| name | ansoff-matrix |
| argument-hint | [company or product line, its current core, and the growth outcome sought] |
| description | Map evidence-backed growth options across the Ansoff Matrix with risk-rated sequencing. Use when the question is where the next tranche of growth comes from, and at what risk. |
| intent | A researched Ansoff Matrix, not a brainstorm grid: market penetration, market development, product development, and diversification, each quadrant populated with candidate moves backed by documented signals, risk ratings that respect the matrix's risk gradient, and a recommended sequence with the assumption that breaks it. |
| type | workflow |
| theme | market-intelligence |
| best_for | ["Answering 'where does the next tranche of growth come from?' with evidence per option","Forcing diversification proposals to carry the evidence burden their risk demands","Sequencing growth moves so early wins fund the riskier bets"] |
| scenarios | ["Growth planning for next year — map our options across the Ansoff quadrants with evidence","The board wants a diversification story; pressure-test it against what the signals actually support"] |
| estimated_time | 25-40 min per run |
Ansoff Matrix (Evidence-Backed)
Purpose
Map a company's growth options across the Ansoff Matrix with evidence per quadrant: use or gather
evidence → four quadrants with signals → risk-rated sequence → next-step options. The four
quadrants — market penetration, market development, product development, diversification — organize
one question: where does the next tranche of growth come from, and at what risk? This is a research
instrument, not wishful whiteboarding: every candidate move must answer "what documented signal says
this demand exists?" And the close is a sequence, because growth options compound — penetration funds
development, and diversification bets the funding.
Input
Works best with: the company or product line seeking growth, its current core (who is served,
with what, at what scale — the matrix's axes are defined relative to it), and the growth outcome and
horizon on the table.
Also useful: constraints (capital, capability, risk appetite), and any research in session — a
landscape scan, five-forces read, or company-intel output lets the
matrix organize evidence instead of gathering it.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (core, outcome
and horizon, constraints) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.
Example invocation: Ansoff growth options for our field-service product line — core: dispatch software for mid-market HVAC firms, US. Outcome: +40% ARR in 24 months. Constraint: no acquisitions.
Key Concepts
- Governing protocol: honors the
autonomous-investigation
contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
Mode (2-3 moves per quadrant), stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
- The framework (Ansoff, 1957): growth options plotted on two axes — existing vs. new products,
existing vs. new markets. Penetration (existing/existing) is the lowest-risk quadrant;
diversification (new/new) the highest, because it abandons both anchors of proven demand at once.
- The risk gradient is law. Penetration < market development ≈ product development <
diversification. A diversification move rated "low risk" needs extraordinary evidence — and the
gradient teaches why diversification proposals deserve the heaviest evidence burden and usually
arrive with the lightest.
