| name | test-positioning |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "test our positioning," "are we differentiated," "is this a real strategy or just a slogan," or has a positioning statement that needs the trade-off discipline applied — what are you choosing not to do.
|
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| metadata | {"version":"0.3.0","owner":"market-intelligence practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"option-evaluation","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"} |
Test Positioning
When to use
When a positioning claim needs trade-off discipline — what you're choosing not to do — before treating it as strategy.
What this skill does not do
- Does not write positioning from scratch — tests an existing claim; practice-setup captures baseline.
- Does not map competitors — route to
/market-intelligence:map-competitive-landscape.
- Does not validate marketing slogans without trade-offs — flags aspiration vs. strategic choice.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|
| Positioning statement (profile or user) | Ask user to state claim |
| Practice profile | Proceed from user input |
map-incentives output (optional) | Skip incentive coherence check; note gap |
Provisional mode
No trade-off named by user: output TRADE-OFF: NONE FOUND and stop short of validating as real strategic choice.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
option-evaluation):
- High: Trade-off explicit, stuck-in-the-middle check passed, alienation assessed, incentive coherence checked.
- Medium: Trade-off named but alienation acceptance unclear —
[review].
- Low: No trade-off — positioning flagged as aspiration only.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces trade-offs and failures; does not declare positioning "good" or "bad."
- Client confidentiality: Positioning may be pre-release — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: "Who this alienates" forces deliberate acceptance question.
- Analytical Rigor: Stuck-in-the-middle pattern named directly when present.
- Incentive Gaming: Checks whether internal incentives undermine stated position.
- Escalation triggers: Stuck-in-the-middle with no structural mechanism — flag as blocking for strategy credibility.
Workflow
- Read the practice profile for current positioning.
- State the positioning as claimed, plainly.
- Demand the trade-off — segment, use case, or feature set walked away from. If none: flag explicitly.
- Check stuck-in-the-middle — cost leadership + differentiation without credible mechanism.
- Stress-test who this alienates — deliberate and accepted, or unexamined side-effect?
- Check incentive coherence against
map-incentives if available.
- Validate before output: trade-off discipline applied; no false validation of slogans.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
POSITIONING AS CLAIMED: [statement]
TRADE-OFF: [named explicitly] or [NONE FOUND — flag: not yet a real strategic choice]
STUCK-IN-THE-MIDDLE CHECK: [pass] or [flag — claiming cost leadership and differentiation
with no credible mechanism for both]
WHO THIS ALIENATES: [segment/use case] — Deliberate and accepted? [yes/no — if no, flag
as the more important finding]
INCENTIVE COHERENCE (if map-incentives available): [supports / undermines the stated position]
Worked example
Input: "Best workflow automation for everyone — enterprise power at mid-market price."
Expected output (excerpt):
CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
POSITIONING AS CLAIMED: Best workflow automation for everyone — enterprise power at mid-market price
TRADE-OFF: NONE FOUND — flag: not yet a real strategic choice
STUCK-IN-THE-MIDDLE CHECK: flag — claiming cost leadership and differentiation with no credible mechanism for both [review]
WHO THIS ALIENATES: none stated — Deliberate and accepted? no — unexamined; real position must alienate someone [review]
INCENTIVE COHERENCE: not assessed — run map-incentives
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: refine positioning, run map-incentives, or map-competitive-landscape.
