assess-moat-sources

name

assess-moat-sources

description

Assesses which of Helmer's 7 Powers (scale economies, network economies, counter-positioning, switching costs, branding, cornered resource, process power) protect incumbents in a defined industry, how durable each is over the analysis horizon, and which Power combination the winning archetype must hold. Output: moat-sources.md with per-Power present/absent + intensity, benefit + barrier decomposition for each present Power, durability rating (erosion timeframe + vector), buildability for a new entrant or roll-up, winner-archetype Power profile, durability risks, and reconciliation against value-chain-profit-pools.md if present. Sub-skill of analyze-industry; invocable standalone. Triggers on 'assess moat for [industry]', '7 powers analysis of [industry]', 'how durable is the moat in [industry]', 'moat durability [industry]', 'will the moat hold'. Do NOT use for single-company moat (use build-company-model), customer-lock-in only (use analyze-demand), or share analysis (use map-competitive-arena).

Assess Moat Sources

For a defined industry, assess which of Helmer's 7 Powers protect incumbents (and which can be built by a new entrant), how durable each is, and what Power combination the winning archetype must hold. Output: moat-sources.md with per-Power assessment + durability + buildability + winner-archetype profile.

The discipline: moat is not a vibe. Helmer's 7 Powers is the canonical taxonomy: each Power requires a benefit (cash-flow improvement via higher price, lower cost, or reduced investment) AND a barrier (an obstacle that prevents competitors from arbitraging the benefit away). Without both, it is not a Power — it is operational excellence, branding aspiration, or wishful thinking.

Iron rules:

• All 7 Powers explicitly assessed (present / absent / nascent) — none silently omitted.
• For each present Power: explicit benefit: statement + barrier: statement. Both required.
• Durability rating per present Power: erosion timeframe (short <3y / medium 3-7y / long >7y) with named erosion vector.
• Buildability for new-entrant / roll-up archetype: per Power, can a well-resourced entrant build it within horizon? Conditions required?
• Winner-archetype Power profile: name the minimum Power combination an industry winner must hold.
• Power Progression alignment: cross-reference industry/company stage (per analyze-trajectory if present) — origination vs takeoff vs stability Powers.
• Cross-reference reconciliation: if working/value-chain-profit-pools.md exists, the structural protection named there MUST match this skill's dominant Power. Mismatch flagged explicitly for Gate 2.
• V/C/A/I tagging on every fact-claim per ../_shared/provenance-tagging.md.
• 2026 vocabulary per ../_shared/2026-terminology.md — "strategic power" not "moat" in body prose; "moat" only in shorthand.
• Append next_skills: YAML at end of output.

Process

1. Intake

Confirm: industry slug, analysis horizon (5y / 10y default), whether a roll-up / new-entrant archetype is in scope. Read references/seven-powers-canonical.md for the verified Helmer definitions.

2. Per-Power diagnostic sweep

For each of the 7 Powers, run the diagnostic in references/power-diagnostics.md. Mark present / absent / nascent with one-line evidence. For each present Power, write paired:

• benefit: what does the customer/holder get (higher price extracted / lower cost / lower investment)?
• barrier: why specifically cannot competitors replicate this within the horizon?

Both lines required. Missing either = not a Power.

3. Durability assessment

For each present Power, rate erosion timeframe per references/durability-assessment.md:

• Short (<3y): named erosion vector active now (e.g., AI agent reducing switching costs; expiring patent; commoditising standard)
• Medium (3-7y): erosion vector visible but not yet binding
• Long (>7y): no credible erosion vector identified within horizon

Name the erosion vector specifically. "Will erode eventually" is not an assessment.

4. Buildability for new entrant / roll-up

For each Power, per references/buildability-assessment.md, answer: can a well-resourced new entrant or roll-up platform build this Power within the horizon? Required conditions? Capital? Time?

This is the load-bearing output for the orchestrator's "roll-up archetype" questions.

5. Winner-archetype Power profile

Name the minimum Power combination the industry winner must hold. Be specific: not "scale + network" but "MES-scale in distribution + 2-sided network economies between buyer and seller". Reference Power Progression: which Powers are available at the current S-curve stage of the industry?

6. Cross-reference reconciliation

If working/value-chain-profit-pools.md exists:

1. Read the structural-protection statement for the highest-EBIT stage.
2. Compare to the dominant Power identified in step 5.
3. Write a ## Cross-reference reconciliation section that explicitly:
   • Quotes the value-chain-profit-pools Power name.
   • States this skill's dominant Power name.
   • Concludes: MATCH / MISMATCH — flag for Gate 2.
4. If MISMATCH, do NOT silently override either skill. Surface the contradiction with the candidate resolution (which is more likely correct + why).

If working/five-forces.md exists, also cross-reference: the governing force should be consistent with the dominant Power (e.g., high buyer power is inconsistent with strong switching-costs Power on the seller side).

7. Named durability risks

List the top 3 risks that could erode the winner-archetype's Power combination within horizon. Each risk: trigger event + estimated probability band + estimated impact. AI as a force is explicitly considered per references/seven-powers-canonical.md "AI impact" section.

8. Validate + write output

Run python scripts/validate_moat.py --output-path <path>. Write to working/moat-sources.md (orchestrator) or standalone/assess-moat-sources-YYYY-MM-DD.md (standalone).

HTML on request (standalone only): markdown is the default and the only format the validator and the orchestrator consume. If the user explicitly asks for an HTML version of a standalone run, then after validation passes, also render the output via the html-output skill and review it per ../_shared/output-conventions.md § "HTML deliverables and quality review". Never produce HTML automatically.

9. Append next_skills: YAML

At end of file. Example:

---
next_skills:
  - analyze-trajectory       # confirm Power Progression matches S-curve stage
  - map-competitive-arena    # identify which players hold which Powers
---

Gotchas

• Symptom: Power named without benefit + barrier decomposition. Cause: writer asserted "scale economies" without specifying MES or the cost penalty for sub-scale players. Fix: validator rejects any present-Power assertion without both benefit: and barrier: lines.
• Symptom: "first-mover advantage" listed as a Power. Cause: position confused with structure. Fix: first-mover is durable only if it enabled a named Power (network economies, cornered resource). Validator rejects standalone.
• Symptom: "operational excellence" / "execution" labelled as Process Power. Cause: symptom confused with structure. Fix: Process Power requires multi-year compounding AND evidence that competitors who poached senior leaders could not replicate. Validator rejects "operational excellence" / "execution" alone.
• Symptom: only 3-4 Powers discussed; remainder silently omitted. Cause: writer focused on present Powers and skipped absent ones. Fix: validator counts explicit assessments for all 7 Powers (present OR absent OR nascent).
• Symptom: durability rated "long" with no erosion vector named. Cause: assumed permanence. Fix: validator requires an erosion vector phrase for every present Power, even if rated long.
• Symptom: value-chain-profit-pools.md says "branding" protects the highest pool, but moat-sources.md names "switching costs" as dominant. Cause: sub-skills written independently. Fix: step 6 reconciliation required; mismatch blocks Gate 2.
• Symptom: AI dismissed in one sentence. Cause: under-engagement with the strongest current erosion vector for 2026-era assessments. Fix: named-risks section must explicitly consider AI's effect on Switching Costs, Branding, and Scale Economies per references/seven-powers-canonical.md.

Rules

• Never name a Power without explicit benefit + barrier.
• Never silently omit a Power — all 7 receive an explicit assessment.
• Never label "first-mover" / "differentiation" / "execution" / "expertise" / "relationships" / "quality" / "complexity" / "adds value" / "is critical" as a Power.
• Never declare a Power durable without naming the erosion vector being assessed against.
• Never override value-chain-profit-pools.md silently — mismatches surfaced explicitly.
• Every fact-claim carries a V/C/A/I tag.
• All file reads use encoding='utf-8'.

Old patterns

v1.0 (2026-05-18) initial build. Canonical 7 Powers verified against Helmer (2016) + 2024-26 commentary including Strategy Capital posts and the Lenny's Newsletter interview on AI impact. Built as Phase 2 sub-skill of analyze-industry with explicit Gate 2 reconciliation against map-value-chain-profit-pools.md. Inherits _shared/provenance-tagging.md + _shared/2026-terminology.md.

---