| name | map-information-asymmetry |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "where's the information asymmetry here," "are we the informed or uninformed party," "how do we signal quality / screen for it," or has a negotiation, deal, or market situation where one party plausibly knows something the other doesn't.
|
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| metadata | {"version":"0.3.0","owner":"market-intelligence practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"hypothesis-driven-analysis","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"} |
Map Information Asymmetry
When to use
Negotiations, deals, hiring, customer relationships — when one party plausibly knows something the other doesn't and signaling/screening mechanics matter.
What this skill does not do
- Does not value the deal — surfaces asymmetry implications; does not replace financial modeling.
- Does not invent hidden information — asks user or flags gaps
[review].
- Does not recommend proceed/abandon — states strategic implication; strategist decides.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|
| Situation stated precisely (deal, negotiation, relationship) | Ask once to narrow |
| Parties identified | Ask who is on each side |
| Known private information categories | Proceed with [PROVISIONAL] — label asymmetries as hypotheses |
Provisional mode
Without diligence data: map hypothesized asymmetries tagged [review]; do not assert informed/uninformed position as fact.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
hypothesis-driven-analysis):
- High: Concrete hidden-info categories per party; costly signal or screen mechanism named; adverse-selection assessed.
- Medium: Some categories inferred; signal/screen options listed with gaps.
- Low: Situation vague — refuse to map until scoped.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Strategic implication is diagnostic, not a deal recommendation.
- Client confidentiality: Deal terms and hidden info highly sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: Forces admission when user is uninformed party —
[review] on exposure.
- Analytical Rigor: Specific hidden-info categories; costly-signal test applied (cheap signals rejected).
- Incentive Gaming: N/A — information-structure focus.
- Escalation triggers: Adverse-selection spiral present with no credible signal/screen — flag blocking risk.
Workflow
- State the situation precisely.
- List what each party knows that the other plausibly doesn't — specific categories, not vague "knows more."
- Determine informed vs. uninformed side — including when user is uninformed.
- If informed: name credible costly signal available, or "none currently available."
- If uninformed: name screening mechanism, or "none currently applied."
- Apply market-for-lemons logic where quality is hard to verify pre-commitment.
- State strategic implication — exploiting advantage, giving one away, or exposed.
- MECE check: both parties' hidden-info lists complete for stated situation.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
SITUATION: [the deal/negotiation/relationship in question]
WHAT [PARTY A] KNOWS THAT [PARTY B] DOESN'T: [specific, concrete]
WHAT [PARTY B] KNOWS THAT [PARTY A] DOESN'T: [specific, concrete]
YOUR POSITION: [informed | uninformed] on [which specific asymmetry]
IF INFORMED: Available costly signal: [specific mechanism, or "none currently available"]
IF UNINFORMED: Available screening mechanism: [specific mechanism, or "none currently applied"]
ADVERSE SELECTION RISK: [present / not present — explain]
STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: [exploiting an advantage / giving one away / exposed to one — be direct]
Worked example
Input: Acquiring a SaaS target; seller claims 5% churn; buyer lacks cohort data.
Expected output (excerpt):
CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
SITUATION: Acquisition of TargetCo at 8x ARR
WHAT SELLER KNOWS THAT BUYER DOESN'T: True logo churn by cohort, expansion vs. contraction drivers
WHAT BUYER KNOWS THAT SELLER DOESN'T: Integration cost estimate, synergy capture timeline
YOUR POSITION: uninformed on churn quality
IF UNINFORMED: Available screening mechanism: tiered earnout tied to net retention at 12 months [review]
ADVERSE SELECTION RISK: present — churn unverified pre-close may select for overstated retention
STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: exposed — price assumes stated churn; structure or diligence required before proceeding [review]
Quality checks before delivering
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: diligence plan, deal-structure revision, or corp-strategy evaluation.
