docs: add reference frameworks for thin product skills

product-team/competitive-teardown/references/competitive-analysis-frameworks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Competitive Analysis Frameworks
+
+This reference provides practical frameworks for evaluating competitors and positioning decisions.
+
+## Porter's Five Forces
+
+Assess the competitive intensity of your market:
+
+1. Threat of new entrants
+- Barriers to entry (capital, regulation, network effects)
+- Speed of competitor replication
+
+2. Bargaining power of suppliers
+- Dependency on core infrastructure vendors
+- Concentration of key technical providers
+
+3. Bargaining power of buyers
+- Customer switching costs
+- Procurement complexity and contract leverage
+
+4. Threat of substitutes
+- Adjacent alternatives solving the same job
+- DIY and internal build options
+
+5. Rivalry among existing competitors
+- Number and similarity of competitors
+- Price competition and differentiation pressure
+
+### Five Forces Template
+
+| Force | Current Pressure (Low/Med/High) | Evidence | Strategic Response |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| New Entrants |  |  |  |
+| Supplier Power |  |  |  |
+| Buyer Power |  |  |  |
+| Substitutes |  |  |  |
+| Rivalry |  |  |  |
+
+## SWOT Analysis
+
+Use SWOT to map internal and external context quickly.
+
+### SWOT Template
+
+| Strengths (Internal) | Weaknesses (Internal) |
+|---|---|
+| What we do better than alternatives | Where competitors outperform us |
+| Unique capabilities or assets | Known product or go-to-market gaps |
+
+| Opportunities (External) | Threats (External) |
+|---|---|
+| Market trends we can exploit | Competitor moves or macro risks |
+| Unserved segments and use cases | Regulatory, platform, or pricing pressure |
+
+### SWOT Quality Checklist
+
+- Base every point on evidence, not assumptions.
+- Separate observations from conclusions.
+- Prioritize top 3 items per quadrant.
+
+## Feature Comparison Matrix
+
+Compare products on meaningful buying criteria, not vanity features.
+
+### Feature Matrix Template
+
+| Dimension | Weight | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Notes |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
+| Core workflow coverage | 25% |  |  |  |  |
+| Ease of implementation | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Performance / reliability | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Integrations / ecosystem | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Security / compliance | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Pricing / TCO | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+
+Scoring scale recommendation: 1-5 (weak to strong).
+
+## Competitive Positioning Map
+
+Create a 2-axis map showing market whitespace and crowding.
+
+### Positioning Map Steps
+
+1. Select two high-signal dimensions customers care about.
+2. Place each competitor based on evidence (pricing pages, reviews, demos).
+3. Mark clusters where products are undifferentiated.
+4. Identify white space where demand exists but options are weak.
+
+Example axes:
+- X-axis: Ease of use
+- Y-axis: Enterprise readiness
+
+## Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas
+
+Use a strategy canvas to decide where to raise, reduce, eliminate, or create factors.
+
+### ERRC Grid (Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create)
+
+| Eliminate | Reduce | Raise | Create |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Commodity table-stakes not valued by target users | Costly features with weak adoption | Differentiators tied to target job-to-be-done | New value dimensions competitors ignore |
+
+### Strategy Canvas Checklist
+
+- Compare value curves between your product and top competitors.
+- Ensure target segment is explicit.
+- Tie every strategic choice to measurable outcome.

product-team/landing-page-generator/references/landing-page-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# Landing Page Patterns
+
+This reference captures high-converting page patterns and copy structures.
+
+## Hero Section Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Problem-Solution Hero
+- Headline names the painful problem.
+- Subheadline states the clear outcome.
+- Primary CTA starts immediately.
+- Optional supporting visual demonstrates product in context.
+
+### Pattern 2: Outcome-First Hero
+- Headline leads with measurable value.
+- Subheadline clarifies who the page is for.
+- CTA is action-oriented and specific.
+
+### Pattern 3: Authority Hero
+- Headline + trust indicator (logos, testimonial snippet, proof metric).
+- Useful when category skepticism is high.
+
+## Social Proof Layouts
+
+### Logo Strip + Proof Metric
+- Keep to recognizable logos.
+- Add one proof metric (e.g., active users, revenue saved, hours reduced).
+
+### Testimonial Grid
+- 3-6 testimonials across segments.
+- Include role/company where possible.
+- Prefer concrete outcomes over generic praise.
+
+### Case Study Snapshot
+- Mini blocks: challenge -> approach -> measurable result.
+
+## CTA Best Practices
+
+- Use one dominant CTA per section.
+- Match CTA verb to user intent ("Start trial", "Get demo", "Run audit").
+- Keep CTA copy specific; avoid vague labels like "Submit".
+- Reduce friction near CTA (short form, trust indicators, no surprise commitments).
+
+## Above-the-Fold Checklist
+
+- [ ] Clear value proposition in first viewport
+- [ ] Audience clarity (who this is for)
+- [ ] One primary CTA visible without scrolling
+- [ ] Proof element (logos, stat, quote)
+- [ ] Visual hierarchy emphasizes headline + CTA
+- [ ] Mobile layout keeps CTA accessible
+
+## Conversion-Optimized Templates
+
+### SaaS Demo Page
+1. Hero with problem-solution framing
+2. Product walkthrough section
+3. Social proof strip
+4. Benefits by persona
+5. Objection handling FAQ
+6. Final CTA
+
+### Lead Magnet Page
+1. Promise + asset preview
+2. Bullet outcomes
+3. Short form
+4. Trust/privacy note
+
+### Product Launch Page
+1. Outcome-first hero
+2. Why now / differentiation
+3. Feature blocks
+4. Testimonials / beta feedback
+5. Pricing or waitlist CTA
+
+## Headline Formulas
+
+### PAS (Problem-Agitate-Solution)
+- Problem: identify the pain
+- Agitate: show consequences of inaction
+- Solution: position the offer as relief
+
+Example structure:
+"Still [problem]? Stop [negative consequence] and start [desired outcome]."
+
+### AIDA (Attention-Interest-Desire-Action)
+- Attention: pattern interrupt headline
+- Interest: relevant context and stakes
+- Desire: proof and benefits
+- Action: concrete next step
+
+### 4U Formula
+- Useful: clear practical value
+- Urgent: reason to act now
+- Unique: differentiated promise
+- Ultra-specific: concrete outcome and scope
+
+Example structure:
+"Get [specific result] in [timeframe] without [common pain]."

product-team/saas-scaffolder/references/saas-architecture-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+# SaaS Architecture Patterns
+
+This reference outlines common architecture choices for SaaS products.
+
+## Multi-Tenant Architecture
+
+### Shared Database, Shared Schema
+- Tenant isolation via `tenant_id` columns.
+- Lowest operational overhead.
+- Requires strict row-level authorization.
+
+### Shared Database, Separate Schema
+- Per-tenant schema boundaries.
+- Better logical isolation.
+- Higher migration and operations complexity.
+
+### Separate Database Per Tenant
+- Strongest isolation and compliance posture.
+- Best for enterprise/high-regulatory environments.
+- Highest cost and operational burden.
+
+### Tenant Isolation Checklist
+
+- Enforce tenant filters in all read/write queries.
+- Validate authorization at API and data layers.
+- Audit logs include tenant context.
+- Backups and restores preserve tenant boundaries.
+
+## Authentication Patterns
+
+### JWT-Based Session Pattern
+- Stateless access tokens.
+- Use short-lived access tokens + refresh tokens.
+- Rotate signing keys with versioning (`kid` usage).
+
+### OAuth 2.0 / OIDC Pattern
+- Preferred for SSO and enterprise identity.
+- Support common providers (Google, Microsoft, Okta).
+- Map identity claims to internal roles and tenants.
+
+### Hybrid Auth Pattern
+- Email/password for SMB self-serve.
+- SSO/OAuth for enterprise accounts.
+
+## Billing Integration Patterns
+
+### Subscription Lifecycle
+1. Trial start
+2. Conversion to paid plan
+3. Renewal and invoice events
+4. Grace period / dunning
+5. Downgrade, cancellation, reactivation
+
+### Billing Event Handling
+- Process webhook events idempotently.
+- Verify provider signatures.
+- Persist raw event payload for audit/debugging.
+- Reconcile billing state asynchronously.
+
+### Entitlement Model
+- Separate billing plans from feature entitlements.
+- Resolve effective entitlements per tenant/user at request time.
+
+## API Versioning Patterns
+
+### URI Versioning
+- `/api/v1/...`, `/api/v2/...`
+- Explicit and easy to route.
+
+### Header Versioning
+- Version via request header.
+- Cleaner URLs, more client coordination required.
+
+### Versioning Rules
+- Avoid breaking changes inside a version.
+- Provide deprecation windows and migration docs.
+- Track version adoption per client.
+
+## Database Schema Patterns for SaaS
+
+### Core Entities
+- `tenants`
+- `users`
+- `memberships` (user-tenant-role mapping)
+- `plans`
+- `subscriptions`
+- `invoices`
+- `events_audit`
+
+### Recommended Relationship Pattern
+- `tenants` 1:N `memberships`
+- `users` 1:N `memberships`
+- `tenants` 1:1 active `subscriptions`
+- `subscriptions` 1:N `invoices`
+
+### Data Model Guardrails
+- Unique constraints on tenant-scoped natural keys.
+- Soft-delete where recoverability matters.
+- Created/updated timestamps on all mutable entities.
+- Migration strategy supports zero-downtime changes.