). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]." If no progress file exists — or the one found belongs to a different skill — start from Phase 1. Phase 1: Intake Short and focused — 1 2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to research alternatives and build positioning. Check for Prior Work Before asking questions, check if prior sessions have been completed. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories: From startup design: 00 intake/brief.md — product description and context 01 discovery/competitor landscape.md — competitor profiles 01 discovery/target audience.md — customer personas, pain points 02 strategy/positioning.md — initial positioning work From startup competitors: intake.md — product and market context competitors report.md — strategic competitive analysis battle cards/ — per competitor profiles pricing landscape.md — pricing analysis If these files exist, read them and use the data as a head start: Extract the product description, known competitors, and customer pain points Use competitor profiles and battle cards to seed the competitive alternatives map Pull any existing positioning work as a starting hypothesis to test, not a conclusion to keep Use customer language and pain points to inform JTBD discovery Tell the user: "I found data from a previous session. I'll use it as a starting point for positioning analysis." Skip redundant intake questions. Go straight to research if prior data is sufficient. What to Ask (if no prior data exists) Round 1 — Core context: What's your product? (one sentence is fine) What problem does it solve and for whom? What do your customers do today instead of using you? (alternatives, workarounds, doing nothing) Who are your best existing customers? (if any — describe them, not demographics) Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed): How is your product different from the alternatives you mentioned? Have you tried positioning before? What didn't work? Are there competitors you're often compared to? Don't over interview. If the user gives a clear description upfront, move to research. The positioning process itself will surface what matters. Output Save to {project name}/intake.md — a brief summary of the product, problem, alternatives, and customers. If built on prior session data, note the source files used. Project name: kebab case (e.g., ai email assistant ). Create {project name}/PROGRESS.md with: project name, skill name ( startup positioning ), start date, language, research mode (Live / Knowledge Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes. If PROGRESS.md already exists from a previous session, resume from the last incomplete phase. Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user. Reference: Read references/research scaling.md for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template. Process 1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1 3), known competitors (1 3), geographic scope (1 3) 2. Sum the scores (range 3 9) and map to a tier: Light (3 4), Standard (5 7), Deep (8 9) 3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see research scaling.md for the exact template) 4. Wait for user response: light , deep , or ok to accept the recommendation 5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See research scaling.md for exact wave configurations per tier. Phase 2: Research Two sequential research waves exploring competitive alternatives and market context — agents within a wave run in parallel, and Wave 2 builds on Wave 1's findings. Together they provide the raw material for Dunford's 5+1 positioning components. Environment Detection Check if the Agent tool is available: Agent tool available (Claude Code): Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster. Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web): Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower. Web Search This skill requires WebSearch for real data. If WebSearch is unavailable or denied, fall back to Knowledge Based Mode : use training data, mark all findings with [Knowledge Based — verify independently] , and reduce confidence ratings by one level. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md. Reference: Read references/research principles.md before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps. Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer Context Reference: Read references/research wave 1 alternatives.md for agent templates. Two agents (or two sequential blocks): A1: Alternative Mapping (JTBD Lens) — Map ALL competitive alternatives, not just direct competitors. Include: direct competitors, adjacent tools competing for the same budget, manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing / status quo. For each: what job does the customer hire it for, where does it fall short, what triggers switching? The goal is the full set of things your product replaces. A2: Customer Intelligence — Mine voice of customer data: reviews, forums, communities. Extract: pain points with current alternatives, exact language customers use, what "better" means to them, best fit customer profile (who gets the most value fastest), switching triggers (what makes someone finally change). Build a language map — the words customers use to describe their problem and desired outcome. Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends Reference: Read references/research wave 2 market frame.md for agent templates. Two agents (or two sequential blocks): B1: Market Category Analysis — Identify 3 5 candidate market categories. For each: what do buyers expect from this category, who are the leaders, what's the competitive dynamic, how mature is it? Apply Dunford's category types: head to head (existing category), big fish/small pond (subcategory), or category creation. Assess which frame makes your unique strengths matter most. B2: Trend & Timing Analysis — Identify relevant trends: technology shifts, behavioral changes, regulatory moves. For each: is it real or hype, how does it affect buyer expectations, does it make your positioning stronger or weaker? Assess timing — are you early, on time, or late to the trend? Only include trends that genuinely change how buyers evaluate solutions. Post Research Checkpoint After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the competitive alternative landscape (how many direct, adjacent, status quo), the strongest customer pains, and the most promising category candidates. Ask: "Does this align with your expectations? Anything to adjust before I synthesize the positioning?" Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report. Phase 3: Positioning Synthesis Reference: Read references/research synthesis.md for synthesis protocol and Dunford process details. After the checkpoint, build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components in order . The sequence matters — each step builds on the previous. Positioning is a reasoning problem, not a fill in the blanks exercise. The "only" in the Onliness Test has to be true , and finding a frame where it's both true and valuable takes real thought — you're searching for the angle that makes the product's strengths matter most to the right buyer. Before committing to a frame, think hard about how each candidate category changes what the product gets compared against and whether the differentiation still holds. If the model supports extended thinking, this is where to spend it; a forced or generic position is worse than none. The 5+1 Components 1. Competitive Alternatives — From Wave 1. What would customers use if your product didn't exist? This is the anchor — positioning is always relative. 2. Unique Attributes — What do you have that the alternatives lack? Be specific and honest. Features, architecture, team expertise, business model, speed — anything defensible. ⏸ PAUSE — User Input Required. Present the research derived attributes to the user. Ask them to confirm, add, or remove before proceeding to Value Themes. The founder knows capabilities that research can't surface. 3. Value Themes — Translate each unique attribute into a customer outcome. Attribute → "so what?" → value. Group related attributes into 2 3 value themes. Use customer language from Wave 1's language map. 4. Best Fit Customers — From Wave 1 customer intelligence. Who cares most about your value themes? Define by characteristics that make them care, not demographics. These customers should be reachable, recognizable, and willing to pay. 5. Market Category — From Wave 2. Choose the category frame that makes your value obvious. Present 3 5 options with trade offs. Recommend one. The right category triggers the right buyer expectations. 6. Trend Overlay (optional) — From Wave 2. Only include if a genuine trend makes your positioning stronger. Forced trend alignment is worse than none. Validation Two stress tests before finalizing: Neumeier Onliness Test: Basic form: "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator]." Extended form (6 elements — WHAT/HOW/WHO/WHERE/WHY/WHEN): "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator] for [target] who [need] in [context]." If you can't fill the basic form convincingly — if "only" feels like a stretch — the positioning is too weak. Iterate. Ries/Trout Mental Ladder: Is it simple enough to remember? Does it claim one clear rung? Is that rung available (not owned by a competitor)? Can you explain it in one sentence? If either test fails, revisit the 5+1 components. Don't ship weak positioning. Output Files Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: {Title}: {product} followed by Skill: startup positioning Generated: {date} . Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections (see templates in references/research synthesis.md ). {project name}/positioning doc.md — The main deliverable: Executive summary (positioning in 3 sentences) The 5+1 components with supporting evidence Strength assessment per component (Strong / Moderate / Needs Work) Strategic recommendations and next steps Data gaps & limitations {project name}/positioning statement.md — Statements and messaging: Moore template: "For [target] who [need], [product] is a [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [alternative], we [differentiator]." Neumeier Onliness Statement (basic + extended) El

startup-positioning