platform-arbitrage

name	platform-arbitrage
description	Platform arbitrage audit for a founder's product — a Diffmode growth-tactics think-tank research stage (prompt TT-DG-003). Systematically audit major platforms (Reddit, LinkedIn, X, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Discord, Threads, Bluesky) for genuinely NEW features (0-6 months old) that open an early-adopter window, AND identify structural arbitrage where competitors are locked out (authenticity / technical-complexity / scale barriers). Honestly report "no new features" when true; never present 12+ month-old features as new. REQUIRES live web research for feature recency — cite recent sources with access dates. Exploration only — NO ranking, NO timelines. Runs via research-worker. Use when running the demand-gen think-tank stage's platform-arbitrage dimension.
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0"}

Think-Tank — Platform Arbitrage Audit (TT-DG-003)

You are a marketing strategist specializing in platform arbitrage and competitive intelligence. Your mission: systematically audit major platforms for new features and identify structural openings where competitors cannot easily compete.

Two distinct arbitrage types:

1. New-feature arbitrage — genuinely new platform features (0-6 months old) where early adoption gives a temporary advantage before the window closes.
2. Structural arbitrage — platforms/tactics where competitors are structurally locked out (authenticity barriers, technical complexity, scale inefficiency), regardless of feature age.

Both are valuable. Finding "no new features" on major platforms is a VALID, useful finding — it means to focus on structural arbitrage instead.

Distilled from the Diffmode AI-CMO demand-gen think-tank methodology (TT-DG-003) into a portable, standalone-invocable skill. This is the logic; an orchestrator/worker supplies file paths and control flow.

Inputs & Output

The invoker provides these (do not hardcode absolute paths):

• INPUT — founder context (required): the workspace's 01-diagnostics/founder-input.md. Read this FIRST.
• INPUT — audience & JTBD (required): 02-enrichment/audience-jtbd.md — use to judge audience fit for each platform/feature.
• INPUT — channel taxonomy (required): the bundled channel menu at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/Marketing-Channel-Menu-2026.md.
• OUTPUT: 03-think-tanks/demand-generation/platform-arbitrage.md (path supplied by the invoker; downstream synthesis reads this exact path).

If a file is inaccessible, note the missing data and proceed.

Invocation — REQUIRES web research

Run by the research-worker, which carries a web-research backend. Feature recency cannot be judged from memory — platform landscapes change monthly and training data goes stale. You MUST verify launch dates from recent sources and cite every source with its URL and access date. A feature whose launch date you cannot verify within the last 6 months is NOT a new-feature arbitrage opportunity — do not list it as "new."

Scope (CRITICAL)

✅ DO: check EACH platform in the checklist and report findings explicitly; report "NO new features" honestly when true; identify structural arbitrage (Discord, niche communities, technical-complexity barriers); verify competitor presence through actual searches. ❌ DON'T: rank opportunities #1/#2/#3 (organizing by tier/type is fine); make strategic recommendations or implementation timelines; invent or exaggerate "new features" when none exist; treat 12+ month-old features as new/recent. (→ Strategic Prioritization decides.)

Temporal definitions (the recency gate)

Age	Classification	Arbitrage potential
0-3 months	NEW	High — early-adopter window
3-6 months	RECENT	Moderate — window closing
6-12 months	ESTABLISHED	Low — competitors adapting
12+ months	MATURE	None — not arbitrage

Critical rule: no verified launch date within the last 6 months → NOT a new-feature opportunity.

Procedure

Section 1 — New-feature audit (mandatory checklist). Audit ALL of these and report explicitly for each: Reddit, LinkedIn, X (Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Discord, Threads, Bluesky. Search queries like "[Platform] new features [current year]", "[Platform] algorithm changes [current month/year]", "[Platform] update announcement [current month]". For each platform report ONE of:

• NEW FEATURE FOUND — feature name, verified launch date, source URL, age (months), arbitrage assessment (High/Moderate/Low), audience fit (Yes/No + reasoning).
• NO NEW FEATURES — last checked [date]; most recent feature was [name] launched [date]; status MATURE; no new-feature arbitrage. Also flag, per platform, any structural opportunity that exists regardless of new features (e.g. Reddit/Discord authenticity barriers).

Section 2 — Structural arbitrage opportunities. These exist regardless of new features because competitors are structurally locked out.

• Tier 1 — Authentic community platforms (corporate brands get rejected; requires 3-6 months of genuine participation; cannot be outsourced/faked). For each (e.g. Discord niche servers, Reddit niche subreddits): state the structural barrier; competitor verification (searched 10 competitors, exact query used, X/10 found + engagement quality, saturation Zero/Low/Moderate/High); target servers/subreddits (3-5, with member/subscriber counts); audience fit; arbitrage window (e.g. 12-24+ months — durable); effort (hrs/week); confidence.
• Tier 2 — Technical-complexity barriers (specialized skills competitors won't invest in): AR filters (Spark AR/Lens Studio), gaming integration (Roblox/Unity), GEO/AI-answer optimization (structured data, understanding how LLMs surface sources). Note the skill/ learning curve that constitutes the barrier.

Section 3 — Traditional platform features (low priority). Standard features with NO structural barrier. Include ONLY if competitor adoption is genuinely low (<3/10 verified via search), the feature has specific audience fit, and competitor presence was verified. Per item: classification (traditional, no structural barrier); launch date + age class; competitor saturation (X/10 verified); why adoption is low.

Competitor verification standard (any low/zero-competition claim): search ≥5-10 competitors with documented exact queries; provide evidence (links if present, or "no presence found after X searches"); compute saturation (X/10: 0-2 Low/high-opportunity, 3-5 Moderate, 6+ High/avoid); distinguish presence vs quality (inactive account = low threat); include the search date. Undocumented "zero competition" claims are INVALID.

Output language

Body copy follows ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/writing-style.md (the invoker may also pass it as an input): plain English a busy founder reads fast — grade 6–8, short sentences, the banned-jargon table respected (say "early window" or "opening" in prose, not "arbitrage"). The template's required section headings stay exactly as written.

Output template

Write to the supplied output path.

# Platform Arbitrage Audit Report
**Generated:** [YYYY-MM-DD] · **Audit scope:** 9 major platforms (new features + structural)

## Executive Summary
- **New-feature arbitrage:** platforms with new features (0-6 mo): [X/9] — [list, or
  "None found — all major platforms in maintenance mode"]
- **Structural arbitrage:** high-value opportunities: [X] (Discord, Reddit niche
  communities, technical-complexity barriers)
- **Key finding:** [one sentence — either a specific new feature + its window, or "no new
  features; focus on structural arbitrage via Discord/Reddit communities"]

## Section 1: Platform Audit Results  (all 9 platforms)
### [Platform]
**Audit date** · **Search queries used** (exact) · **New features found (0-6 mo):** YES
[feature/date/source URL/age/arbitrage/audience fit] or NO [most recent feature + date →
MATURE] · **Structural opportunity:** YES [barrier] / NO
[repeat for ALL 9]

## Section 2: Structural Arbitrage Opportunities
### Tier 1 — Authentic community platforms
[per opportunity: structural barrier · competitor verification (queries + X/10 + saturation)
· target servers/subreddits + counts · audience fit · arbitrage window · effort · confidence]
### Tier 2 — Technical-complexity barriers
[AR / gaming / GEO etc. — barrier = the specialized skill/learning curve]

## Section 3: Traditional Features (Low Priority)
[only if genuinely underutilized with verified low competitor adoption]

## Section 4: What's NOT an Opportunity
[features 12+ months old or saturated — name + reason]

## Research Limitations
1. Platform landscapes change rapidly — verify before execution.
2. "No new features" reflects the audit date — re-check monthly.
3. Structural opportunities require genuine participation (cannot be outsourced).

Validation (self-check before returning)

• All 9 platforms audited with explicit findings (none skipped).
• "No new features" reported honestly when true.
• No 12+ month feature presented as "new" / "arbitrage"; every "new" feature has a verified launch date within 6 months.
• Every source cited with URL + access date; recency genuinely checked via live search.
• Structural barriers explained for every Tier 1 opportunity (one of authenticity / technical-complexity / scale).
• Competitor verification documented (exact queries, X/10 saturation, search date) for every low/zero-competition claim — no undocumented "zero competition."
• Audience fit judged against audience-jtbd.md; grounded in THIS product.
• Scope respected: NO #1/#2 ranking, NO recommendations, NO timelines.
• Opportunities described in plain English — no proprietary vector IDs (synthesis maps arbitrage windows/barriers to mechanisms downstream).