| name | positioning-engine |
| description | Activate when the user needs to analyze how their paper positions itself relative to the closest existing work. Builds a differentiation matrix, identifies unique positioning, and generates a positioning statement that strengthens the contribution argumentation. Complements the theory-engine by focusing on the competitive landscape of related papers.
|
Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to outputs/orchestration_log.md:
### Skill Activation: Positioning Engine
**Timestamp:** [current date/time]
**Actor:** AI Agent (positioning-engine)
**Input:** Paper draft + [N] comparison papers identified
**Output:** Differentiation matrix with [N] dimensions, positioning_analysis.md saved
Positioning Engine
Core Principle
"How is your paper different from X?" is the question every reviewer asks. This
engine produces a systematic answer. It identifies the 5-10 most similar existing
papers, builds a structured differentiation matrix, and generates a positioning
statement that makes the unique contribution explicit and defensible.
The output directly strengthens the Introduction (gap + contribution paragraphs)
and the Discussion (theoretical implications).
When to Activate
- User says "position my paper", "how is this different from X?", "differentiation"
- User says "compare to related work", "positioning analysis", "unique contribution"
- During Phase 2 (Framing) to sharpen the gap and contribution
- When a reviewer challenges the novelty or contribution
- User runs
/analyze-positioning
Prerequisites
draft.md or paper.tex exists (to understand the paper's claims)references.bib and/or literature_base.csv exist (comparison candidates)- Research questions and contribution are at least tentatively defined
Step 1: IDENTIFY Closest Competitors
Finding the Most Similar Papers
Sources for comparison papers:
- From the paper itself: Papers cited in the Introduction and Related Work
that address the same or very similar research questions
- From
literature_base.csv: Papers with the highest topical overlap
- From snowballing: Forward citations of the paper's key references that
appeared after those references were published
- Direct search: Search for papers with very similar titles or identical keywords
Selection Criteria
Select 5-10 papers that are the closest competitors — papers that a reviewer
might say "but Author X already did this." These are papers that:
- Address the same or very similar research questions
- Study the same phenomenon in a similar context
- Use a similar methodology
- Apply the same theoretical lens
- Were published recently (high overlap risk)
Output
For each selected paper, extract:
{
"bib_key": "[key]",
"title": "[title]",
"authors": "[authors]",
"year": [year],
"venue": "[venue]",
"rq": "[their research question or objective]",
"method": "[their method]",
"theory": "[their theoretical lens]",
"context": "[their empirical context]",
"key_finding": "[their main finding]",
"similarity_to_ours": "high/medium",
"citation_count": [N]
}
Step 2: BUILD Differentiation Matrix
Matrix Structure
Build a table comparing the competitor papers against YOUR paper across key dimensions:
## Differentiation Matrix
| Dimension | Our Paper | [Author1 (Year)] | [Author2 (Year)] | [Author3 (Year)] | ... |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----|
| **Research Question** | [our RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | |
| **Theoretical Lens** | [our theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | |
| **Method** | [our method] | [their method] | [their method] | [their method] | |
| **Context/Sample** | [our context] | [their context] | [their context] | [their context] | |
| **Time Period** | [our period] | [their period] | [their period] | [their period] | |
| **Technology Focus** | [our tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | |
| **Unit of Analysis** | [our UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | |
| **Key Contribution** | [our contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | |
| **Scope** | [our scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | |
Dimension Selection
Choose 6-10 dimensions that are most relevant for differentiation. Common dimensions:
| Dimension | When to Use |
|---|
| Research Question / Objective | Always |
| Theoretical Lens | When theory is a differentiator |
| Method | When method is a differentiator |
| Context / Industry / Sample | When context is new |
| Time Period / Technology Generation | When recency matters |
| Level of Analysis (individual, team, org, industry) | When level differs |
| Unit of Analysis | When what's being studied differs |
| Geographic / Cultural Context | For cross-cultural studies |
| Dependent Variables / Outcomes | When outcomes differ |
| Stage of Adoption / Maturity | For implementation studies |
| Practitioner vs. Academic Focus | For applied research |
Step 3: ANALYZE Positioning
Gap Identification
From the differentiation matrix, identify:
-
Unique dimensions: Where does our paper differ from ALL competitors?
- These are the strongest positioning arguments
-
Underrepresented combinations: What combination of dimensions is new?
- Even if individual dimensions are not new, the combination may be
-
Temporal advantage: What has changed since the competitors published?
- New technology, new phenomena, new policy context
-
Methodological gap: What method has NOT been applied to this topic?
- E.g., many surveys, no case studies; many qualitative, no quantitative
-
Contextual gap: What context has NOT been studied?
- E.g., many US studies, no European context; many large enterprises, no SMEs
Positioning Patterns
Classify the paper's positioning into one or more patterns:
| Pattern | Description | Strength |
|---|
| New phenomenon | Studies something that didn't exist before | Very strong |
| New context | Applies known theories to unstudied context | Strong |
| New method | Uses a method not yet applied to this topic | Strong |
| New theory | Applies a theory not yet used for this topic | Medium-Strong |
| Integration | Combines previously separate research streams | Medium |
| Replication | Tests prior findings in new setting | Medium |
| Update | Revisits topic after significant change | Medium |
| Deeper | Goes beyond surface-level prior work | Depends on execution |
Step 4: GENERATE Positioning Statement
Positioning Paragraph Template
Generate a paragraph that can be directly inserted into the Introduction (Gap section)
or Related Work:
While prior work has made important contributions to understanding [topic],
significant opportunities for advancement remain. Table [N] compares our study
to the most closely related work. [Author1] (Year) [their focus], but [key
difference from our paper]. Similarly, [Author2] (Year) [their contribution],
yet [what they don't address that we do]. [Author3] (Year) comes closest to
our work in [dimension], but differs in [key differentiator: method/context/theory].
Our study extends this body of work in [N] key ways. First, [unique dimension 1].
While prior studies have [what they did], we [what we do differently]. Second,
[unique dimension 2]. Third, [unique dimension 3, if applicable].
Contribution Refinement
Based on the positioning analysis, refine the contribution statement:
## Refined Contribution Statement
Based on the positioning analysis, the paper's unique contribution is:
1. **[Contribution 1]** — This is unique because no prior study has [specific gap].
Closest competitor: [Author (Year)] who [what they did, but not this].
2. **[Contribution 2]** — This extends [theory/method] by [specific extension].
Unlike [Author (Year)] who [their approach], we [our approach].
3. **[Contribution 3]** — Practical contribution: [specific practical value].
This goes beyond [Author (Year)]'s [their practical contribution] by [how].
Step 5: SAVE Output
Output File: positioning_analysis.md
# Positioning Analysis
**Paper:** [title]
**Date:** [ISO 8601]
**Competitors analyzed:** [N]
## Closest Competitors
[Brief 2-3 sentence description of each competitor paper]
## Differentiation Matrix
[Full matrix from Step 2]
## Positioning Assessment
### Unique Dimensions
[List dimensions where our paper is unique]
### Positioning Pattern
[Classified pattern from Step 3]
### Strongest Differentiators
1. [Differentiator 1 — why it matters]
2. [Differentiator 2 — why it matters]
3. [Differentiator 3 — why it matters]
### Potential Reviewer Challenges
[Anticipated "but Author X already did this" objections + prepared responses]
## Draft Positioning Paragraph
[Ready-to-insert paragraph from Step 4]
## Refined Contribution Statement
[Updated contribution claims from Step 4]
## Recommended Actions
- [ ] Insert differentiation table into Related Work section
- [ ] Update Introduction gap paragraph with positioning language
- [ ] Refine contribution statement in Introduction
- [ ] Add competitor comparison to Discussion section
Error Recovery
- No clearly similar papers found: The paper may be highly novel (good!) or
the search was too narrow. Expand search to adjacent topics.
- Too many similar papers (>10): Focus on the 5 most similar. Group the rest
into clusters.
- Paper appears to have no unique contribution: Flag this honestly. Suggest
ways to differentiate: new context, updated data, different method, integrative perspective.
- Competitor paper discovered that is very close: This is valuable information!
Better to discover this now than during review. Help the user explicitly differentiate.
Integration
| Scenario | Integration |
|---|
| Phase 2 (Framing) | Positioning analysis sharpens gap + contribution |
| Theory-engine | Theory selection informed by what competitors used |
| Writing-engine | Positioning paragraph for Introduction/Related Work |
| Peer-review-engine | Anticipates reviewer objections about novelty |
| Review-engine | Responds to "how is this different from X?" reviewer comments |
