ワンクリックで
market-context
Use when validating market timing, structural forces, or distribution moats before committing strategic resources—focuses on macro context, not individual competitor teardowns.
メニュー
Use when validating market timing, structural forces, or distribution moats before committing strategic resources—focuses on macro context, not individual competitor teardowns.
Use when confronting a specific counterpart about a breach, violation, or adversarial behavior — situations where trust is already broken and the goal is accountability or resolution, not relationship-building. Not for giving developmental feedback (use feedback-coach) or building trust with new people (use rapport-builder).
Use when you need to act on a known political landscape — building coalitions, persuading specific people, or maneuvering to get a decision approved. Assumes you already know who the stakeholders are (if not, use stakeholder-discovery first to map them).
Use when building trust with people who don't yet know or trust you — new teams, new roles, hostile audiences, or strained relationships where the goal is connection before any ask. Applies Tactical Empathy through mirroring, labeling, and belonging cues. Not for confrontation (use difficult-conversations) or giving feedback (use feedback-coach).
Use as the mandatory evidence gate before signing off on any strategy, PRD, or business case—audits every key claim against documented sources and assigns calibrated probabilities.
Use when justifying investment, resource allocation, or strategic decisions with financial and logical reasoning to ensure positive ROI and alignment with long-term goals.
Use when defining target users, customers, or audience segments to ensure they are grounded in real customer jobs rather than arbitrary demographics.
| name | market-context |
| description | Use when validating market timing, structural forces, or distribution moats before committing strategic resources—focuses on macro context, not individual competitor teardowns. |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Claude Code and compatible agent products |
| metadata | {"type":"workflow","family":"workflow","rigor":"full","keywords":"market-research, strategy, competitive-landscape, go-to-market, positioning, dynamics, timing, structural-forces, distribution-moats, aggregation-theory","requires":"problem-framing, stakeholder-discovery","enhances":"strategy-clarity, competitive-analysis, business-case","sources_pdf":"Zero to One (Thiel), High Growth Handbook (Gil), Playing to Win (Lafley), Wardley Maps (Wardley)","sources_web":"Stratechery: Aggregation Theory, Stratechery: The Great Unbundling, Stratechery: Smiling Curve"} |
Market context is the forensic analysis of structural forces—timing, distribution moats, and demand aggregation—that determine whether a product can capture long-term value. This skill prevents "Strategy Blindness" by forcing an audit of the "Where to Play" domains before any resources are allocated.
NO STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT VALIDATED MARKET CONTEXT
Assumed market dynamics are the primary cause of high-growth failures. Every claim must be validated against current structural shifts (e.g., Aggregation Theory or Unbundling).
digraph market_context_flow {
"Start" [shape=doublecircle];
"Step 1: Structural Audit" [shape=box];
"Step 2: 0-to-1 Timing Check" [shape=diamond];
"Step 3: Distribution Audit" [shape=box];
"Step 4: Context Validation" [shape=diamond];
"Done" [shape=doublecircle];
"Start" -> "Step 1: Structural Audit";
"Step 1: Structural Audit" -> "Step 2: 0-to-1 Timing Check";
"Step 2: 0-to-1 Timing Check" -> "Step 3: Distribution Audit" [label="timing right"];
"Step 2: 0-to-1 Timing Check" -> "Step 1: Structural Audit" [label="too early/late"];
"Step 3: Distribution Audit" -> "Step 4: Context Validation";
"Step 4: Context Validation" -> "Done" [label="context validated"];
"Step 4: Context Validation" -> "Step 1: Structural Audit" [label="gaps in logic"];
}
Evaluate if the industry is structurally attractive. (Source: Lafley, Playing to Win, Ch. 3)
Validate the context against Thiel's fundamental laws. (Source: Thiel, Zero to One, Ch. 13)
Shift from product-centricity to distribution-centricity. (Source: Gil, High Growth Handbook, Intro)
State what must be true about the market for the strategy to work. (Source: Lafley, Ch. 7)
problem-framing — You cannot define a market without defining the problem first.competitive-analysis — To identify if you are competing in a "Red Ocean."strategy-clarity — To ensure the context matches the winning aspiration.| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The market is so big, we only need 1%." | The 1% Trap leads to zero share. Successful firms start small and monopolize. |
| "Our product is so good, it sells itself." | Distribution is at least as important as product. (Source: Gil/Thiel). |
| "We are first to market." | First mover is a tactic; Last Mover is the goal (Far-future profts). |
| "The industry is too old to change." | Old industries are prime for "Unbundling" or "Aggregation." (Source: Stratechery). |
| "First mover advantage will protect us." | First Mover is a tactic, not a moat. Last Mover Advantage — generating the last great development and capturing durable profits — is the strategic goal. (Source: Thiel, Zero to One, Ch. 5) |
| "We're debating whether this is Custom or Product." | Evolution stage is observable: how many vendors? Published standards? Training courses? These are empirical signals. If you're debating, look at the market, not your org chart. |
| "Supply is commoditizing but that's not our problem." | When supply-side components commoditize, aggregation dynamics form on the demand side. This directly affects your Where to Play. (Source: Stratechery, "Aggregation Theory"; Wardley, Wardley Maps, Ch. 4) |
These thoughts mean STOP — you are about to shortcut: