Produces a time-bound GTM brief artifact from ICP research, competitive intelligence, product truth, and a defined time horizon. Invoke when turning research, launch context, competitive signals, or founder/PM intent into a structured, actionable plan. This is not OKR planning — it is a decision-ready brief for a named window (day / week / month). Output is a complete brief artifact with verdict on motion fit, near-term moves, open risks, and explicit decision owners. Feeds downstream into campaign execution and experiment design.
Produces a time-bound GTM brief artifact from ICP research, competitive intelligence, product truth, and a defined time horizon. Invoke when turning research, launch context, competitive signals, or founder/PM intent into a structured, actionable plan. This is not OKR planning — it is a decision-ready brief for a named window (day / week / month). Output is a complete brief artifact with verdict on motion fit, near-term moves, open risks, and explicit decision owners. Feeds downstream into campaign execution and experiment design.
triggers
["/gtm-brief","/gtm-strategy","user wants a GTM plan or brief","user says \"what should we do this week/month\"","user says \"help me turn this research into a brief\"","user says \"we have a launch coming, what's the GTM\""]
role
workflow
version
1.1.0
sources
["gtm-strategy-brief (growth-skills v1.0, score 7/10)","April Dunford, *Obviously Awesome* (2019) — competitive alternative and ICP framing","Product Marketing Alliance 5-phase framework (2026)"]
The 6 pre-questions are evaluated — not just listed — before any brief section is written
Time horizon is matched to decision cadence before recommendations are produced
Motion selection (PLG / SLG / MLG / CLG) is argued from evidence, not asserted
Every recommended action has a defined owner and completion date
Risks and unknowns are surfaced explicitly — not omitted for clean presentation
Output is a DRAFT artifact. Brand-calibration pass is required before external circulation if positioning is DRAFT; recommended (not blocking) if positioning has already passed positioning-review → FINAL
Brain reads / writes
Before starting, if a companion aether-growth-brain repo is connected:
Read knowledge/icp-map.md — the ICP card is the source of truth for who the brief is for; do not invent or assume ICP from product context alone. If no validated ICP card exists, flag this as a blocking gap before proceeding.
Read knowledge/competitor-map.md — confirms which competitive alternatives are named and positioned; brief recommendations must not contradict the current competitive positioning map.
Read playbooks/messaging.md — if approved messaging exists, the brief's framing language must align with it.
On completion, write the brief verdict to decisions/:
decisions/gtm-brief-[date]-[horizon].md
Include: date, horizon, motion selected, top 3 actions, open risks, decision owner.
Inputs
Required before proceeding
Input
Notes
Time horizon
Day / week / month. If not specified, ask before proceeding. Do not default.
Context signal
What prompted this brief: launch, competitive move, research findings, market event, campaign review. Must be a real signal — not "general planning."
ICP card or equivalent
Validated ICP (role, company type, pain category, trigger event). If ICP card from aether-growth-brain is available, use it. Otherwise require the operator to provide it.
Product truth
One product truth: the specific, provable thing this product does better than the competitive alternative for the named ICP. Not a feature list.
Optional but materially improves output
Input
Effect on brief
Competitive intelligence
Enables named competitive framing and motion contrast
Prior brief or strategy doc
Activates Question 5 (what materially changed since then)
Cited signals (data, news, customer quote)
Activates Question 6 (campaign threads grounded in cited signals)
Channel performance data
Improves channel prioritization in the motion recommendations
BLOCK rule
If time horizon is missing:
BLOCK. Return:
"What window does this brief need to serve?
- ~1 day: one concrete touch — a post, a DM, a site copy change
- ~1 week: a content or campaign slice with owners
- ~1 month: an initiative — landing page, partner, event, multi-asset program
The answer changes everything about what a useful brief looks like."
If ICP card is missing AND no ICP input provided:
BLOCK. Return:
"No validated ICP card found. Run /icp-research first, or provide:
- Target role and seniority
- Company type and size signal
- Primary pain category
- Trigger event (what makes them ready to act now)
A brief without a named ICP produces generic recommendations."
Decision logic
Step 1 — Match horizon to decision cadence
Before writing any recommendation, confirm the horizon and set the required precision level:
Horizon
Required precision
What a useful brief looks like
~1 day
Concrete touch: one specific post, reply, DM, or site copy change — executable today by a named person
Three lines: the action, who owns it, what success looks like by end of day
~1 week
Content or campaign slice: draft outline, channel list, named owners, stated hypothesis
One page: context (2 sentences), 2–3 moves with owners, one experiment to run
~1 month
Initiative: landing page, partner, event, multi-asset program with interdependencies
Full brief artifact (this output format)
Do not answer with a 30-day portfolio when the horizon is this week's move. Do not compress a month-level initiative into a day-level brief. Mismatch between horizon and output depth is the most common GTM brief failure.
Step 2 — Evaluate the 6 pre-questions
Answer all six before writing recommendations. These are evaluation questions — not checklist boxes. Each requires a substantive answer grounded in the inputs, or an explicit statement of what is unknown.
Question 1: What is the single most consequential external change right now?
Evaluation criteria:
Must be external (market, competitor, regulatory, technology shift) — not internal milestone
Must be consequential: if ignored for 30 days, what specifically gets harder?
Must be singular — if multiple changes compete, pick the one that has the shortest window before it closes or accelerates
Flag if: the team lists 4–5 changes without ranking them. That is not an answer; that is avoidance. Force the ranking.
Question 2: Who exactly do we target in the next named window?
Evaluation criteria:
Must name role + company type + pain — not "enterprise" or "developers"
Must include a trigger: what is happening in their world right now that makes them ready to act?
Must be bounded to the horizon window — who is reachable in a day/week/month?
Flag if: the ICP is defined only by demographic (company size, industry) without a trigger event. Demographic alone cannot drive channel or message decisions.
Question 3: What is one concrete action completable by a defined date?
Evaluation criteria:
Must be a verb + deliverable + date: "publish [specific post] by [date]", not "explore content opportunities"
Must be owned by a specific person
Must be completable within the stated horizon — not a 3-month project described as a "first step"
Flag if: the answer is "explore", "investigate", "consider", or "build alignment around." These are not actions; they are deferrals. Return the question.
Question 4: What are we uncertain about, and what evidence would resolve it?
Evaluation criteria:
Uncertainty must be named precisely: "we don't know if [audience] reads [channel]" not "we're not sure about distribution"
Resolution criteria must be stated: what specific evidence, from what source, would close this uncertainty?
Timeline for resolution must fit the horizon
Flag if: no uncertainty is named. Absence of uncertainty is a credibility signal — not a good one. Every brief has at least one genuine unknown.
Question 5: If there is prior strategy, what materially changed since then?
Evaluation criteria:
"Materially changed" = something that would change a specific recommendation from the prior brief
Must reference the prior brief or strategy doc explicitly — not a vague "things have evolved"
If no prior strategy exists, state this explicitly; do not skip the question
Flag if: the team says "not much has changed" but the context signal for this brief is a competitive move or product launch. Something drove this brief — name what changed.
Question 6: What are 1–3 campaign or opportunity threads grounded in cited signals?
Evaluation criteria:
Each thread must be grounded in a cited signal: a specific data point, quote, event, or observation — not invented
Each thread must connect to the ICP and the named motion (PLG/SLG/MLG/CLG)
Threads must be ranked — not listed as equivalent
Flag if: threads are stated without cited signals. "The market is moving toward X" is not a signal; a specific piece of evidence that the market is moving toward X is a signal.
Step 3 — Score competitive landscape
Before selecting a motion, score each named competitor on three dimensions (0–10 each). This converts competitive intelligence from prose impressions into a prioritized signal for motion and message decisions.
Dimensions:
Dimension
What it measures
0
10
Category ownership
How clearly is this competitor the default choice / category leader for the ICP's decision frame?
Unknown or niche
Synonymous with the category in the ICP's mind
Differentiation sharpness
How specific and verifiable is their differentiation claim from this company?
Generic ("we're better")
Specific, verifiable, and hard to replicate
Evidence density
How strong is their public proof base (case study quality, metric claims, logo density)?
No public proof
Rich case studies with named customers and cited metrics
Scoring procedure:
List each named competitor (from ICP card "alternatives considered" or supplied competitive intelligence).
Score on each dimension based on available public evidence — cite the source for each score.
Score this company on the same three dimensions.
Output: A competitive scoring table (see output format section).
White space flag:
IF this company scores >7 on any dimension AND all named competitors score <5 on that same dimension:
→ FLAG as:
"White space — defensible position available on [dimension].
This company's [dimension] score exceeds the competitive set.
Recommend anchoring motion and messaging on this dimension."
BLOCK rule:
IF competitive section names zero competitors:
BLOCK. Return:
"Competitive scoring requires named competitors.
Source from the ICP card (alternatives considered) or from known competitor set.
Run /icp-research first if alternatives are unknown."
Step 4 — Score channel effectiveness
For each current or evaluated GTM channel, score on three dimensions. This converts channel selection from instinct into a ranked priority table.
Dimensions:
Dimension
What it measures
0
10
ICP fit
Does this channel reliably reach Core ICP accounts at the right stage of their evaluation?
Wrong audience or stage
Confirmed reach to Core ICP at trigger moment
Channel maturity
Is this channel actively developed (campaigns running, content published, reach established) or nascent?
No presence established
Active program with compounding results
Cost efficiency
Rough CPA vs ACV ratio — directional, not precise. Is the expected acquisition cost proportional to the deal value?
CPA >> ACV or unknown
CPA << ACV with improving trend
Scoring procedure:
List each channel being considered or currently active.
Score each dimension 0–10 based on available data or informed estimate; label estimates as directional.
Sum scores for combined channel priority rank.
Underperformer flag:
IF any channel scores <15 combined:
→ FLAG as:
"Underperformer — validate or reallocate.
[Channel] combined score is [score]/30.
Either establish evidence that ICP fit / maturity / efficiency will improve within this horizon,
or shift budget and attention to higher-scoring channels."
Step 5 — Select growth motion
Motion
Favor when evidence shows…
PLG
Low-friction value demonstration; self-serve intent; developer evaluation behavior; product-led sharing signals; community tutorials gaining traction
Both IC technical evaluation AND buyer/purchasing language in the same accounts; community heat + enterprise deal signals co-occurring
CLG
OSS ecosystem; contributor energy; trust established through peer proof over brand proof; community as the primary distribution channel
Combo signal: technical evaluation + business evaluation signals in the same account often indicates a real buying cycle — consider MLG play with a clear PLG-to-SLG handoff trigger.
Do not assign a motion without citing the evidence. "We are a PLG company" is a self-description, not a motion decision. The motion decision must be argued from the signals in the inputs.
Output format — The GTM Brief Artifact
## GTM Brief — [Product / Campaign / Initiative name]
**Horizon:** [Day / Week / Month] — [specific date window, e.g. "Week of April 21"]
**Prepared:** [date]
**Status:** DRAFT — requires brand-calibration pass before external circulation
---
### Context
[2–3 sentences. What prompted this brief. The single most consequential external change (Q1). What specifically gets harder if this window is missed.]
---
### ICP Target — This Window
**Role:** [specific role and seniority]
**Company type:** [size, industry, signal]
**Pain:** [primary pain category]
**Trigger:** [what is happening in their world right now that makes them ready to act]
**Why now:** [one sentence on why this window and not the next one]
---
### Motion Selection
**Recommended motion:** [PLG / SLG / MLG / CLG]
**Evidence:** [2–3 cited signals that support this motion choice]
**Handoff trigger (if MLG):** [what signal moves an account from PLG to SLG treatment]
---
### Competitive Scoring
| Competitor | Category ownership (0–10) | Differentiation sharpness (0–10) | Evidence density (0–10) | Total | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Competitor 1] | | | | | |
| [Competitor 2] | | | | | |
| **[This company]** | | | | | |
**White space flags:** [List any dimension where this company scores >7 and all competitors score <5, or state "None identified."]
---
### Channel Effectiveness Scoring
| Channel | ICP fit (0–10) | Channel maturity (0–10) | Cost efficiency (0–10) | Combined | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Channel 1] | | | | | |
| [Channel 2] | | | | | |
**Priority ranking:** [Channel 1 name] → [Channel 2 name] → ...
**Underperformers:** [List channels scoring <15 combined, or state "None."]
---
### Near-Term Moves
[3 moves maximum. Each with owner and date. No "explore" verbs.]
**Move 1:** [Action verb + specific deliverable]
- Owner: [name or role]
- Complete by: [specific date]
- Success signal: [what does done look like, concretely]
**Move 2:** [Action verb + specific deliverable]
- Owner: [name or role]
- Complete by: [specific date]
- Success signal: [what does done look like, concretely]
**Move 3:** [Action verb + specific deliverable]
- Owner: [name or role]
- Complete by: [specific date]
- Success signal: [what does done look like, concretely]
---
### Campaign / Opportunity Threads
[1–3 threads. Each grounded in a cited signal. Ranked by priority.]
**Thread 1 (highest priority):** [name]
- Signal: [specific cited evidence]
- Audience: [ICP segment this thread addresses]
- Motion: [PLG/SLG/MLG/CLG]
- Channels: [specific channels, not "social media"]
- Urgency: [why this thread and not a later one]
**Thread 2:** [name]
- Signal: [specific cited evidence]
- Audience: [ICP segment]
- Motion: [motion]
- Channels: [specific channels]
- Urgency: [timing rationale]
---
### Risks & Unknowns
[Name at least one genuine uncertainty. State what evidence would resolve it and by when.]
**Risk 1:** [specific risk — what could prevent these moves from working]
- Probability: [high / medium / low] — [reasoning]
- Mitigation: [one concrete action to reduce this risk]
**Unknown 1:** [specific thing we don't know]
- What would resolve it: [specific evidence from specific source]
- Resolution timeline: [fits within horizon / requires next brief cycle]
---
### Explicit Decisions Required
[What the human owner must decide that this brief cannot decide for them.]
1. [Decision question] — required by [date] to unblock [move]
2. [Decision question] — required by [date] to unblock [move]
---
### What Changed Since Last Brief
[If prior strategy exists: specifically what changed and which recommendations it affects. If no prior strategy: state this explicitly.]
---
### Brief Quality Check
- [ ] 6 pre-questions evaluated (not just listed)
- [ ] Time horizon matched to decision cadence
- [ ] Competitive scoring table complete with at least 1 named competitor (or BLOCK returned)
- [ ] White space flags checked — any dimension where this company scores >7 and all competitors score <5 is surfaced
- [ ] Channel scoring table complete; channels scoring <15 combined flagged as underperformers
- [ ] Motion selection argued from cited evidence
- [ ] All moves have owners and dates
- [ ] At least one genuine uncertainty named
- [ ] No "explore" or "investigate" action verbs
- [ ] Brand-calibration pass required before external circulation
Anti-patterns
Anti-pattern
Why it fails
Fix
Horizon mismatch
30-day portfolio delivered for a weekly ask; day-level brief for a month-level initiative
Ask for the horizon before writing a single word; match output depth to the window
"Explore" as an action
Exploration is not an action; it produces no artifact by a date
Replace with: "research X using Y source and report finding by [date]"
ICP without trigger
Role + company type without a trigger event cannot drive channel or message decisions
Add: what is happening in the ICP's world right now that makes them ready to act?
Motion asserted, not argued
"We are a PLG company" is self-description
Cite 2–3 specific signals; argue the motion from evidence
No uncertainty named
Absence of stated uncertainty signals the brief wasn't stress-tested
Name at least one genuine unknown and state what would resolve it
Thread without cited signal
"The market is moving toward X" is not a signal
Every thread must trace to a specific data point, quote, event, or observation
Generic recommendations
"Invest in content marketing"
Every recommendation names the specific content type, specific channel, specific ICP, and specific date
Decisions buried in prose
Human owner misses what requires a decision
Surface all required decisions in a named "Explicit Decisions Required" section
Brief circulated externally without brand-calibration pass
Tone, claims, or competitive framing may be miscalibrated
DRAFT status; route through /brand-calibration before external use
GTM brief without scoring produces opinions, not prioritized decisions
Prose competitive analysis and unranked channel lists create debate in the room instead of a clear priority call; different readers weight the same evidence differently
Apply competitive scoring (3 dimensions, 0–10) and channel effectiveness scoring (3 dimensions, 0–10) before motion and budget decisions are made
Validation criteria
Before the brief leaves DRAFT status:
All 6 pre-questions evaluated with substantive answers or named unknowns
Time horizon confirmed and matched to output depth
Motion selected with cited evidence
All moves have owners and defined completion dates
At least one genuine uncertainty explicitly named
No "explore", "investigate", or "consider" action verbs
decisions/gtm-brief-[date]-[horizon].md written to brain (if connected)
Competitive scoring table present with at least 1 named competitor scored on all 3 dimensions, or BLOCK returned explaining why
Channel scoring table present with all evaluated channels scored; underperformers (combined score <15) flagged
White space flags checked on competitive scoring — any defensible position surfaced explicitly
Brand-calibration pass completed before external circulation
References & Sources
Tier 1 (authoritative frameworks):
April Dunford, Obviously Awesome (2019) ch.3 — competitive alternative as the anchor for ICP and motion selection
Product Marketing Alliance 5-phase framework (2026) — workflow stage structure; brief maps to "Strategize" and "Define" phases
Tier 2 (operator templates — adapted, not authoritative):
