| name | beachhead-segment |
| version | 3.0.0 |
| description | Identifies and scores your highest-priority beachhead segment using four-dimension scoring (Burning Pain, Willingness to Pay, Winnability, Referral Potential) with blocking gates. Reads brain context (ICP, positioning, competitive landscape, proof points) and, when available, guardrails from prior beachhead decisions the user has logged. Writes confirmed beachhead to brain Section 2, on explicit confirmation.
|
| metadata | {"author":"Stefanos Karakasis","context":"brain-dependent","quality_gate":true} |
| last_updated | 2026-08-24T00:00:00.000Z |
Beachhead-Segment — Skill
How This Works
Identifies the highest-probability segment to dominate first — before expanding. This is the wedge. Everything else (positioning, GTM strategy, proof points) follows from getting this right.
The skill runs in 7 steps:
Step 0 — Load brain context (ICP, positioning, competitive landscape, proof points) and, if the user maintains /context/meta-patterns.md, guardrails logged there.
Step 1 — Identify candidates: Name 2–5 segments or ask user to decompose current ICP.
Step 2 — Score each segment on four dimensions: Burning Pain, Willingness to Pay, Winnability, Referral Potential.
Step 3 — Apply blocking gates: Pain floor (≥3), Winnability floor (≥3), assumption density check.
Step 4 — Recommend beachhead with expansion pathway, 90-day activation plan, and specific rejection reasons for every eliminated segment.
Step 5 — Update brain Section 2 with confirmed beachhead (on user confirmation).
Step 6 — Learning Close: log the session to /context/skill-sessions.md.
Correction (2026-08-24): this summary previously listed 8 entries
(Step 0 through Step 7) under "runs in 7 steps," and named a standalone
"Step 5 — Pressure-test eliminated segments" that never existed as its
own section in the body — the body always went straight from Step 4
(Recommend) to what it labeled Step 5 (Update Brain). Rejection reasons
for eliminated segments were already produced inside Step 4's own output
template ("Why not Segment B/C" lines and the Eliminated Segments table)
— that was real, just mislabeled as a separate step. The step count and
numbering above now match the body exactly: 7 steps, numbered 0–6.
Trigger
- When: Choosing which customer segment to focus on first, before scaling GTM investment across multiple segments at once — narrowing a broad ICP down to the first wedge.
- Not for: Full ICP definition from scratch → use
product-marketing-context. Launch tier assignment once the beachhead is already confirmed → use go-to-market-strategy. Messaging for a confirmed beachhead → use positioning-messaging.
- Example prompts:
- "Which segment should we focus on first?"
- "Our ICP is too broad — help me narrow it"
- "Pick a beachhead for us"
- "Where do we win first?"
- "What's our wedge?"
Inputs
- Args: 2–5 candidate segments, or a description of the current customer base to decompose. Free format.
- Defaults: If only one segment is named, this skill challenges it before scoring — a single segment isn't a choice, it's an assumption (Step 1). Never scores fewer than 2 candidates.
- Context keys:
/foundation/brain.md — recommended. Sections 2 (ICP), 3 (Positioning), 4 (Competitive), 5 (Proof Points) loaded silently at Step 0./context/meta-patterns.md — optional; recurring patterns the user has logged from prior beachhead decisions.- Brain contract: Reads Sections 2, 3, 4, 5. Writes Section 2 — the confirmed beachhead, expansion pathway, and scores (Step 5), only after explicit user confirmation. Never writes to any other section.
Pre-flight
- Load
/foundation/brain.md Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 if it exists — see Step 0 for the full sequence.
- Load
/context/meta-patterns.md if it exists, and surface any guardrail that has fired 2+ times in prior beachhead decisions — see Step 0.
- Hard block: if
/foundation/brain.md is absent or Section 2 (ICP) is empty, stop and surface the message in Step 0's Gate check before proceeding — beachhead scoring without ICP, positioning, and competitive context produces guesswork, not a defensible recommendation.
Steps
Step 0 — Pre-Flight: Load Context & Surface Guardrails
Before intake, load:
- Brain context (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5): ICP, positioning, competitive landscape, proof points — these anchor all four-dimension scoring
- Guardrails from
/context/meta-patterns.md, if that file exists in the user's workspace: if a pattern has actually fired 2+ times in prior beachhead decisions logged there, surface it now
Surface guardrails like this:
🔁 PATTERN FROM PRIOR BEACHHEAD DECISIONS
I've seen [pattern description] in 2 prior sessions.
Examples: [specific segments or outcomes]
Quick check: Does this apply to your candidates?
- If YES → We'll watch for this during scoring
- If NO → Let's flag it if it emerges
You can skip a guardrail if you disagree, but you'll see it first. If /context/meta-patterns.md doesn't exist, skip this step silently.
Gate check — brain is missing or ICP is empty:
Do not block and redirect. Instead, run the Quick-Brain flow inline:
"I need three things before I can score beachhead candidates — this takes about
3 minutes. (Prefer the full 15-minute brain build instead? Run
product-marketing-context and come back.)
- Who's your best-fit customer today? One sentence — company type, size,
and the pain that made them buy.
- When they don't buy you, what do they do instead? Name the top 2–3
alternatives, including 'do nothing' if that's real.
- What's the one thing you do that those alternatives can't?"
Wait for all three answers. Do not proceed to candidate identification until answered.
Write these three answers to /foundation/brain.md as a partial Section 2 (ICP)
and Section 3 (Alternatives), tagged with a placeholder marker:
## Section 2: ICP Definition
🟡 Quick-Brain — built via beachhead-segment on [date]. Run `product-marketing-context`
to expand this into the full ICP profile (buying triggers, disqualifiers, willingness
to pay signals).
[user's answer to Q1]
## Section 3: Alternatives & Positioning
🟡 Quick-Brain — built via beachhead-segment on [date]. Run `product-marketing-context`
to expand into full competitive positioning.
Alternatives: [user's answer to Q2]
Differentiation: [user's answer to Q3]
Confirm before writing: "Here's what I'll save to your brain: [show exact text].
Save this?" Only write on explicit yes — same confirmation discipline as the full
brain build (Operating Rule 1 in product-marketing-context).
Once written, proceed to Step 1 (Candidate Identification) using these answers.
Step 1 — Candidate Identification
Ask in one message. Never score before candidates are confirmed.
"Before I score, I need to understand the landscape:
-
What segments are you considering?
Name 2–5 candidates. If not sure, describe your current customer base and I'll decompose it.
-
What evidence do you have?
Named customers in each segment, win/loss patterns, inbound signals, sales feedback. Rough signals help.
-
What does winning look like in 12–18 months?
Revenue target, reference customers, market share — be specific."
If the user names only one segment: challenge before proceeding.
"One segment isn't a choice — it's an assumption. Name at least two so we have something to compare. What else have you considered and rejected?"
Reflect back candidates and evidence:
"Scoring [N] segments: [list]. Evidence base: [summary]. Starting with Burning Pain."
Step 2 — Score Each Segment on Four Dimensions
Score each independently before comparing. Mark any dimension without evidence as [A] (assumption).
Dimension 1: Burning Pain (1–5)
Acute, urgent problem your product solves — or chronic inconvenience they've learned to live with?
| Score | Signal |
|---|
| 5 | Segment actively seeking solutions. Budget exists. Buyers seek you out. |
| 4 | Problem recognised and prioritised. Buyers have tried alternatives. |
| 3 | Problem acknowledged but not top-3 priority. Competes for budget. |
| 2 | Problem exists but background noise. No active urgency. |
| 1 | Problem is theoretical. Segment doesn't recognise it. |
Evidence required: named customer signal, sales call pattern, win/loss data, or inbound volume. If none: score ≤2, mark [A].
Dimension 2: Willingness to Pay (1–5)
Does this segment have budget, authority, and clear ROI justifying your price?
| Score | Signal |
|---|
| 5 | Dedicated budget line. Buyers have authority. ROI measurable and fast (<6 months). |
| 4 | Budget exists. Occasional price friction but rarely deal-killer. ROI case clear. |
| 3 | Budget exists but requires justification. Multiple approvals. ROI case soft or long. |
| 2 | Budget scarce or controlled elsewhere. Price sensitivity high. Discounting required. |
| 1 | No budget. Segment relies on free tools. |
Cross-reference brain Section 5 proof points for ROI evidence. If missing: mark [A].
Dimension 3: Winnability (1–5)
Can you realistically reach 60%+ market share in this segment within 12–18 months?
| Score | Signal |
|---|
| 5 | No dominant incumbent. Competitors weak or absent. Segment underserved. |
| 4 | One or two incumbents but vulnerable. Clear differentiated wedge. Win rate above average. |
| 3 | Incumbent exists but not dominant. Can win with strong positioning and sales effort. |
| 2 | Incumbent entrenched. Switching costs high. Can win occasionally, can't dominate. |
| 1 | Segment owned. Switching costs prohibitive. |
Cross-reference brain Section 4 (Competitive landscape). If stale or empty: mark [A] — competitive positions cannot be inferred.
Dimension 4: Referral Potential (1–5)
Do customers in this segment talk to each other? Is one reference customer worth 10x their contract value in network effects?
This is what separates a beachhead from any other segment.
| Score | Signal |
|---|
| 5 | Tight community. Buyers attend same conferences/networks. One reference unlocks 5–10 others. |
| 4 | Moderate network. Buyers know each other. Case studies travel well. |
| 3 | Some peer exchange. Conferences help. References willing to speak. |
| 2 | Fragmented. Buyers isolated or competing. References matter but don't travel. |
| 1 | No community. Buyers compete with each other. |
Step 3 — Apply Blocking Gates
Gate 1 — Pain floor (≥3): Any segment scoring <3 on Burning Pain is eliminated.
"❌ [Segment] eliminated — Burning Pain [X]. No urgency signal. GTM investment will be slow."
Gate 2 — Winnability floor (≥3): Any segment scoring <3 on Winnability is flagged as "Future Roadmap" — not current beachhead.
"⚠️ [Segment] flagged — Winnability [X]. You can win deals but cannot dominate. File as secondary. Revisit when competitive position improves."
Gate 3 — Assumption density: If >2 of 4 dimensions are marked [A] for top-scoring segment, confidence caps at 🟡.
"🟡 Conditional — [N] dimensions rely on assumptions. Validate [specific items] before committing."
Step 4 — Recommend Beachhead
After gates pass, state recommendation with rationale and expansion pathway.
## Recommended Beachhead: [Segment Name]
**Rationale:** [2–3 sentences grounded in four dimensions]
**Why not [Segment B]:** [One sentence specific reason]
**Why not [Segment C]:** [One sentence specific reason]
## What Winning Looks Like in 12–18 Months
- [Specific milestone 1 — revenue, customer count, or market share]
- [Specific milestone 2 — reference customer or analyst recognition]
- [Specific milestone 3 — expansion trigger]
## Expansion Pathway
**Beachhead → Adjacent 1:** [Segment] — [shared trigger or proof point needed]
**Adjacent 1 → Adjacent 2:** [Segment] — [what beachhead proves that unlocks this]
Trigger to move Beachhead → Adjacent 1: [specific milestone]
Trigger to move Adjacent 1 → Adjacent 2: [specific milestone]
## 90-Day Activation Plan
| Week | Action | Owner | Signal to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | [Positioning action] | PMM | — |
| 3–4 | [First outbound step] | Sales/PMM | Meetings booked |
| 5–8 | [Pipeline build — target N qualified conversations] | Sales | Win rate |
| 9–12 | [First reference customer] | PMM | Inbound from segment |
## Eliminated Segments
| Segment | Gate | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| [X] | Pain floor | Burning Pain [score]: no urgency |
| [Y] | Winnability | Incumbent [name] entrenched |
Step 5 — Update Brain Section 2 (on Confirmation)
After recommendation confirmed:
"Updating brain Section 2 with [Segment] as confirmed beachhead. Confirm? [Y/N]"
Write to /foundation/brain.md Section 2:
## Beachhead Segment (last updated: [date])
- **Segment:** [name]
- **Scores:** Pain [X] / WTP [X] / Winnability [X] / Referral [X] — Total [X/20]
- **Confidence:** 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴
- **Assumption flags:** [list or none]
- **Expansion pathway:** [Beachhead] → [Adjacent 1] → [Adjacent 2]
- **90-day trigger:** [first milestone]
- **Status:** Active beachhead
Never write without this explicit confirmation.
Step 6 — Learning Close
End every completed session by appending one row to /context/skill-sessions.md
(create the file with a header row if it doesn't exist yet):
skill: beachhead-segment
session_date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
pattern: [one falsifiable statement about what happened this session, or "none"]
source: [surprised / wrong / missing / n.v.t.]
Write this row directly — do not ask the user for permission. This is a
separate, mechanical log entry from the brain Section 2 write above, which
still requires the user's explicit confirmation. If nothing notable
happened this session, still write the row with pattern: none.
Outputs
- Files written:
/foundation/brain.md Section 2 — the confirmed
beachhead, scores, and expansion pathway (Step 5), only after explicit
confirmation. /context/skill-sessions.md — one appended row per
session (Step 6).
- Chat output format: Scorecard across four dimensions → blocking
gate results → recommendation with expansion pathway, 90-day plan,
and eliminated-segment reasons (Step 4 template).
- External side effects: None beyond the brain write and session log above.
- Next skill: After confirmed recommendation is written to brain, check
product-marketing-context/.claude-plugin/next-skill-map.md for "After
beachhead-segment" and surface that prompt. Do not auto-run the next skill —
surface it as a question, wait for the user to say yes.
Verification
- Guardrails checked at Step 0 if
/context/meta-patterns.md exists.
- At least 2 candidate segments scored — never a single segment in isolation.
- All 4 dimensions scored for every candidate, with
[A] marking any dimension lacking evidence.
- Both blocking gates applied: Pain floor and Winnability floor.
- Every eliminated segment has a specific reason, not "didn't score well."
- Brain Section 2 write shown to the user and confirmed before it happens (Step 5).
- Session logged to
/context/skill-sessions.md (Step 6).
Commands
/score [segment A] vs [segment B] vs [segment C]
Score named segments immediately. Skips intake.
/score fintech vs healthcare vs logistics
Output: Scorecard → gates → recommendation.
/decompose
Decompose current ICP into 2–4 scoreable sub-segments.
/decompose
/audit [segment name]
Pressure-test existing beachhead. Compares original vs. current scores. Surfaces expansion trigger status.
/audit
/pathway
Show full expansion pathway from confirmed beachhead.
/pathway
/eliminate [segment name]
Explicitly eliminate a segment. Documents reason.
/eliminate enterprise — too entrenched
Operating Rules
- Both Pain and Winnability must pass. No <3 on either becomes beachhead.
- Evidence over assertion. Dimension without signal = marked
[A] and confidence reduced.
- Eliminated segments documented. Every elimination has specific reason, not "didn't score well."
- Expansion pathway mandatory. Beachhead is first step. Recommendation without clear stage 2 and 3 is incomplete.
- Never score one segment in isolation. Always require ≥2 candidates for comparison.
- Brain Section 2 write requires explicit confirmation. Never update silently.
- Challenge generic ICPs. "Mid-market B2B SaaS" is not scoreable. Require vertical, use case, or buyer role specificity.
- 90-day plan must have specific trigger. Name the number, behaviour, or event. "Build pipeline" is not a milestone.
- Referral Potential is the beachhead multiplier. Segment with 4+ Referral but moderate others is often still the right choice. Explicitly surface this trade-off.
Quality Gate
| Check | Pass = |
|---|
| Minimum 2 segments scored | Yes |
| All 4 dimensions scored | Yes |
| Assumption flags visible | All [A] marks present |
| Gate 1 applied | Segments <3 Pain eliminated |
| Gate 2 applied | Segments <3 Winnability flagged |
| Eliminated segments documented | Specific reason per segment |
| Expansion pathway present | ≥2 stages beyond beachhead |
| 90-day plan has specific trigger | Measurable milestone |
| Confidence level stated | 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 with reason |
| Brain write confirmed | Section 2 update shown to user |
| Learning Close ran | /context/skill-sessions.md has a new row for this session |
Do Not Use For
- go-to-market-strategy — after beachhead confirmed, use this to build full GTM brief
- positioning-messaging — for messaging for confirmed beachhead (run after)
- workflow-orchestrator — to chain this with above for full market entry program
