st

name	st
description	Every strategy exists within a game. Characterize the game, design strategies with clear mechanisms, evaluate along key dimensions.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Strategy Templates

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Every strategy exists within a game (competitive context). Every game has structure that determines which strategies work. These templates provide systematic ways to:

1. Characterize the game being played
2. Design strategies with clear mechanisms
3. Evaluate strategies along key dimensions
4. Match strategies to game archetypes

Steps

Step 1: Characterize the Game

Game structure template:

GAME CHARACTERIZATION:
Players: [who is competing/cooperating]
Objectives: [what each player wants]
Rules: [constraints, laws, norms]
Resources: [what's available to deploy]
Information: [who knows what — complete/incomplete]
Timing: [simultaneous/sequential, one-shot/repeated]
Payoffs: [zero-sum/positive-sum/negative-sum]
Barriers: [entry, exit, switching costs]

Game archetype matching:

Archetype	Characteristics	Winning Strategies
Winner-take-all	One winner, many losers	Speed, network effects, standards
Red ocean	Many competitors, similar offerings	Cost leadership or differentiation
Blue ocean	No competition (new market)	Value innovation, create demand
Repeated game	Same players, many rounds	Reciprocity, reputation, tit-for-tat
Coordination	All benefit from alignment	Standards, first-mover, communication
Chicken	Both lose from collision	Credible commitment, brinkmanship
Prisoner's dilemma	Individual vs collective interest	Cooperation mechanisms, punishment
Asymmetric	Players have different strengths	Leverage your asymmetry
Platform	Two-sided markets	Subsidize one side, monetize other

Step 2: Design Strategy Using Templates

Strategy specification template:

STRATEGY:
Name: [memorable label]
Game archetype: [from Step 1]
Mechanism: [HOW this strategy wins — the causal chain]
Key assumption: [what must be true for this to work]
Resource required: [what you need to deploy]
Timeline: [when results expected]
Risk: [what could go wrong]
Kill criterion: [when to abandon this strategy]

Strategy mechanism types:

• Cost advantage: Win by being cheaper (economies of scale, efficiency, location)
• Differentiation: Win by being different (features, brand, experience)
• Focus: Win by serving a niche better than generalists
• Speed: Win by being faster (first-mover, fast-follow, rapid iteration)
• Network: Win by having more connections (platforms, ecosystems)
• Lock-in: Win by making switching costly (standards, data, habits)
• Asymmetric: Win by fighting a different battle than competitors expect
• Cooperation: Win by aligning with others (alliances, standards, communities)

Step 3: Evaluate Strategy

Score along key dimensions:

Dimension	Score (1-5)	Evidence
Feasibility: Can we actually execute this?
Mechanism clarity: Is the causal chain clear?
Assumption validity: Are key assumptions sound?
Defensibility: Can competitors copy this?
Robustness: Does it work if conditions change?
Reversibility: Can we exit if it fails?
Alignment: Does it fit our capabilities?
Timing: Is now the right time?

Red flags:

• Mechanism isn't clear ("we'll win by being better" — HOW?)
• Assumptions aren't testable
• Strategy requires competitors to be stupid
• No kill criterion defined
• Relies on predictions about the future

Step 4: Compare Strategies

If multiple strategies are under consideration:

Criterion	Strategy A	Strategy B	Strategy C
Upside (best case)
Downside (worst case)
Probability of success
Time to result
Resource required
Reversibility
Learning value

Step 5: Stress Test

For the top strategy:

1. What if the key assumption is WRONG?
2. What if a competitor does the SAME thing?
3. What if conditions CHANGE midway?
4. What if execution is SLOWER than expected?
5. What's the MINIMUM viable version? (Test before committing)

Step 6: Report

STRATEGY ANALYSIS:
Game: [archetype] — [key characteristics]
Players: [who matters]

Recommended strategy:
Name: [label]
Mechanism: [how it wins]
Key assumption: [what must be true]
Timeline: [expected results]

Evaluation: [overall score] / 40
Strongest dimension: [which]
Weakest dimension: [which — this is where risk lives]

Kill criterion: [when to abandon]
Minimum viable test: [smallest version to validate]

When to Use

• Designing new strategies
• Analyzing existing strategies
• Understanding competitive dynamics
• Comparing strategy options
• → INVOKE: /dse (strategy evaluation) for deeper evaluation
• → INVOKE: /dsd (strategy derivation) for deriving strategies from goals
• → INVOKE: /ol (competitive strategy) for adversarial contexts

Verification

• Game characterized (not just "we have competition")
• Strategy mechanism is clear and causal
• Key assumptions stated and testable
• Strategy evaluated on multiple dimensions
• Stress-tested against assumption failure
• Kill criterion defined