| name | fw:position |
| description | Work through April Dunford's positioning framework in sequence. Produces a positioning canvas that downstream skills (/fw:copy, /fw:grow) read automatically. Use when positioning a product, company, or offer for the first time, or when revisiting positioning after a significant change. Supports multi-canvas portfolios via the --canvas flag and an optional values-fit check via the --values-check flag. |
| argument-hint | [product name, or 'revise [section]' to update specific sections, or reason for revision] [--canvas path/to/canvas.md] [--values-check] |
<positioning_context> #$ARGUMENTS </positioning_context>
Position
Work through April Dunford's 5-component positioning framework. No shortcuts. The output is a positioning canvas that becomes the foundation for copy, growth experiments, and quarterly planning.
Canvas Path Resolution
This skill writes the positioning canvas. Path resolution order:
- Explicit
--canvas <path> in the user's arguments. Use that path. If the file doesn't exist, this becomes a fresh canvas at that path.
- If no
--canvas, scan docs/positioning/ for .md files (excluding portfolio.md and archive/). If exactly one exists, use it. If multiple exist, list them and ASK which canvas the user is working in (or whether to create a new one).
- Fallback:
docs/positioning/current.md.
All references below to docs/positioning/current.md should substitute the resolved canvas path. The docs/positioning/archive/ path stays fixed — it's shared history across canvases.
Multi-canvas portfolios (e.g., a consultancy with three distinct service tracks, each with its own segments and frame) should keep one canvas per coherent positioning, not one giant canvas trying to serve all of them.
Values-Fit Check (optional, --values-check flag)
Standard Dunford produces a defensible canvas. It does not check whether the canvas describes work the founder actually wants to do. For VC-backed teams shipping a clear product, this is fine — the value engine and the founder's life are usually decoupled. For solo founders, consultants, and lifestyle businesses, the positioning IS the founder's daily work, and a defensible canvas pointed at the wrong segment or wrong frame produces a successful business the founder hates running.
The --values-check flag adds short values prompts to Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5, plus a closing Values-Fit Sanity Check before the canvas is assembled. It is off by default — opt in.
When to use it:
- You are the person who will deliver the work the canvas describes
- Past positioning sessions produced canvases that were technically right but felt wrong to execute
- The segment, frame, or competitive set is partly chosen for life-fit reasons (geography, energy, who you want to spend hours with)
When to skip it:
- You are positioning a product whose execution is decoupled from your daily life (a SaaS team, a venture-backed startup, an offer someone else delivers)
- You explicitly want only the market-defensibility lens — values are managed elsewhere
If --values-check is not in the arguments, run the standard sequence and skip every section labeled "Values check" below.
When to Use
- Positioning a product, company, or consulting offer for the first time
- Revisiting positioning after a significant change (new competitor, pivot, new ICP)
- Targeted revision — updating specific sections after insights from
/fw:copy drift detection or /fw:grow experiments
- "Help me position this", "Who is this for?", "How do I differentiate?"
- Before running
/fw:copy or /fw:grow — positioning must come first
Before Starting
Check for existing positioning
Search for docs/positioning/current.md in the user's project.
If it exists: Read it in full and determine the session mode:
Mode A: Revision Mode
Triggered when the user's argument contains "revise", names a specific section (e.g., "revise segments", "update alternatives"), or describes a specific reason for revisiting (e.g., "drift detection keeps flagging speed claims").
Present the current canvas summary, then confirm what's changing:
"You have an existing positioning canvas from [date]. Here's what it says:
- Competitive alternatives: [list]
- Key differentiator: [summary]
- Target segment: [summary]
- Frame: [summary]
You want to revise: [section(s)]
Reason: [the triggering insight, if provided]
I'll keep the unchanged sections and walk you through the ones that need updating."
How revision mode works:
- Load the entire current canvas as the working baseline
- Jump directly to the target section(s) — skip sections the user isn't revising
- For the target section(s), run the full step with enforcement (same questions, same specificity requirements)
- Check downstream propagation: After updating a section, check whether later sections still hold:
| If you change... | Ask whether these still hold... |
|---|
| Competitive alternatives (Step 1) | Unique attributes (Step 2) — "Do your differentiators still hold against these new alternatives?" |
| Unique attributes (Step 2) | Value chains (Step 3) — "Do these new attributes change the capability → outcome chains?" |
| Value chains (Step 3) | Customer segments (Step 4) — "Does this new value proposition change who cares most?" |
| Customer segments (Step 4) | Market frame (Step 5) — "Does this segment change affect which frame makes your value obvious?" |
| Market frame (Step 5) | No downstream sections — just update the positioning statement |
- For each downstream section, present the current content and ask: "Does this still hold given the change above, or does it need updating too?" If yes, run the full step. If it holds, keep it.
- Reassemble the canvas with changes and proceed to "Assembling the Canvas"
Revision mode does NOT skip enforcement. The revised sections get the same specificity requirements as a fresh session. The only thing skipped is re-doing sections that haven't changed and don't need to propagate.
Mode B: Start Fresh
Triggered when no existing canvas exists, or the user explicitly says "start fresh" or "start over."
If starting fresh with an existing canvas, ask whether to archive:
"Should I archive the current canvas to docs/positioning/archive/[date].md before we start?"
Then proceed to the full sequence (all 5 steps).
Mode C: Full Revision (default when canvas exists)
When the user runs /fw:position with an existing canvas but doesn't specify revision or fresh:
"You have an existing positioning canvas from [date]. Here's what it says:
- Competitive alternatives: [list]
- Key differentiator: [summary]
- Target segment: [summary]
What do you want to do?
- Revise specific sections — tell me which sections and why
- Start fresh — archive the current canvas and redo all 5 steps
- Review and sharpen — walk through all 5 steps with the current canvas as a starting point"
Option 3 is a guided review: present each section's current content, ask if it needs updating, only run the full step process for sections the user flags.
If it doesn't exist: Proceed directly to the full sequence (Mode B).
Check for learnings and patterns
Search docs/positioning/ for pattern-*.md files and check the canvas for a ## Learnings section.
If learnings or patterns exist: Surface them before starting:
"Before we begin, here's what past sessions have taught us about your positioning:
- [pattern or learning summary]
- [pattern or learning summary]
Keep these in mind as we work through the revisions."
This is especially important in revision mode — the triggering insight that led to the revision should connect to any existing patterns.
Accept context
If the user provided arguments (product name, context, or revision target), acknowledge them. If not, prompt:
"What are you positioning? Give me a product name, a company, or a consulting offer — and any context about where you are right now."
The Sequence
Work through all 5 steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one. Use references/enforcement-prompts.md for redirect and warning text when users try to skip steps or give vague answers.
Important: The user may go back and revise earlier steps at any time. This is encouraged — insights from later steps often sharpen earlier ones. Update the working canvas and note what changed.
In revision mode: Only the targeted steps and their downstream propagation checks are worked through. See Mode A above for the propagation rules.
Step 1: Competitive Alternatives
"What would your customers do if you didn't exist? Name at least 3 real alternatives. These can be direct competitors, adjacent tools, manual workarounds, or doing nothing at all."
What you're looking for:
- At least 3 named alternatives
- Each one specific (company name, tool name, or described process — not "other solutions")
- "Do nothing" / status quo described concretely
- For each: why a customer would choose it
Enforcement triggers:
- "Nothing like us" / "No real competitors" → Redirect (see
references/enforcement-prompts.md)
- Fewer than 3 alternatives → Prompt for more
- Vague alternatives ("other tools") → Ask for specific names
When this step is done: You have a table of 3+ named alternatives with reasons customers choose each one.
Values check (--values-check only):
"Look at the competitive set. Is this the company you want to keep? Competing in a market means showing up at the same conferences, talking to the same buyers, getting compared to the same vendors. If the alternatives are ones you'd be embarrassed to be benchmarked against — or ones whose buyers you actively don't want to spend hours with — flag it. The market you choose is the room you live in."
Capture the response in a values_notes field for this step. Don't redirect — just note it; the Values-Fit Sanity Check at the end will surface accumulated tension.
Use AskUserQuestion to present what you've captured and confirm:
"Here are the competitive alternatives I captured: [table]. Anything missing? Any you'd remove?"
Step 2: Unique Attributes
"Now look at those alternatives. What do you have that they genuinely lack? Be specific — a feature, a dataset, a method, an integration. Not 'better' — different."
What you're looking for:
- Concrete, nameable attributes (not opinions like "better UX")
- Each attribute tied to specific alternatives that lack it
- Reason the alternative can't easily copy it
Enforcement triggers:
- Vague attributes ("more innovative", "better experience") → Redirect
- Attributes not tied to named alternatives → Ask which alternatives lack this
- Single attribute → Probe for at least one more: "Is there anything else? Even something small?"
When this step is done: You have a table of unique attributes, each mapped to which alternatives lack them.
Values check (--values-check only):
"These attributes will become the work you're known for. They'll show up in every pitch, every landing page, every conference bio. For each one, ask: 'Do I want to be doing more of this in three years?' A differentiator you don't want to deepen is a treadmill — defensible, but exhausting. Flag any attribute that you're great at but don't want to grow into."
Capture the response in values_notes for this step.
Step 3: Value (Attribute → Capability → Outcome)
"For each unique attribute, walk me through the value chain: what does it enable the customer to do, and what outcome does that produce? Features → capabilities → outcomes."
What you're looking for:
- The full chain for each attribute: attribute → what the customer can now do → measurable or felt result
- Outcomes that are specific, not generic ("reduce reporting time from 2 days to 2 hours" not "save time")
Enforcement triggers:
- Stopping at features → Redirect: "That's what you built. What does it let the customer do?"
- Vague outcomes ("save time", "be more productive") → Ask for specifics: "How much time? Doing what?"
When this step is done: You have a value chain table showing attribute → capability → outcome for each unique attribute.
Step 4: Customer Segments
"Who cares most about this specific value? Not your total addressable market — the customers for whom what you just described in Step 3 is a must-have."
What you're looking for:
- Specific segments defined by situation, not just demographics
- Why this value matters to them specifically (tied to their situation)
- How you'd actually find them (where they are, what they search, who they follow)
- Who this is explicitly NOT for
Enforcement triggers:
- Too broad ("small businesses", "marketers") → Redirect: "That's a market. Which specific customers?"
- Aspirational segments (who they want, not who buys) → Redirect: "Is this who actually cares today?"
When this step is done: You have a segment table with specific descriptions, reasons, and where to find them.
Values check (--values-check only):
"These customers are who you'll spend hours with. Discovery calls, project kickoffs, support conversations, edge cases. For each segment, ask: 'Do I actually like these people? Do I respect what they're trying to do?' A segment you can serve but don't enjoy will produce successful work and a tired founder. If a segment lights you up, name it. If a segment makes you flinch, flag it — even if the WTP looks good."
Capture the response in values_notes for this step.
Step 5: Market Frame of Reference
"Last step. What category or context makes your value obvious? When someone first hears about you, what's the frame that makes them immediately understand what you do — and why your unique attributes are the things that matter?"
What you're looking for:
- A frame that highlights the unique attributes as important
- Considered alternatives — why other frames were rejected
- Whether an existing category fits or a new frame is needed
Enforcement triggers:
- Defaulting to a crowded category → Probe: "So do [alternatives]. Does this frame highlight what's different about you?"
- No frame → Redirect: "Without a frame, customers have to figure out what you are themselves."
When this step is done: You have a frame of reference with reasoning and rejected alternatives.
Values check (--values-check only):
"The frame is how the world will categorize you. It shapes what conferences you're invited to, what podcasts ask you on, what your peers assume you do. Ask: 'Is this the identity I want to carry?' A frame can be defensible and feel like a costume. If the frame is right for the market but wrong for who you want to be in five years, flag it — sometimes the right move is a frame that's slightly less obvious commercially but truer to the work you want to be known for."
Capture the response in values_notes for this step.
Values-Fit Sanity Check (--values-check only)
Before assembling the canvas, surface the accumulated values_notes from Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 and ask the question Dunford's framework doesn't:
"Here's what came up across the values checks:
- Step 1 (alternatives): [notes or 'no flags']
- Step 2 (attributes): [notes or 'no flags']
- Step 4 (segments): [notes or 'no flags']
- Step 5 (frame): [notes or 'no flags']
The canvas as it stands is defensible. The question now is whether it's defensible and something you want to live inside. If you executed this positioning hard for two years, would you be proud of the business you'd built? Or would it be technically successful and quietly draining?
Three options:
- Ship it as-is — the values flags are real but you can manage them; the commercial logic outweighs them.
- Sharpen one section — name which step needs revision and what change would resolve the values tension. We'll loop back into that step.
- Park the canvas — the gap between defensible and life-fit is too wide. Note what the canvas got right, archive it, and start fresh with different inputs (different segment, different frame, different alternatives)."
Capture the resolution in a ## Values-Fit Notes section in the assembled canvas. Even when option 1 is chosen, the notes are valuable — they document what the founder knowingly accepted, which protects against later "why did I build this?" drift.
If the user picks option 2, loop back to that step with the values context loaded. If they pick option 3, save the values notes and the partial canvas to docs/positioning/archive/parked-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md so the work isn't lost, then offer to start a fresh /fw:position run.
Assembling the Canvas
After all 5 steps are complete (or after the user has been warned about any skipped steps):
- Read the canvas template from
references/positioning-canvas-template.md
- Fill in all sections from the session's work
- Draft the positioning statement: "For [segment], who [situation], [product] is the [frame] that [key value]. Unlike [alternative], [product] [differentiator]."
- Add any skip flags
- Present the complete canvas to the user for review
"Here's your positioning canvas. Read through it — does anything feel wrong, too generous, or too vague? This is the document that /fw:copy and /fw:grow will read, so it needs to be honest."
Saving
After user approval:
After Saving
Use AskUserQuestion:
Question: "Positioning canvas saved to docs/positioning/current.md. What next?"
Options:
- Run
/fw:copy — Translate this positioning into a specific artifact (landing page, pitch, bio, outreach, talk abstract)
- Run
/fw:pitch — Build a full sales pitch storyboard grounded in this positioning
- Run
/fw:monetize — Design pricing and monetization strategy based on the segments and value chains
- Run
/fw:grow — Design a growth experiment based on this positioning
- Run
/fw:compound — Save the positioning decisions and reasoning for future reference
- Revise — Go back and sharpen a specific section
- Done for now — Come back later
Important Rules
-
Sequence is non-negotiable. Steps must be worked in order: alternatives → attributes → value → segments → frame. The framework works because each step constrains the next.
-
Going back is always allowed. Later steps often reveal that earlier answers need sharpening. Encourage this — it's how the framework is meant to work.
-
Use the user's language. Don't sanitize their descriptions into marketing speak. If they say "janky spreadsheet workaround," put that in the canvas. Authenticity is more valuable than polish.
-
Push for specificity, not length. A canvas with 3 crisp alternatives and 2 sharp value chains beats one with 8 vague entries. Quality over quantity.
-
Surface the reasoning. For founders doing this solo, explain why each step matters before asking them to do it. The framework reasoning is motivation to push through the friction.
-
The canvas should feel uncomfortable. If the user isn't squirming a little when naming their real competitive alternatives or narrowing their segments, the canvas probably isn't specific enough. That discomfort is the signal it's working.
Pipeline Mode
When invoked with disable-model-invocation context:
- Skip all AskUserQuestion prompts
- Use any provided arguments as context
- Honor
--canvas <path> if provided; otherwise apply the Canvas Path Resolution rules silently (single-file: use it; multiple: pick the most-recently-modified non-portfolio canvas and flag the assumption in the output; none: write to docs/positioning/current.md)
- Honor
--values-check if provided; otherwise skip all values-check prompts and the Values-Fit Sanity Check section
- Work through all 5 steps using available information
- Make reasonable assumptions, flag them in the canvas
- If
--values-check is on, capture values_notes per step but do not loop back into revisions — write the Values-Fit Sanity Check as flagged tension in the output for the user to act on later
- Write output files without waiting for confirmation
