Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+---
+name: strategy-and-competitive-analysis
+description: Use when developing business strategy (market entry, product launch, geographic expansion, M&A, turnaround), conducting competitive analysis (profiling competitors, assessing competitive threats, Porter's 5 Forces, identifying differentiation), applying strategic frameworks (Good Strategy kernel with diagnosis/guiding policy/coherent actions, SWOT, Blue Ocean Strategy, Playing to Win where-to-play/how-to-win, Value Chain Analysis, BCG Matrix), making strategic decisions under constraints (build vs buy, pricing strategy, market positioning, business model choices), planning strategic initiatives (annual planning, OKRs, roadmaps), evaluating competitive positioning (moats, sustainable advantages, differentiation vs cost leadership), or when user mentions "strategy", "competitive analysis", "Porter's 5 Forces", "SWOT", "market positioning", "strategic planning", "competitive landscape", or "strategic frameworks".
+---
+# Strategy & Competitive Analysis
+
+## Table of Contents
+- [Purpose](#purpose)
+- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
+- [What Is It](#what-is-it)
+- [Workflow](#workflow)
+- [Strategic Frameworks Overview](#strategic-frameworks-overview)
+- [Competitive Analysis Overview](#competitive-analysis-overview)
+- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
+- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
+- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Develop robust strategies grounded in rigorous competitive and market analysis, using proven frameworks to diagnose challenges, formulate guiding policies, and specify coherent actions.
+
+## When to Use
+
+**Business Strategy Development:**
+- Market entry strategy (new product, geography, segment)
+- Strategic planning (annual plans, 3-year vision, OKRs)
+- Strategic decisions (build vs buy, pricing, positioning, business model)
+- Growth strategy (organic, M&A, partnerships, platform)
+
+**Competitive Analysis:**
+- Competitor profiling (features, pricing, positioning, strengths/weaknesses)
+- Threat assessment (new entrants, substitutes, competitive moves)
+- Differentiation opportunities (market gaps, uncontested space)
+- Industry structure analysis (5 Forces, consolidation, barriers to entry)
+
+**Strategic Frameworks:**
+- Need structured approach to complex strategic questions
+- Multiple stakeholders requiring alignment on strategy rationale
+- High-stakes decisions requiring rigorous analysis
+- Teaching/communicating strategy to teams
+
+## What Is It
+
+Strategy & Competitive Analysis applies proven frameworks to make better strategic decisions:
+
+**Good Strategy Kernel** (Rumelt): Diagnosis (what's the challenge) → Guiding Policy (overall approach) → Coherent Actions (specific coordinated steps).
+
+**Competitive Analysis**: Porter's 5 Forces (rivalry, new entrants, substitutes, buyer power, supplier power), competitor profiling (SWOT per competitor), positioning maps, moat assessment.
+
+**Example**: SaaS startup entering crowded market → **Diagnosis**: commoditized features, price competition, high CAC. **Guiding Policy**: vertical specialization (healthcare) + product-led growth. **Coherent Actions**: build HIPAA compliance, create compliance templates, offer free tier, invest in SEO for "healthcare SaaS".
+
+## Workflow
+
+Copy this checklist and track your progress:
+
+```
+Strategy & Competitive Analysis Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Frame strategic question and gather context
+- [ ] Step 2: Choose framework(s) based on question type
+- [ ] Step 3: Conduct analysis using chosen framework(s)
+- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize insights and formulate strategy
+- [ ] Step 5: Validate and create action plan
+```
+
+**Step 1: Frame strategic question**
+
+Clarify the strategic question, business context (industry, stage, constraints), competitive landscape, and success criteria. See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for typical question types.
+
+**Step 2: Choose framework(s)**
+
+For industry/competitive structure → Use Porter's 5 Forces. For positioning → Use Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas or Value Chain Analysis. For overall strategy → Use Good Strategy kernel. For multiple options → Use SWOT per option. See [Strategic Frameworks Overview](#strategic-frameworks-overview) and [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for framework selection guidance.
+
+**Step 3: Conduct analysis**
+
+For straightforward competitive analysis → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md). For complex multi-framework strategy → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for integrated approach. Gather data (competitor research, market analysis, customer insights), apply framework systematically, document findings with evidence.
+
+**Step 4: Synthesize insights**
+
+Apply Good Strategy kernel: **Diagnosis** (core challenge from analysis), **Guiding Policy** (overall approach to address challenge), **Coherent Actions** (3-5 specific coordinated steps). Ensure coherence (actions reinforce each other, support guiding policy, address diagnosis).
+
+**Step 5: Validate and create action plan**
+
+Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json). Check: diagnosis grounded in evidence, guiding policy addresses root challenge, actions coherent and specific, competitive positioning clear, assumptions explicit, risks identified. Create `strategy-and-competitive-analysis.md` with strategy summary, supporting analysis, action plan with owners/timelines.
+
+## Strategic Frameworks Overview
+
+| Framework | Use When | Key Output |
+|-----------|----------|------------|
+| **Good Strategy Kernel** | Overall strategy formulation | Diagnosis + Guiding Policy + Coherent Actions |
+| **Porter's 5 Forces** | Assess industry attractiveness, competitive intensity | Industry structure analysis, profit potential |
+| **SWOT Analysis** | Evaluate internal/external factors, compare options | Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats |
+| **Blue Ocean Strategy** | Find uncontested market space, redefine competition | Strategy canvas, value innovation |
+| **Playing to Win** | Define strategic choices explicitly | Where to play (markets/segments), How to win (advantage) |
+| **Value Chain Analysis** | Identify cost advantages, differentiation opportunities | Value activities, cost drivers, linkages |
+| **BCG Matrix** | Manage product portfolio | Stars, Cash Cows, Dogs, Question Marks |
+| **Competitive Profiling** | Understand specific competitors deeply | Competitor SWOT, positioning, strategy inference |
+
+**Framework Selection:**
+- **Single product launch** → Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas + Competitive Profiling
+- **Market entry decision** → Porter's 5 Forces + Playing to Win
+- **Annual strategic planning** → Good Strategy Kernel + SWOT
+- **Turnaround/crisis** → Good Strategy Kernel (diagnosis critical)
+- **Portfolio management** → BCG Matrix + Resource allocation
+
+See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for detailed framework application guidance.
+
+## Competitive Analysis Overview
+
+**Competitor Profiling:**
+- **Identify competitors**: Direct (same solution), Indirect (different solution, same job), Potential (adjacent markets, new entrants)
+- **Profile each**: Product/features, Pricing, Target customers, Positioning/messaging, Strengths/weaknesses, Strategy inference, Financial health, Recent moves
+- **Analyze**: SWOT per competitor, Competitive positioning map (2x2: price vs features, etc.), Share of wallet, Win/loss patterns
+
+**Porter's 5 Forces:**
+1. **Competitive Rivalry**: Number of competitors, market growth rate, differentiation, switching costs, exit barriers
+2. **Threat of New Entrants**: Barriers to entry (capital, technology, brand, regulation, network effects)
+3. **Threat of Substitutes**: Alternative solutions, price-performance trade-offs, switching costs
+4. **Bargaining Power of Buyers**: Concentration, price sensitivity, switching costs, backward integration threat
+5. **Bargaining Power of Suppliers**: Concentration, uniqueness, switching costs, forward integration threat
+
+**Output**: Industry attractiveness (high/medium/low profit potential), key competitive dynamics, strategic implications.
+
+**Competitive Moats** (sustainable advantages):
+- **Network effects**: Value increases with more users (platforms, marketplaces)
+- **Switching costs**: High cost to change providers (data lock-in, integration, learning curve)
+- **Brand**: Strong brand recognition and loyalty
+- **Cost advantages**: Scale economies, proprietary technology, favorable access to resources
+- **Regulatory**: Licenses, patents, compliance barriers
+
+## Common Patterns
+
+**Pattern 1: Market Entry Strategy**
+- Diagnosis: Assess market using Porter's 5 Forces + competitive profiling
+- Guiding Policy: Choose positioning (Blue Ocean or competitive response)
+- Coherent Actions: Go-to-market, product roadmap, pricing, partnerships
+
+**Pattern 2: Competitive Response**
+- Diagnosis: Analyze competitor threat (new entrant, feature launch, price cut)
+- Guiding Policy: Defend, ignore, or leapfrog
+- Coherent Actions: Feature parity, differentiation doubling-down, or new positioning
+
+**Pattern 3: Strategic Planning (Annual)**
+- Diagnosis: Current state SWOT + market trends + competitive landscape
+- Guiding Policy: Focus areas (3-5 strategic themes) for next year
+- Coherent Actions: OKRs, initiatives, resource allocation
+
+**Pattern 4: Differentiation Strategy**
+- Diagnosis: Competitive positioning map + customer needs analysis
+- Guiding Policy: Differentiation axis (vertical, feature set, experience, business model)
+- Coherent Actions: Product roadmap, marketing messaging, pricing structure
+
+## Guardrails
+
+**Evidence-Based:**
+- Ground diagnosis in data (market research, customer interviews, competitor analysis)
+- State assumptions explicitly (market size, growth rate, competitive response)
+- Distinguish facts from hypotheses
+- Cite sources for key claims
+
+**Coherence:**
+- Actions must reinforce each other (not independent initiatives)
+- Actions must support guiding policy
+- Guiding policy must address diagnosis (not aspirational goals)
+- Strategy must be internally consistent (no contradictions)
+
+**Realism:**
+- Acknowledge constraints (resources, capabilities, time, competition)
+- Identify risks and mitigation plans
+- Avoid wishful thinking ("if we just execute perfectly...")
+- Test strategy against competitive response scenarios
+
+**Specificity:**
+- Diagnosis: specific challenge (not "we need to grow" but "customer acquisition cost exceeds LTV in current market")
+- Guiding Policy: clear approach (not "be customer-focused" but "vertical specialization in healthcare")
+- Coherent Actions: concrete steps with owners and timelines (not "improve product" but "build HIPAA compliance by Q2, led by Security Team")
+
+**Differentiation:**
+- Strategy must be defensible against competition
+- Identify sustainable competitive advantages (moats)
+- Avoid "best practices" that competitors can easily copy
+- Explain why this strategy is hard for competitors to replicate
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+**Inputs Required:**
+- Strategic question or decision to make
+- Business context (industry, stage, goals, constraints)
+- Competitive landscape (who are competitors, market dynamics)
+- Available resources and capabilities
+
+**Frameworks to Use:**
+- Industry analysis → Porter's 5 Forces
+- Overall strategy → Good Strategy Kernel
+- Positioning → Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas, Value Chain Analysis
+- Portfolio → BCG Matrix
+- Competitor analysis → SWOT, Competitive Profiling
+
+**Outputs Produced:**
+- `strategy-and-competitive-analysis.md` with:
+  - Strategic question and context
+  - Analysis (frameworks applied, findings, evidence)
+  - Strategy summary (diagnosis, guiding policy, coherent actions)
+  - Competitive positioning
+  - Action plan (initiatives, owners, timelines, success metrics)
+  - Assumptions, risks, mitigations
+
+**Resources:**
+- Quick competitive analysis → [resources/template.md](resources/template.md)
+- Complex multi-framework strategy → [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)
+- Quality validation → [resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json)
+
+**Minimum Quality Standard:**
+- Diagnosis grounded in evidence (not assumptions)
+- Guiding policy addresses root challenge (not symptoms)
+- Coherent actions specific and mutually reinforcing
+- Competitive analysis rigorous (Porter's 5 Forces or equivalent)
+- Assumptions explicit, risks identified with mitigations
+- Average rubric score ≥ 3.5/5 before delivering
--- a/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json
+++ b/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/evaluators/rubric_strategy_and_competitive_analysis.json
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+{
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "name": "Diagnosis Quality",
+      "weight": 1.5,
+      "description": "How well does the diagnosis identify the critical strategic challenge?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Diagnosis is specific, evidence-based, identifies root cause (not symptoms), validated with stakeholders. Clearly states THE critical challenge to address with supporting data. Examples: 'CAC ($500) exceeds LTV ($300) in SMB segment due to 60% annual churn' not 'we need to grow'.",
+        "4": "Diagnosis is specific and evidence-based, identifies challenge clearly. May mix some symptoms with root cause but overall direction is clear. Adequate supporting data.",
+        "3": "Diagnosis present but somewhat vague or lists multiple unrelated challenges. Some evidence provided. Example: 'market is competitive and growth is slowing' without deeper root cause analysis.",
+        "2": "Diagnosis is vague, aspirational goal disguised as diagnosis ('want to be market leader'), or lists many symptoms without identifying core challenge. Minimal evidence.",
+        "1": "No clear diagnosis, or diagnosis is completely generic/vague. No evidence. Example: 'we need to improve' or 'market is tough'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Guiding Policy Strength",
+      "weight": 1.5,
+      "description": "How well does the guiding policy address the diagnosis and create competitive advantage?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Guiding policy directly addresses diagnosis, is directional (not prescriptive actions), explains how it creates competitive advantage, rules things out (says what we WON'T do). Example: 'Vertical specialization in healthcare + product-led growth' (addresses high CAC/churn diagnosis).",
+        "4": "Guiding policy addresses diagnosis and provides clear direction. Explains advantage. May not fully rule things out or may be slightly prescriptive.",
+        "3": "Guiding policy present but generic or weakly connected to diagnosis. Advantage not fully explained. Example: 'focus on customer experience' without specifics.",
+        "2": "Guiding policy is vague platitudes ('be customer-centric, innovative'), doesn't clearly address diagnosis, or contradicts itself.",
+        "1": "No guiding policy, or policy is completely disconnected from diagnosis. Pure aspirational goals ('become market leader')."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Coherent Actions",
+      "weight": 1.4,
+      "description": "Are the proposed actions specific, mutually reinforcing, and aligned with the guiding policy?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "3-5 specific actions that support guiding policy, reinforce each other (coherence), no contradictions. Each action has description, owner, timeline, resources. Actions together create more value than independently (synergies).",
+        "4": "3-5 specific actions aligned with guiding policy. Some mutual reinforcement. Mostly complete details (owner, timeline). Minor gaps in coherence.",
+        "3": "Actions present but some are vague, or partially aligned with policy. Limited mutual reinforcement (more like independent initiatives). Some details missing.",
+        "2": "Actions are laundry list of unrelated initiatives, vague ('improve product'), or contradict each other (cost leadership + premium positioning). Many details missing.",
+        "1": "No specific actions, or actions completely disconnect from guiding policy. No coherence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Competitive Analysis Rigor",
+      "weight": 1.3,
+      "description": "How thorough and insightful is the competitive analysis?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Comprehensive competitive analysis: Porter's 5 Forces applied (if relevant) OR equivalent industry structure analysis. 3-5 key competitors profiled with strengths/weaknesses/strategy inference. Positioning map or landscape clear. Competitive moats identified (ours and theirs). Evidence-based.",
+        "4": "Solid competitive analysis: Key competitors identified and profiled. Industry dynamics understood. Some framework applied (5 Forces, SWOT, positioning). Moats discussed. Minor gaps in depth.",
+        "3": "Basic competitive analysis: Competitors listed with high-level descriptions. Some strengths/weaknesses noted. Limited framework application or superficial. Moats mentioned but not deeply analyzed.",
+        "2": "Minimal competitive analysis: Competitors mentioned but not analyzed. No framework applied. Superficial observations. Moats not discussed.",
+        "1": "No competitive analysis, or purely speculative without evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Strategic Framework Application",
+      "weight": 1.2,
+      "description": "Are appropriate strategic frameworks applied correctly?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Appropriate framework(s) selected for strategic question (e.g., Good Strategy kernel for overall strategy, Porter's 5 Forces for industry analysis, Blue Ocean for positioning, Playing to Win for choices). Framework applied correctly with depth. Integrated insights from multiple frameworks if complex question.",
+        "4": "Appropriate framework selected and applied correctly. Good depth. May use single framework when multi-framework would add value, or minor application gaps.",
+        "3": "Framework applied but choice may not be optimal for question, or application is superficial. Example: Using SWOT when Good Strategy kernel would be better. Framework followed mechanically without deep insights.",
+        "2": "Framework mentioned but not really applied, or wrong framework for question. Checklist approach without analysis.",
+        "1": "No framework applied, or framework completely misapplied."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Evidence and Assumptions",
+      "weight": 1.2,
+      "description": "Is the strategy grounded in evidence? Are assumptions explicit?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Diagnosis and analysis grounded in evidence (customer data, market research, competitive intelligence, financials). Key assumptions stated explicitly with validation plans. Sources cited. Distinguishes facts from hypotheses clearly.",
+        "4": "Good evidence provided for key claims. Assumptions stated. Some citations. Mostly distinguishes facts from hypotheses.",
+        "3": "Some evidence provided but gaps. Assumptions partially stated. Some claims not backed by data. Facts and hypotheses sometimes blurred.",
+        "2": "Minimal evidence. Assumptions implicit or not stated. Many claims unsupported. Largely speculative.",
+        "1": "No evidence. Purely aspirational or wishful thinking. Assumptions not acknowledged."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Competitive Defensibility & Moats",
+      "weight": 1.3,
+      "description": "Does the strategy identify and build sustainable competitive advantages?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Strategy explicitly identifies sustainable competitive advantages (moats): network effects, switching costs, brand, cost advantages, regulatory. Explains how strategy builds/strengthens moats. Addresses why competitors can't easily copy. Considers competitive responses.",
+        "4": "Moats identified and strategy builds on them. Some explanation of defensibility. Competitive response considered.",
+        "3": "Moats mentioned but not central to strategy. Limited discussion of defensibility. Competitive response acknowledged superficially.",
+        "2": "Moats barely mentioned or generic ('we'll be better'). Strategy relies on execution alone without structural advantages. Assumes competitors won't respond.",
+        "1": "No discussion of competitive advantages or moats. Strategy could be easily copied."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Actionability & Implementation",
+      "weight": 1.1,
+      "description": "Can this strategy be executed? Are there clear owners, timelines, metrics, and resource requirements?",
+      "levels": {
+        "5": "Clear action plan: initiatives with owners, timelines, success metrics (baseline + targets), resource requirements, dependencies. Go/no-go decision points defined. Review cadence set. Risks identified with mitigations. Realistic given constraints.",
+        "4": "Good action plan: most initiatives have owners, timelines, metrics. Some resource/dependency details. Risks identified. Mostly realistic.",
+        "3": "Basic action plan: initiatives listed with some details. Many gaps in owners, timelines, metrics, or resources. Limited risk analysis. Partially realistic.",
+        "2": "Vague action plan: initiatives without clear owners or timelines. No metrics or resources specified. Unrealistic given constraints (assumes unlimited resources).",
+        "1": "No action plan, or completely unrealistic. No owners, timelines, metrics, or resources."
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "guidance": {
+    "strategic_question_type": {
+      "market_entry": "Prioritize Porter's 5 Forces (criterion: Competitive Analysis Rigor) and clear Where to Play / How to Win choices. Entry barriers and industry attractiveness are critical.",
+      "competitive_response": "Prioritize Competitive Analysis Rigor and Coherent Actions. Need specific competitor analysis (strengths/weaknesses/likely response) and concrete coordinated actions.",
+      "annual_planning": "Prioritize all Good Strategy kernel components (Diagnosis, Guiding Policy, Coherent Actions) equally. Need comprehensive view. Multi-framework approach (SWOT + Good Strategy) typical.",
+      "product_launch": "Prioritize Competitive Defensibility (differentiation, moats) and Actionability (clear go-to-market plan). Blue Ocean Strategy application often valuable.",
+      "turnaround_crisis": "Diagnosis is CRITICAL (weight 2x). Must identify root cause accurately. Guiding Policy must be realistic given constraints. Coherent Actions must be specific and immediate."
+    },
+    "company_stage": {
+      "startup": "Acceptable to have less rigorous Porter's 5 Forces (criterion: Competitive Analysis Rigor can be 3-4). Prioritize Coherent Actions and Actionability (need to execute quickly). Moats can be aspirational (plan to build) vs existing.",
+      "growth": "All criteria equally important. Strategy should balance growth ambitions with competitive realities. Moats should be present or actively building.",
+      "mature": "Prioritize Competitive Analysis Rigor and Competitive Defensibility. Mature companies have established positions, strategy about defending/extending moats. Evidence and data should be comprehensive."
+    },
+    "minimum_thresholds": {
+      "diagnosis_quality": "Must be ≥3. Strategy built on weak diagnosis will fail.",
+      "guiding_policy_strength": "Must be ≥3. Without clear policy, actions won't cohere.",
+      "coherent_actions": "Must be ≥3. Strategy without specific actions is just wishful thinking.",
+      "overall_average": "Must be ≥3.5 across all criteria before delivering."
+    }
+  },
+  "common_failure_modes": {
+    "goals_as_strategy": "Diagnosis: 1-2. User states goals ('grow 50%') as strategy instead of applying Good Strategy kernel. Fix: Re-frame as diagnosis (what's preventing growth?) → guiding policy (approach to address) → coherent actions.",
+    "fluff_and_platitudes": "Guiding Policy: 1-2. Generic statements ('be customer-centric, innovative'). Fix: Demand specificity - what does 'customer-centric' mean in practice? How is it different from competitors?",
+    "laundry_list_actions": "Coherent Actions: 1-2. Unrelated initiatives without coherence. Fix: Ensure all actions support guiding policy and reinforce each other. Remove orphaned actions.",
+    "no_competitive_analysis": "Competitive Analysis Rigor: 1-2. Strategy developed in vacuum without understanding competitors or industry. Fix: Require competitor profiling and Porter's 5 Forces (or equivalent).",
+    "assumptions_not_stated": "Evidence and Assumptions: 1-2. Strategy relies on implicit assumptions. Fix: Explicitly list critical assumptions with validation plans.",
+    "no_moats": "Competitive Defensibility: 1-2. Strategy can be easily copied, no sustainable advantage. Fix: Identify what makes this defensible, why competitors can't copy, what moat it builds.",
+    "vague_actions": "Actionability: 1-2. Actions like 'improve product' without specifics. Fix: Demand owners, timelines, metrics, resources for each action.",
+    "contradictory_strategy": "Coherent Actions: 1-2 or Guiding Policy: 1-2. Actions contradict each other (cost leadership + premium differentiation) or guiding policy contradicts diagnosis. Fix: Force choice - pick ONE strategic direction."
+  },
+  "self_check_questions": [
+    "Diagnosis: Can I explain the core strategic challenge in 2-3 specific sentences without jargon?",
+    "Diagnosis: Is this the root cause or just a symptom? (Use 5 Whys to validate)",
+    "Guiding Policy: Does this directly address the diagnosis? How?",
+    "Guiding Policy: Why is this approach defensible vs competitors? What moat does it build?",
+    "Guiding Policy: What does this rule out? (If 'everything is on the table', policy is too vague)",
+    "Coherent Actions: Do all actions support the guiding policy?",
+    "Coherent Actions: Do actions reinforce each other, or are they independent initiatives?",
+    "Coherent Actions: Are there contradictions? (Can't pursue cost leadership AND premium differentiation)",
+    "Competitive Analysis: Have I profiled 3-5 key competitors with strengths/weaknesses?",
+    "Competitive Analysis: Have I applied Porter's 5 Forces or equivalent industry structure analysis?",
+    "Competitive Analysis: What are our moats? What are competitor moats?",
+    "Frameworks: Did I choose appropriate framework for strategic question? (Good Strategy for overall strategy, 5 Forces for industry, Blue Ocean for positioning, etc.)",
+    "Evidence: Is each key claim backed by evidence (data, customer feedback, market research)?",
+    "Assumptions: Have I stated critical assumptions explicitly? Do I have validation plans?",
+    "Moats: What sustainable competitive advantage does this strategy create? Why can't competitors copy?",
+    "Actionability: Does each action have owner, timeline, success metric, resources?",
+    "Actionability: Are there go/no-go decision points and review cadence?",
+    "Realism: Is this realistic given our constraints (resources, capabilities, time, competition)?",
+    "Competitive Response: What if competitors respond (price war, feature parity, new positioning)? Does strategy hold?",
+    "Overall: Would a skeptical board member approve this strategy, or would they poke holes?"
+  ],
+  "evaluation_notes": "Strategy and competitive analysis quality is assessed across 8 weighted criteria. Diagnosis (1.5x), Guiding Policy (1.5x), and Coherent Actions (1.4x) form the Good Strategy kernel and are weighted highest. Competitive Analysis Rigor (1.3x) and Competitive Defensibility (1.3x) ensure strategy accounts for competitive realities. Strategic Framework Application (1.2x) and Evidence/Assumptions (1.2x) ensure rigor. Actionability (1.1x) ensures executability. Minimum standard: ≥3.5 average across all criteria, with Diagnosis, Guiding Policy, and Coherent Actions all ≥3 individually."
+}
--- a/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/methodology.md
+++ b/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/methodology.md
@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
+# Advanced Strategy & Competitive Analysis Methodology
+
+## Workflow
+
+```
+Advanced Strategy Methodology Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Deep diagnosis using multiple frameworks
+- [ ] Step 2: Competitive intelligence and scenario planning
+- [ ] Step 3: Integrated strategy synthesis
+- [ ] Step 4: Stress-test strategy against scenarios
+- [ ] Step 5: Implementation planning with adaptive triggers
+```
+
+**Step 1**: Deep diagnosis - Combine Porter's 5 Forces, Value Chain, SWOT. See [1. Good Strategy Kernel](#1-good-strategy-kernel-deep-dive).
+
+**Step 2**: Competitive intelligence - Gather data, infer strategies, scenarios. See [6. Competitive Intelligence](#6-competitive-intelligence-gathering).
+
+**Step 3**: Strategy synthesis - Apply Good Strategy kernel with options analysis. See [1. Good Strategy Kernel](#1-good-strategy-kernel-deep-dive).
+
+**Step 4**: Stress-test - Scenarios, competitive response, fragile assumptions. See [7. Strategic Scenarios](#7-strategic-scenario-planning).
+
+**Step 5**: Adaptive planning - Triggers, decision points, pivot criteria. See [7. Strategic Scenarios](#7-strategic-scenario-planning).
+
+---
+
+## 1. Good Strategy Kernel Deep Dive
+
+### Diagnosis: Identifying Critical Challenge
+
+**Common mistakes:**
+- Too vague ("need to grow", "market is competitive")
+- Symptom not cause ("low sales" vs "wrong target segment")
+- Multiple unrelated issues (laundry list, not THE challenge)
+- Aspirational goal as diagnosis ("want to be market leader")
+
+**Crafting strong diagnosis:**
+
+1. **Gather multi-source evidence**: Customer data (churn, NPS, win/loss), market data (growth, TAM, trends), competitive data (pricing, features, share), financials (CAC/LTV, margins), internal (capabilities, constraints)
+
+2. **Find root cause (5 Whys)**:
+   - "Revenue growth slowing" → "Customer acquisition slowing" → "CAC doubled" → "Paid channels saturated, organic declining" → "No differentiation, price competition, high churn"
+   - **Root cause**: Lack of differentiation in commoditized market → poor unit economics
+
+3. **Validate with stakeholders**: Sales, product, finance must agree on core challenge
+
+4. **Test specificity**: Can you explain in 2-3 sentences? Specific enough to rule out certain approaches? Identifies leverage point?
+
+**Good examples:**
+- "CAC ($500) exceeds LTV ($300) in SMB segment due to 60% annual churn, making growth unprofitable"
+- "Squeezed between low-cost offshore competitors ($10/unit) and premium players ($100/unit), our mid-market positioning ($50/unit) lacks differentiation"
+
+### Guiding Policy: Strategic Approach
+
+**Strong guiding policy characteristics:**
+- Directional not prescriptive (approach, not detailed actions)
+- Addresses diagnosis directly
+- Creates advantage (moat or leverage)
+- Rules things out (says what we WON'T do)
+
+| Diagnosis | Guiding Policy | Why This Works |
+|-----------|---------------|----------------|
+| CAC > LTV in SMB, high churn | Vertical specialization (healthcare) + product-led growth | Higher LTV in healthcare, compliance creates switching costs; PLG reduces CAC |
+| Squeezed between low-cost and premium | Blue Ocean: compete on speed/convenience not price/features | New dimension competitors haven't optimized |
+| Weak network effects, multi-tenanting | Platform strategy: integrate with others, become "hub" | Can't beat multi-tenanting, embrace and add value |
+
+**Testing guiding policy:**
+- **Specificity**: Does it rule out certain actions?
+- **Leverage**: Exploits capability, market gap, or competitor weakness?
+- **Coherence**: Can you imagine 3-5 mutually reinforcing actions?
+- **Defensibility**: Why can't competitors easily copy?
+
+### Coherent Actions: Mutually Reinforcing Steps
+
+**Coherence = actions support guiding policy + reinforce each other + no contradictions**
+
+**Example: "Vertical specialization in healthcare"**
+- Build HIPAA compliance (supports verticalization)
+- Create healthcare templates/workflows (supports specialization)
+- Hire healthcare domain experts (supports credibility)
+- Target healthcare conferences (supports go-to-market)
+- Partner with healthcare ecosystem (reinforces positioning)
+- **Result**: All five together create "healthcare specialist" positioning (more than sum)
+
+**Common failures:**
+- **Laundry list**: 10 unrelated initiatives, no synergies
+- **Contradictions**: Cost-cutting + premium feature investment
+- **Vague**: "Improve customer experience" (not specific)
+- **Orphaned**: Actions don't support guiding policy
+
+---
+
+## 2. Porter's 5 Forces Advanced Application
+
+### When to Use
+
+**Best for**: Industry attractiveness, profit potential, market entry/exit decisions
+**Not for**: Operational decisions, short-term competitive moves, internal strategy
+
+### Each Force Deep Dive
+
+| Force | High = Bad (Low Profit) | Low = Good (High Profit) | Strategic Response if High |
+|-------|------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------|
+| **Competitive Rivalry** | Many competitors, slow growth, low differentiation, high fixed costs | Few competitors, fast growth, high differentiation | Differentiate or achieve cost leadership |
+| **New Entrants** | Low barriers (easy to enter) | High barriers (capital, scale, brand, regulation, network effects) | Build moats (switching costs, network effects) |
+| **Substitutes** | Strong alternatives, low switching cost | Weak alternatives, high switching cost | Innovate faster, bundle, lock-in |
+| **Buyer Power** | Few large customers, low switching cost, price sensitive | Many small customers, high switching cost | Increase switching costs, differentiate |
+| **Supplier Power** | Few suppliers, unique inputs, high switching cost | Many suppliers, commodity inputs | Vertical integration, alternative suppliers |
+
+### Scoring Industry Attractiveness
+
+| Force | High/Med/Low | Weight | Score (1-5, 5=attractive) | Weighted |
+|-------|-------------|--------|--------------------------|----------|
+| Rivalry | [Assessment] | 30% | [1-5] | [X] |
+| Entry Barriers | [Assessment] | 20% | [1-5] | [X] |
+| Substitutes | [Assessment] | 15% | [1-5] | [X] |
+| Buyer Power | [Assessment] | 20% | [1-5] | [X] |
+| Supplier Power | [Assessment] | 15% | [1-5] | [X] |
+| **Total** | | 100% | | [Avg] |
+
+**Interpretation**: 4-5 = Highly attractive | 3-4 = Moderately attractive | 2-3 = Challenging | 1-2 = Unattractive
+
+---
+
+## 3. Blue Ocean Strategy
+
+**Core idea**: Create uncontested market space (blue ocean) vs compete in existing market (red ocean).
+
+### Strategy Canvas
+
+**X-axis**: Factors industry competes on (price, features, service, speed, convenience)
+**Y-axis**: Level of offering (low to high)
+
+**Example: Cirque du Soleil**
+- **Eliminated**: Star performers, animal shows, multiple arenas
+- **Reduced**: Ticket price (somewhat higher but not luxury theater prices)
+- **Raised**: Artistic theme, refined environment
+- **Created**: Multiple productions, theatrical themes
+
+**Result**: Circus + theater + artistic performance = new market (adults paying premium, not families with kids)
+
+### Four Actions Framework
+
+1. **Eliminate**: Factors industry takes for granted to remove?
+2. **Reduce**: Factors to reduce below industry standard?
+3. **Raise**: Factors to raise above industry standard?
+4. **Create**: Factors to create that industry never offered?
+
+**Application steps:**
+- Map current competitive factors
+- Identify industry assumptions
+- Look across substitutes and buyer groups
+- Apply Four Actions
+- Test new value curve (differentiated? Lower costs? Higher value?)
+
+---
+
+## 4. Playing to Win Framework
+
+**Two core choices:**
+
+### 1. Where to Play
+
+**Dimensions**: Geography, product category, customer segment, channel, vertical, value chain stage
+
+**Choosing:**
+- Start narrow (beachhead), expand later
+- Choose markets where you can win (have or can build advantage)
+- Explicit about where NOT to play
+
+**Example: Stripe (early)**
+- **Where to Play**: Online developers building internet businesses
+- **Where NOT**: Offline merchants, enterprises, legacy systems
+
+### 2. How to Win
+
+**Porter's Generic Strategies:**
+
+| Strategy | How | Risk | Examples |
+|----------|-----|------|----------|
+| **Cost Leadership** | Scale economies, process efficiency, automation | Price wars, inflexible, quality suffers | Walmart, Southwest, Amazon |
+| **Differentiation** | Innovation, brand, service, features, design | Competitors copy, insufficient premium | Apple, Tesla, Airbnb |
+| **Focus** (niche) | Cost or differentiation in narrow segment | Niche too small, competitors enter | Ferrari (differentiation focus) |
+
+**Key**: Pick ONE strategy (avoid "stuck in the middle"), ensure capabilities support choice, build reinforcing moat.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Value Chain Analysis
+
+**Purpose**: Identify where you create value, where to build cost or differentiation advantage.
+
+**Primary Activities**: Inbound logistics → Operations → Outbound logistics → Marketing/Sales → Service
+**Support Activities**: Procurement, Technology, HR, Infrastructure
+
+### Using for Strategy
+
+**Cost Advantage**:
+- Identify high-cost activities → automate, outsource, eliminate, redesign
+- Find economies of scale opportunities
+- Example: Dell (direct-to-consumer eliminated distributor margins, built-to-order reduced inventory)
+
+**Differentiation**:
+- Identify activities most valued by customers → invest, enhance
+- Find unique activities competitors can't copy
+- Example: Apple (design + operations + marketing + ecosystem = integrated experience)
+
+| Activity | Current Cost | % Total | Differentiation Impact | Opportunity |
+|----------|--------------|---------|----------------------|-------------|
+| Inbound | $X | Y% | Low | Automate to reduce 30% |
+| Operations | $X | Y% | High | Invest in quality |
+| Marketing | $X | Y% | High | Invest, creates brand |
+
+---
+
+## 6. Competitive Intelligence Gathering
+
+### Data Sources
+
+**Public**: Company websites (job listings signal priorities), social media, SEC filings, press releases, analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester), review sites (G2, Capterra), news
+
+**Primary**: Customer interviews (why chose us/them?), win/loss analysis, mystery shopping (try competitor products), trade shows
+
+**Inferring strategy**:
+- **Hiring patterns**: Data scientist hiring → investing in AI/ML
+- **Acquisitions**: Adjacent space → likely expanding there
+- **Pricing changes**: Raised → profitability or upmarket; lowered → land grab or cost pressure
+- **Feature releases**: Consistent theme → strategic direction
+- **Partnerships**: Signal target customers or integrations
+
+### Competitor SWOT Template
+
+**Competitor**: [Name]
+- **Strengths**: What they're good at, where they win, source of advantage
+- **Weaknesses**: Vulnerabilities, customer complaints, product gaps
+- **Opportunities** (for them): Market trends favoring them, untapped segments
+- **Threats** (to them): Regulatory, technology, competitive threats
+- **Likely Strategy** (inference): Where they're headed based on above
+
+---
+
+## 7. Strategic Scenario Planning
+
+### When to Use
+
+**Best for**: High uncertainty (multiple plausible futures), long time horizons (3-5+ years), high stakes (major investments)
+
+### Building Scenarios
+
+1. **Identify critical uncertainties** (high impact + high uncertainty)
+   - Example: "Will regulation favor our model?" (High impact, uncertain)
+   - Not: "Will sun rise?" (Certain) or "Office supplies +2%?" (Low impact)
+
+2. **Select 2 most critical** → 2x2 matrix = 4 scenarios
+
+**Example: SaaS deciding enterprise vs SMB**
+- **Uncertainty 1**: Economy (Recession vs Boom)
+- **Uncertainty 2**: Regulation (Strict vs Light)
+
+**Scenarios:**
+- **Recession + Strict**: Enterprises consolidate, need compliance → Enterprise compliance features
+- **Recession + Light**: Price-sensitive buyers → SMB, low-cost model
+- **Boom + Strict**: Enterprises invest in compliance → Both segments viable
+- **Boom + Light**: High growth, less constraints → Land grab, rapid expansion
+
+3. **Develop strategy per scenario** + **Identify common actions** (robust across scenarios)
+
+4. **Set trigger points**: "If X happens → Scenario A more likely → Adjust strategy"
+
+### Stress-Testing Strategy
+
+**Questions:**
+- What if core assumption is wrong? (Market grows slower, competitor responds differently)
+- What if competitors do X? (Price war, feature parity, acquire key partner)
+- What if key resource unavailable? (Talent shortage, supplier issue, platform dependency)
+- What breaks this strategy?
+
+**Fragility test**: Identify assumptions strategy depends on → Rate likelihood each is wrong → If wrong, can strategy adapt or collapse?
+- **Fragile**: Depends on many assumptions being right
+- **Robust**: Works across multiple scenarios
+
+---
+
+## 8. Common Strategic Pitfalls
+
+| Pitfall | Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|---------|-----|
+| **Goals = Strategy** | "Grow 50% annually, become market leader" | Apply Good Strategy kernel (diagnosis/policy/actions) |
+| **Fluff** | "Be customer-centric, innovative, data-driven" | Be specific, different from competitors |
+| **Laundry List** | "Improve product, hire sales, better marketing..." | Ensure coherence under guiding policy |
+| **Ignoring Constraints** | "Cost leadership AND premium differentiation" | Choose one, acknowledge trade-offs |
+| **Imitating** | "Amazon did X, so we should too" | Understand WHY, adapt to your context |
+| **Consensus Mush** | "Combine everyone's ideas" | Clear decision-maker, seek input not consensus |
+| **Analysis Paralysis** | "Need more data" | Decide with available data, state assumptions, adapt |
+| **Planning ≠ Strategy** | "Launch Product A in Q1, hire 10 in Q2" | Strategy = WHY (given challenges), plan = WHEN |
+| **Ignoring Competitive Response** | Assume competitors do nothing | Game out responses, ensure robustness |
+| **Best Practices = Strategy** | "Implement Agile, A/B testing" | Best practices = table stakes, not advantage |
+
+**Key Takeaway**: Good strategy = diagnosis (challenge) + guiding policy (approach) + coherent actions (coordinated steps). Specific, evidence-based, makes choices, addresses competitive realities.
--- a/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/template.md
+++ b/skills/strategy-and-competitive-analysis/resources/template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,311 @@
+# Strategy & Competitive Analysis Template
+
+## Workflow
+
+Copy this checklist and track your progress:
+
+```
+Strategy Template Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Define strategic question and context
+- [ ] Step 2: Conduct competitive analysis
+- [ ] Step 3: Apply Good Strategy kernel
+- [ ] Step 4: Create action plan
+- [ ] Step 5: Validate with quality checklist
+```
+
+**Step 1: Define question** - Clarify strategic question, business context, constraints. See [Section 1](#1-strategic-question--context).
+
+**Step 2: Competitive analysis** - Profile competitors, apply Porter's 5 Forces if relevant. See [Section 2](#2-competitive-analysis).
+
+**Step 3: Good Strategy kernel** - Diagnosis, Guiding Policy, Coherent Actions. See [Section 3](#3-strategy-formulation-good-strategy-kernel).
+
+**Step 4: Action plan** - Initiatives, owners, timelines, metrics. See [Section 4](#4-action-plan).
+
+**Step 5: Validate** - Quality checklist before finalizing. See [Quality Checklist](#quality-checklist).
+
+---
+
+## 1. Strategic Question & Context
+
+### Strategic Question
+
+**What strategic decision or question are we addressing?**
+
+[Clear, specific question. Examples: "Should we enter the enterprise market?", "How should we respond to Competitor X's new product?", "What's our 2024 strategy?", "Should we build or buy analytics capabilities?"]
+
+### Business Context
+
+**Company/Product:**
+- **Name**: [Your company/product]
+- **Industry**: [Industry sector]
+- **Stage**: [Startup/Growth/Mature]
+- **Current position**: [Market position, revenue range, customer base]
+
+**Strategic Context:**
+- **Goal**: [What are we trying to achieve? Growth, profitability, market leadership, survival?]
+- **Timeline**: [When does decision need to be made? Implementation timeline?]
+- **Constraints**: [Budget, resources, capabilities, regulatory, competitive]
+- **Stakeholders**: [Who cares about this decision? CEO, board, investors, customers?]
+
+---
+
+## 2. Competitive Analysis
+
+### Competitive Landscape Overview
+
+**Market Definition:**
+- **Market size**: [TAM/SAM/SOM or addressable market estimate]
+- **Growth rate**: [Market growth %, trends]
+- **Maturity**: [Emerging, Growth, Mature, Declining]
+- **Concentration**: [Fragmented or consolidated? Top 3 players' market share?]
+
+### Porter's 5 Forces Analysis
+
+*Use if assessing industry attractiveness or market entry decision. Skip for pure competitive response.*
+
+| Force | Assessment (High/Medium/Low) | Evidence | Strategic Implication |
+|-------|------------------------------|----------|----------------------|
+| **Competitive Rivalry** | [H/M/L] | [# competitors, growth rate, differentiation, switching costs] | [What this means for profitability] |
+| **Threat of New Entrants** | [H/M/L] | [Barriers: capital, brand, tech, regulation, network effects] | [How easy for new players to enter] |
+| **Threat of Substitutes** | [H/M/L] | [Alternative solutions, price-performance, switching costs] | [Risk of being replaced by different approach] |
+| **Buyer Power** | [H/M/L] | [Buyer concentration, price sensitivity, switching costs] | [Can customers squeeze margins?] |
+| **Supplier Power** | [H/M/L] | [Supplier concentration, uniqueness, switching costs] | [Can suppliers squeeze margins?] |
+
+**Overall Industry Attractiveness**: [High/Medium/Low profit potential]
+
+**Key Dynamics**: [2-3 sentences summarizing competitive forces and implications]
+
+### Competitor Profiling
+
+*Profile 3-5 key competitors (direct + most threatening indirect/potential).*
+
+**Competitor 1: [Name]**
+
+| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
+|-----------|------------|-------|
+| **Product/Features** | [Brief description] | [Key capabilities, gaps vs us] |
+| **Pricing** | [Price points, model] | [Premium/Parity/Discount vs us] |
+| **Target Customers** | [Segments] | [Who they serve, overlap with our targets] |
+| **Positioning** | [How they position] | [Messaging, brand promise] |
+| **Strengths** | [Top 2-3 strengths] | [What they do well] |
+| **Weaknesses** | [Top 2-3 weaknesses] | [Vulnerabilities, gaps] |
+| **Strategy Inference** | [Their likely strategy] | [Where they're headed, recent moves] |
+| **Threat Level** | [High/Medium/Low] | [How much of a threat to us] |
+
+**Competitor 2: [Name]**
+[Same structure as Competitor 1]
+
+**Competitor 3: [Name]**
+[Same structure as Competitor 1]
+
+**Additional competitors to monitor**: [List with 1-sentence descriptions]
+
+### Competitive Positioning Map
+
+*Create 2x2 map to visualize competitive positioning.*
+
+**Axes:**
+- X-axis: [Dimension 1 - e.g., Price: Low → High]
+- Y-axis: [Dimension 2 - e.g., Features: Simple → Comprehensive]
+
+**Positioning:**
+- **Us**: [Where we sit on map]
+- **Competitor 1**: [Position]
+- **Competitor 2**: [Position]
+- **Competitor 3**: [Position]
+
+**Insight**: [Where is there white space? Where is it crowded? Where should we position?]
+
+### Competitive Advantages (Moats)
+
+**Our current moats:**
+- [ ] Network effects: [Yes/No - Description if yes]
+- [ ] Switching costs: [Yes/No - Description if yes]
+- [ ] Brand: [Yes/No - Description if yes]
+- [ ] Cost advantages: [Yes/No - Description if yes]
+- [ ] Regulatory/IP: [Yes/No - Description if yes]
+
+**Competitor moats to be aware of**: [Which competitors have what moats]
+
+**Moat to build**: [What sustainable advantage should our strategy create?]
+
+---
+
+## 3. Strategy Formulation (Good Strategy Kernel)
+
+### Diagnosis: What's the Challenge?
+
+**Core challenge we face** (1-3 sentences):
+
+[Describe the fundamental problem or opportunity. Be specific. Not "we need to grow" but "customer acquisition cost has doubled while LTV stayed flat, making current channels unprofitable." Not "market is competitive" but "we're squeezed between low-cost offshore competitors and full-service premium players, lacking differentiation."]
+
+**Supporting analysis:**
+
+| Finding | Evidence | Implication |
+|---------|----------|-------------|
+| [Key finding 1] | [Data/research supporting this] | [What this means] |
+| [Key finding 2] | [Data/research supporting this] | [What this means] |
+| [Key finding 3] | [Data/research supporting this] | [What this means] |
+
+**Root cause** (if applicable):
+
+[What's the underlying cause of this challenge? Avoid symptoms. Example: Not "low sales" (symptom) but "product-market fit in wrong segment, high churn" (root cause)]
+
+### Guiding Policy: Overall Approach
+
+**Guiding policy** (1-2 sentences):
+
+[High-level approach to address the diagnosis. Should be directional, not specific actions. Examples: "Vertical specialization in healthcare to create defensible differentiation", "Product-led growth to reduce CAC and improve unit economics", "Platform play to leverage network effects", "Operational excellence to compete on cost"]
+
+**Strategic choice rationale:**
+
+**Why this approach?**
+- [Reason 1: Directly addresses diagnosis]
+- [Reason 2: Plays to our strengths]
+- [Reason 3: Exploits competitor weaknesses or market gaps]
+
+**Why not alternatives?**
+- Alternative 1: [Approach we're NOT taking] - Rejected because: [Reason]
+- Alternative 2: [Approach we're NOT taking] - Rejected because: [Reason]
+
+**How this creates competitive advantage:**
+
+[Explain why this approach is defensible. Why can't competitors easily copy? What moat does it build?]
+
+### Coherent Actions: Coordinated Steps
+
+**Action 1: [Specific action]**
+- **Description**: [What exactly are we doing]
+- **How it supports guiding policy**: [Connection to overall approach]
+- **How it reinforces other actions**: [Synergies with Actions 2-5]
+- **Owner**: [Who is responsible]
+- **Timeline**: [When, milestones]
+- **Resources required**: [Budget, headcount, tools]
+
+**Action 2: [Specific action]**
+- [Same structure as Action 1]
+
+**Action 3: [Specific action]**
+- [Same structure as Action 1]
+
+**Action 4: [Specific action]** (if applicable)
+- [Same structure as Action 1]
+
+**Action 5: [Specific action]** (if applicable)
+- [Same structure as Action 1]
+
+**Coherence check:**
+- [ ] All actions support guiding policy
+- [ ] Actions reinforce each other (not independent initiatives)
+- [ ] No contradictions (e.g., pursuing both cost leadership AND premium positioning)
+- [ ] Actions are specific and concrete (not "improve product" but "build HIPAA compliance module")
+
+---
+
+## 4. Action Plan
+
+### Strategic Initiatives
+
+| Initiative | Owner | Timeline | Success Metrics | Resources | Dependencies |
+|------------|-------|----------|-----------------|-----------|--------------|
+| [Initiative 1 from Actions] | [Name/Team] | [Q1 2024 or specific dates] | [KPI: target value] | [Budget, FTE] | [What must happen first] |
+| [Initiative 2] | [Name/Team] | [Timeline] | [Metrics] | [Resources] | [Dependencies] |
+| [Initiative 3] | [Name/Team] | [Timeline] | [Metrics] | [Resources] | [Dependencies] |
+| [Initiative 4] | [Name/Team] | [Timeline] | [Metrics] | [Resources] | [Dependencies] |
+| [Initiative 5] | [Name/Team] | [Timeline] | [Metrics] | [Resources] | [Dependencies] |
+
+### Success Metrics & Targets
+
+**North Star Metric**: [Primary metric indicating strategy is working]
+- **Baseline**: [Current value]
+- **Target**: [Goal value]
+- **Timeline**: [By when]
+
+**Supporting Metrics:**
+
+| Metric | Baseline | 6-Month Target | 12-Month Target | Why This Matters |
+|--------|----------|----------------|-----------------|------------------|
+| [Metric 1] | [Current] | [Target] | [Target] | [Connection to strategy] |
+| [Metric 2] | [Current] | [Target] | [Target] | [Connection to strategy] |
+| [Metric 3] | [Current] | [Target] | [Target] | [Connection to strategy] |
+
+### Assumptions & Risks
+
+**Critical Assumptions:**
+1. [Assumption 1 - e.g., "Market will grow 20% annually"] - **Validation plan**: [How we'll test this]
+2. [Assumption 2] - **Validation plan**: [How we'll test this]
+3. [Assumption 3] - **Validation plan**: [How we'll test this]
+
+**Key Risks:**
+
+| Risk | Likelihood (H/M/L) | Impact (H/M/L) | Mitigation | Owner |
+|------|-------------------|----------------|------------|-------|
+| [Risk 1 - e.g., "Competitor X launches similar feature"] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [How we prepare/respond] | [Name] |
+| [Risk 2] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Mitigation] | [Name] |
+| [Risk 3] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Mitigation] | [Name] |
+
+**Competitive Response Scenarios:**
+
+**If competitors do X**: [Our response plan]
+
+**If market shifts Y**: [Our pivot/adaptation plan]
+
+### Decision Points & Review Cadence
+
+**Go/No-Go Decision Points:**
+- [Milestone 1]: [Date] - **Criteria**: [What must be true to continue]
+- [Milestone 2]: [Date] - **Criteria**: [What must be true to continue]
+
+**Review Cadence:**
+- **Weekly**: [Who meets, what's reviewed - execution progress]
+- **Monthly**: [Who meets, what's reviewed - metrics, blockers]
+- **Quarterly**: [Who meets, what's reviewed - strategy validation, course correction]
+
+---
+
+## Quality Checklist
+
+Before finalizing, verify:
+
+**Diagnosis:**
+- [ ] Diagnosis is specific (not vague like "need to grow")
+- [ ] Grounded in evidence (data, customer feedback, competitive analysis)
+- [ ] Identifies root challenge (not symptoms)
+- [ ] Clear why this is the critical challenge to address
+
+**Guiding Policy:**
+- [ ] Directly addresses the diagnosis (not unrelated)
+- [ ] High-level approach (not list of actions)
+- [ ] Explains how it solves the diagnosed problem
+- [ ] Explains why this approach vs alternatives
+- [ ] Describes competitive advantage created
+
+**Coherent Actions:**
+- [ ] 3-5 specific actions (not vague or generic)
+- [ ] All actions support guiding policy
+- [ ] Actions reinforce each other (coherent, not scattered)
+- [ ] No contradictions between actions
+- [ ] Each action has owner, timeline, resources
+
+**Competitive Analysis:**
+- [ ] Key competitors identified and profiled
+- [ ] Strengths/weaknesses analyzed per competitor
+- [ ] Positioning map or competitive landscape clear
+- [ ] Competitive moats identified (ours and theirs)
+- [ ] Porter's 5 Forces completed (if relevant to question)
+
+**Action Plan:**
+- [ ] Initiatives have clear owners and timelines
+- [ ] Success metrics defined (baseline + targets)
+- [ ] Assumptions stated explicitly
+- [ ] Risks identified with mitigations
+- [ ] Review cadence and decision points set
+
+**Overall Quality:**
+- [ ] Strategy is defensible against competition
+- [ ] Evidence-based (not aspirational or wishful thinking)
+- [ ] Realistic given constraints (resources, capabilities, time)
+- [ ] Internally consistent (no contradictions)
+- [ ] Stakeholders will understand and align
+
+**Minimum Standard**: All checklist items should be checkable before delivering strategy document.