test-positioning

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

1. Read the practice profile for current positioning.
2. State the positioning as claimed, plainly.
3. Demand the trade-off — segment, use case, or feature set walked away from. If none: flag explicitly.
4. Check stuck-in-the-middle — cost leadership + differentiation without credible mechanism.
5. Stress-test who this alienates — deliberate and accepted, or unexamined side-effect?
6. Check incentive coherence against map-incentives if available.
7. 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

• Trade-off demanded and recorded or NONE FOUND flagged
• Stuck-in-the-middle check run
• Alienation assessed with deliberate-acceptance question
• Incentive coherence checked if data available
• Output does not validate positioning without trade-off

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.