prd-v02-product-type-classification

name	prd-v02-product-type-classification
description	Classify product approach into one of six types (Clone, Unbundle, Undercut, Slice, Wrapper, Innovation) based on competitive landscape. Triggers on PRD v0.2 work after competitive analysis, or when user asks "what type of product should we build?", "should we clone or innovate?", "is this a fast-follow opportunity?", "how should we position against competitors?", "clone vs undercut", "unbundle vs slice", or requests help choosing product strategy. Outputs BR- entries for product type classification and inherited GTM constraints.
context	fork
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","WebSearch","WebFetch"]

Product Type Classification

Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.2 Product Type Classification → v0.3 Outcome Definition

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.2:

• Landscape map artifact (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, competitor analysis
• CFD-* entries (competitive intelligence, from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Evidence from 3+ direct competitors + adjacent solutions
• BR-* positioning rules (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Constraints derived from competitive analysis

This skill assumes v0.2 Competitive Landscape is complete with documented landscape analysis.

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• BR-* entries (product type classification) — Decision record showing which of the six types this product is
• BR-* entries (GTM constraints inherited from type) — Pricing, channel, scope, and timeline implications of the chosen type
• Product type artifact — Named decision: "We are building a [Type] product because [specific evidence from landscape]"

Example product type classification entry:

BR-042: Product Type Classification

Type: Classification Decision
Date: 2026-02-01
Confidence: 70% (source: competitive-landscape-analysis + 3-customer-interviews)

Classification: UNDERCUT
Rationale: All 3 direct competitors (Notion, Linear, Figma) serve enterprise/mid-market first; SMB segment underserved. We can deliver 80% of feature set at 40% price for SMB-specific workflows.

Evidence:
  - CFD-015 (landscape): "All competitors start at $50/user/month enterprise pricing"
  - CFD-018 (landscape): "3 SMB teams using workarounds because pricing doesn't fit budget"
  - CFD-001 (value hypothesis): "$12,500/year value for 5 core features only"

GTM Constraints (inherited):
  - Pricing: Must be <$200/user/month to justify switching
  - Channel: Direct sales to SMB, not marketplace/enterprise
  - Scope: Ruthlessly cut features; 5 core + 3 differentiators max
  - Timeline: Fast iteration with SMB feedback; can't outspend enterprise marketing

Six Product Types

Type	Definition	When Evidence Shows
Clone	Copy proven product, execute better	Leader validated market; weak moat; execution gap
Unbundle	Extract one category from horizontal platform	Multi-category platform does your thing poorly
Undercut	Same product, simpler + cheaper for niche	Tool overserves broad market; 60%+ price gap possible
Slice	Plugin/extension in existing ecosystem	Platform has marketplace; users already there
Wrapper	AI/API layer on existing data/tools	Middleware gap between tools; data accessible
Innovation	New solution to known problem	Existing approaches fundamentally broken; high pain

Classification Decision Flow

START: What does v0.2 Competitive Landscape show?

Q1: Is there a dominant horizontal platform doing many things?
    YES → Does it do YOUR thing poorly? 
          YES → UNBUNDLE (extract the vertical)
          NO → Continue to Q2
    NO → Continue to Q2

Q2: Is there a single-purpose leader with validated market?
    YES → Can you price 60%+ lower for a niche?
          YES → UNDERCUT
          NO → Can you execute better (speed/UX)?
                YES → CLONE
                NO → Continue to Q3
    NO → Continue to Q3

Q3: Does target customer live in a platform ecosystem?
    YES → Does platform have marketplace/app store?
          YES → SLICE (build extension)
          NO → Continue to Q4
    NO → Continue to Q4

Q4: Is there a data/API integration gap between tools?
    YES → Is the data accessible (API/scraping)?
          YES → WRAPPER
          NO → Continue to Q5
    NO → Continue to Q5

Q5: Are existing solutions fundamentally broken?
    YES → Is pain severe enough for education investment?
          YES → INNOVATION
          NO → Reconsider market
    NO → Reconsider market or revisit Q1-Q4

Evidence Requirements Per Type

Type	Required Evidence (from v0.2 Landscape)	Confidence Threshold
Clone	Revenue proof + feature gap + weak moat	Medium (50%+)
Unbundle	Platform size + category neglect + user complaints	Medium (50%+)
Undercut	Price benchmarks + niche pain + simplification path	High (70%+)
Slice	Platform MAU + marketplace presence + integration docs	High (70%+)
Wrapper	API availability + use case validation + cost model	High (70%+)
Innovation	Failed alternatives + severe pain + budget evidence	Very High (85%+)

Output Template

After classification, create these entries:

BR-XXX: Product Type Classification

Type: [Clone | Unbundle | Undercut | Slice | Wrapper | Innovation]
Confidence: [X]%
Primary Evidence: [CFD-XXX reference]
Classification Rationale: [2-3 sentences]

BR-XXX: GTM Constraints (inherited from type)

Pricing Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Channel Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Scope Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Timeline Implication: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

1. Claiming Innovation when it's really Clone: If competitor exists with revenue, you're not innovating
2. Undercut without price evidence: Must show 60%+ reduction is possible AND sustainable
3. Slice without ecosystem validation: Platform must actually want third-party apps
4. Wrapper without API access confirmed: Technical feasibility must precede classification
5. Unbundle from small platform: Only works against large horizontal players

Reference Files

• Decision Framework: See references/decision-framework.md for expanded decision trees
• Examples: See references/examples.md for good/bad classification cases
• GTM Constraints: See references/gtm-constraints.md for type → constraint mapping
• Classification Template: See assets/classification.md for structured worksheet

Downstream Impact

Classification constrains v0.3 decisions:

• Outcome metrics must match type (Clone = feature parity; Undercut = price advantage)
• Pricing model anchored to type (Undercut must show savings; Slice follows platform norms)
• MVP scope bounded by type (Clone = match leader; Undercut = ruthlessly cut features)
• GTM channel determined by type (Slice = marketplace; Undercut = direct to niche)