Files
claude-skills-reference/c-level-advisor/competitive-intel/references/ci-playbook.md
Alireza Rezvani 466aa13a7b feat: C-Suite expansion — 8 new executive advisory roles (2→10) (#264)
* feat: C-Suite expansion — 8 new executive advisory roles

Add COO, CPO, CMO, CFO, CRO, CISO, CHRO advisors and Executive Mentor.
Expands C-level advisory from 2 to 10 roles with 74 total files.

Each role includes:
- SKILL.md (lean, <5KB, ~1200 tokens for context efficiency)
- Reference docs (loaded on demand, not at startup)
- Python analysis scripts (stdlib only, runnable CLI)

Executive Mentor features /em: slash commands (challenge, board-prep,
hard-call, stress-test, postmortem) with devil's advocate agent.

21 Python tools, 24 reference frameworks, 28,379 total lines.
All SKILL.md files combined: ~17K tokens (8.5% of 200K context window).

Badge: 88 → 116 skills

* feat: C-Suite orchestration layer + 18 complementary skills

ORCHESTRATION (new):
- cs-onboard: Founder interview → company-context.md
- chief-of-staff: Routing, synthesis, inter-agent orchestration
- board-meeting: 6-phase multi-agent deliberation protocol
- decision-logger: Two-layer memory (raw transcripts + approved decisions)
- agent-protocol: Inter-agent invocation with loop prevention
- context-engine: Company context loading + anonymization

CROSS-CUTTING CAPABILITIES (new):
- board-deck-builder: Board/investor update assembly
- scenario-war-room: Cascading multi-variable what-if modeling
- competitive-intel: Systematic competitor tracking + battlecards
- org-health-diagnostic: Cross-functional health scoring (8 dimensions)
- ma-playbook: M&A strategy (acquiring + being acquired)
- intl-expansion: International market entry frameworks

CULTURE & COLLABORATION (new):
- culture-architect: Values → behaviors, culture code, health assessment
- company-os: EOS/Scaling Up operating system selection + implementation
- founder-coach: Founder development, delegation, blind spots
- strategic-alignment: Strategy cascade, silo detection, alignment scoring
- change-management: ADKAR-based change rollout framework
- internal-narrative: One story across employees/investors/customers

UPGRADES TO EXISTING ROLES:
- All 10 roles get reasoning technique directives
- All 10 roles get company-context.md integration
- All 10 roles get board meeting isolation rules
- CEO gets stage-adaptive temporal horizons (seed→C)

Key design decisions:
- Two-layer memory prevents hallucinated consensus from rejected ideas
- Phase 2 isolation: agents think independently before cross-examination
- Executive Mentor (The Critic) sees all perspectives, others don't
- 25 Python tools total (stdlib only, no dependencies)

52 new files, 10 modified, 10,862 new lines.
Total C-suite ecosystem: 134 files, 39,131 lines.

* fix: connect all dots — Chief of Staff routes to all 28 skills

- Added complementary skills registry to routing-matrix.md
- Chief of Staff SKILL.md now lists all 28 skills in ecosystem
- Added integration tables to scenario-war-room and competitive-intel
- Badge: 116 → 134 skills
- README: C-Level Advisory count 10 → 28

Quality audit passed:
 All 10 roles: company-context, reasoning, isolation, invocation
 All 6 phases in board meeting
 Two-layer memory with DO_NOT_RESURFACE
 Loop prevention (no self-invoke, max depth 2, no circular)
 All /em: commands present
 All complementary skills cross-reference roles
 Chief of Staff routes to every skill in ecosystem

* refactor: CEO + CTO advisors upgraded to C-suite parity

Both roles now match the structural standard of all new roles:
- CEO: 11.7KB → 6.8KB SKILL.md (heavy content stays in references)
- CTO: 10KB → 7.2KB SKILL.md (heavy content stays in references)

Added to both:
- Integration table (who they work with and when)
- Key diagnostic questions
- Structured metrics dashboard table
- Consistent section ordering (Keywords → Quick Start → Responsibilities → Questions → Metrics → Red Flags → Integration → Reasoning → Context)

CEO additions:
- Stage-adaptive temporal horizons (seed=3m/6m/12m → B+=1y/3y/5y)
- Cross-references to culture-architect and board-deck-builder

CTO additions:
- Key Questions section (7 diagnostic questions)
- Structured metrics table (DORA + debt + team + architecture + cost)
- Cross-references to all peer roles

All 10 roles now pass structural parity:  Keywords  QuickStart  Questions  Metrics  RedFlags  Integration

* feat: add proactive triggers + output artifacts to all 10 roles

Every C-suite role now specifies:
- Proactive Triggers: 'surface these without being asked' — context-driven
  early warnings that make advisors proactive, not reactive
- Output Artifacts: concrete deliverables per request type (what you ask →
  what you get)

CEO: runway alerts, board prep triggers, strategy review nudges
CTO: deploy frequency monitoring, tech debt thresholds, bus factor flags
COO: blocker detection, scaling threshold warnings, cadence gaps
CPO: retention curve monitoring, portfolio dog detection, research gaps
CMO: CAC trend monitoring, positioning gaps, budget staleness
CFO: runway forecasting, burn multiple alerts, scenario planning gaps
CRO: NRR monitoring, pipeline coverage, pricing review triggers
CISO: audit overdue alerts, compliance gaps, vendor risk
CHRO: retention risk, comp band gaps, org scaling thresholds
Executive Mentor: board prep triggers, groupthink detection, hard call surfacing

This transforms the C-suite from reactive advisors into proactive partners.

* feat: User Communication Standard — structured output for all roles

Defines 3 output formats in agent-protocol/SKILL.md:

1. Standard Output: Bottom Line → What → Why → How to Act → Risks → Your Decision
2. Proactive Alert: What I Noticed → Why It Matters → Action → Urgency (🔴🟡)
3. Board Meeting: Decision Required → Perspectives → Agree/Disagree → Critic → Action Items

10 non-negotiable rules:
- Bottom line first, always
- Results and decisions only (no process narration)
- What + Why + How for every finding
- Actions have owners and deadlines ('we should consider' is banned)
- Decisions framed as options with trade-offs
- Founder is the highest authority — roles recommend, founder decides
- Risks are concrete (if X → Y, costs $Z)
- Max 5 bullets per section
- No jargon without explanation
- Silence over fabricated updates

All 10 roles reference this standard.
Chief of Staff enforces it as a quality gate.
Board meeting Phase 4 uses the Board Meeting Output format.

* feat: Internal Quality Loop — verification before delivery

No role presents to the founder without passing verification:

Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)
  - Source attribution: where did each data point come from?
  - Assumption audit: [VERIFIED] vs [ASSUMED] tags on every finding
  - Confidence scoring: 🟢 high / 🟡 medium / 🔴 low per finding
  - Contradiction check against company-context + decision log
  - 'So what?' test: every finding needs a business consequence

Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional)
  - Financial claims → CFO validates math
  - Revenue projections → CRO validates pipeline backing
  - Technical feasibility → CTO validates
  - People/hiring impact → CHRO validates
  - Skip for single-domain, low-stakes questions

Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes only)
  - Irreversible decisions, >20% runway impact, strategy changes
  - Executive Mentor finds weakest point before founder sees it
  - Suspicious consensus triggers mandatory pre-screen

Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)
  - Approve → log + assign actions
  - Modify → re-verify changed parts
  - Reject → DO_NOT_RESURFACE + learn why
  - 30/60/90 day post-decision review

Board meeting contributions now require self-verified format with
confidence tags and source attribution on every finding.

* fix: resolve PR review issues 1, 4, and minor observation

Issue 1: c-level-advisor/CLAUDE.md — completely rewritten
  - Was: 2 skills (CEO, CTO only), dated Nov 2025
  - Now: full 28-skill ecosystem map with architecture diagram,
    all roles/orchestration/cross-cutting/culture skills listed,
    design decisions, integration with other domains

Issue 4: Root CLAUDE.md — updated all stale counts
  - 87 → 134 skills across all 3 references
  - C-Level: 2 → 33 (10 roles + 5 mentor commands + 18 complementary)
  - Tool count: 160+ → 185+
  - Reference count: 200+ → 250+

Minor observation: Documented plugin.json convention
  - Explained in c-level-advisor/CLAUDE.md that only executive-mentor
    has plugin.json because only it has slash commands (/em: namespace)
  - Other skills are invoked by name through Chief of Staff or directly

Also fixed: README.md 88+ → 134 in two places (first line + skills section)

* fix: update all plugin/index registrations for 28-skill C-suite

1. c-level-advisor/.claude-plugin/plugin.json — v2.0.0
   - Was: 2 skills, generic description
   - Now: all 28 skills listed with descriptions, all 25 scripts,
     namespace 'cs', full ecosystem description

2. .codex/skills-index.json — added 18 complementary skills
   - Was: 10 roles only
   - Now: 28 total c-level entries (10 roles + 6 orchestration +
     6 cross-cutting + 6 culture)
   - Each with full description for skill discovery

3. .claude-plugin/marketplace.json — updated c-level-skills entry
   - Was: generic 2-skill description
   - Now: v2.0.0, full 28-skill ecosystem description,
     skills_count: 28, scripts_count: 25

* feat: add root SKILL.md for c-level-advisor ClawHub package

---------

Co-authored-by: Leo <leo@openclaw.ai>
2026-03-06 01:35:08 +01:00

9.7 KiB
Raw Blame History

Competitive Intelligence Playbook

OSINT Sources for Competitor Tracking

Free, Reliable Sources

Company & Product:

  • Their website — pricing page (archive.org for history), product changelog, careers page
  • G2 / Capterra / Trustpilot — customer reviews; filter by recency; read 1-star reviews carefully
  • LinkedIn — job postings signal roadmap; company page for headcount trend; employees for leaks
  • GitHub — open source activity; what they're building; engineering team size; tech stack
  • Crunchbase / PitchBook (free tier) — funding history, investors, team changes
  • BuiltWith — tech stack they use; signals about infrastructure maturity

Messaging & Positioning:

  • Facebook Ad Library — see their current ad copy and creative; what messages they're testing
  • Google Keyword Planner — which keywords they're bidding on
  • SEMrush / Ahrefs (free trial or limited) — their organic keywords, backlink profile
  • Wayback Machine — homepage evolution over time; when positioning shifted
  • Their blog — content strategy reveals priorities and ICP assumptions

News & Events:

  • TechCrunch, VentureBeat — funding announcements, major launches
  • Twitter/X / LinkedIn — CEO + founders; direct signals about strategy
  • Podcast appearances — founders talk more openly on podcasts than press releases
  • Job descriptions — "Senior Engineer - Payments" means they're building payments

Paid (Worth It for Tier-1 Competitors)

  • G2 Buyer Intent — which prospects are researching your competitor right now
  • Bombora — intent data for account-level research signals
  • PitchBook — funding, investors, valuation estimates
  • Klue / Crayon / Kompyte — dedicated CI platforms that aggregate automatically

Primary Research (Best Signal)

  • Win/loss interviews — the single highest-signal source (see below)
  • Talk to churned customers — why did they switch? To whom?
  • Talk to their customers — LinkedIn outreach; honest conversations
  • Industry events — competitor presentations reveal roadmap; talk to attendees
  • Former employees — LinkedIn; respectful outreach; no NDA violations

Competitive Battlecard Format

A battlecard is a 1-page (or single screen) document for sales reps to reference before and during calls.

Design principles:

  • Written for a rep with 2 minutes to prep, not a product manager
  • Action-oriented: tells reps what to SAY, not just what to know
  • Updated monthly at minimum; never more than 90 days old

Battlecard Structure

COMPETITOR: [Name]
Last updated: [Date] | Owner: [Name]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE 30-SECOND SUMMARY
[One paragraph. Who they are, who they sell to, why they win.]

THEIR STRENGTHS (know these — don't dismiss them)
• [Strength 1] — what customers actually love about them
• [Strength 2]
• [Strength 3]

THEIR REAL WEAKNESSES (from win/loss data, not assumptions)
• [Weakness 1] — source: [customer quote / win/loss theme]
• [Weakness 2]
• [Weakness 3]

OUR DIFFERENTIATED ADVANTAGES
• [Advantage 1] — proof point: [metric/customer/case study]
• [Advantage 2] — proof point:
• [Advantage 3] — proof point:

COMMON OBJECTIONS + RESPONSES
"They have [feature] and you don't."
→ [Response. Acknowledge, reframe, redirect.]

"They're cheaper."
→ [Response with ROI angle or TCO comparison.]

"They're more established / bigger."
→ [Response. Size isn't always advantage; use to your benefit.]

TRAP-SETTING QUESTIONS (ask these early to shift the eval criteria)
• "How important is [your differentiator] to your team?"
• "Have you looked at [pain point they create]?"
• "What happens to your workflow when [their known limitation occurs]?"

WHEN WE WIN
• [Segment or scenario where we almost always beat them]
• [Use case where we're clearly stronger]

WHEN WE LOSE (be honest)
• [Scenario where they're genuinely better — don't fight these battles]
• [Segment where they have structural advantages]

DO NOT SAY
• Don't claim [X] — it's not true and they'll call it out
• Don't say [Y] — prospect will already know it and it sounds desperate
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Win/Loss Analysis Framework

Why Most Companies Do This Wrong

  • They survey instead of interview (surveys get polite answers)
  • The AE conducts it (too emotionally invested; prospect won't be candid)
  • They do it 6 months after the decision (memory fades)
  • They look for confirmation of what they believe

The Right Process

Timing: Within 30 days of deal closed/lost/churned. Interviewer: Customer success, product, or external researcher. Never the AE. Duration: 30 minutes (budget 45). Incentive: $100 gift card gets you 80% acceptance. Worth it.

Interview Guide:

Opening: "I'm [name] from [company]. I'm not in sales — I'm trying to understand what drove your decision so we can improve. There's nothing you can say that will change the outcome. I just want honest feedback."

Core questions:

  1. "Can you walk me through your evaluation process from the beginning?"
  2. "Who were the key stakeholders involved in the decision?"
  3. "What were the 3 most important criteria you were evaluating against?"
  4. "Which vendors did you seriously consider?"
  5. "Where did [company] fall short of your expectations?" (For losses) OR "What tipped the decision in [company]'s favor?" (For wins)
  6. "Was price a factor? How significant?"
  7. "What would have had to be different for you to choose [us / the other option]?"
  8. "Any advice for our team on how we handled the process?"

Data aggregation:

  • Tag every response: [criterion], [competitor mentioned], [product gap], [sales process], [price], [trust/credibility]
  • Monthly rollup: top 5 win reasons, top 5 loss reasons, competitor win rate
  • Share with: CEO, CRO, CPO, CMO — not just sales

Competitive Positioning Map Construction

A positioning map shows where you sit relative to competitors on 2 dimensions that BUYERS care about.

Step 1: Choose Your Axes

  • Pick dimensions that actually drive purchase decisions in your segment
  • At least one axis should be where you win
  • Avoid generic axes ("feature-rich vs. simple" tells you nothing)

Good axis pairs:

  • Implementation time (days vs. months) × Customization depth
  • Price point × Enterprise readiness
  • Automation level × Human-in-the-loop control
  • Time-to-value × Total cost of ownership

Bad axes:

  • Quality (too vague)
  • "Innovation" (unmeasurable)
  • Any axis where all competitors cluster in the same spot

Step 2: Place Competitors Objectively

  • Use customer quotes and win/loss data to justify placement
  • Don't place competitors where you WANT them — where they ACTUALLY are
  • If you're unsure, ask 5 customers to place them

Step 3: Find and Name Your White Space

  • Where is there a position no competitor holds?
  • Is that white space there because it's valuable (opportunity) or worthless (avoid)?
  • Can you credibly occupy it?

Step 4: Test Your Positioning

  • Show the map to 5 prospects: "Does this match your perception?"
  • Show it to 5 lost prospects: "Where would you place [the winner] and us?"
  • Adjust until map matches buyer reality, not internal perception

Intelligence Sharing Across Roles

What Each Role Needs and When

CRO (Sales):

  • Needs: Battlecards, win rates by competitor, competitor objections + responses
  • Cadence: Updated battlecards monthly; triggered updates on major competitor moves
  • Format: 1-pager per competitor in CRM, linked from deal record

CMO (Marketing):

  • Needs: Messaging shifts, new claims, ad spend signals, keyword battles
  • Cadence: Quarterly positioning review, triggered on major launches
  • Format: Positioning brief with recommended response to messaging shifts

CPO (Product):

  • Needs: Feature gap analysis, competitor roadmap signals (job postings, changelog), what we lose to
  • Cadence: Monthly feature gap update, triggered on major launches
  • Format: Feature comparison matrix + gap prioritization recommendation

CTO (Engineering):

  • Needs: Tech stack signals, infrastructure approaches, scale they've achieved
  • Cadence: Quarterly
  • Format: Technical comparison notes, relevant for architectural decisions

CEO:

  • Needs: Summary of threat landscape, recommended responses, board-level narrative
  • Cadence: Monthly 1-pager + quarterly deep dive
  • Format: 1-page brief: who moved, what it means, what we do

The Single Source of Truth Rule

All competitive intel in one place. Suggest:

  • Notion database per competitor: profile, battlecard, changelog, win/loss notes
  • Slack channel: #competitive-intel for real-time triggered alerts
  • Monthly digest email to leadership

If it lives only in Slack, it disappears. If it lives only in a wiki that nobody reads, it doesn't matter. Combine both.


How to Track Without Obsessing

Set up the system, then let it run:

  • Google Alerts for competitor names + CEO names
  • LinkedIn Saved Searches for their job postings
  • Klue/Crayon if budget allows (automated aggregation)
  • Monthly 60-minute competitive review meeting (not 4 hours)

What to do when competitor makes a big move:

  1. Read the announcement objectively
  2. Talk to 3 customers: "Did you see this? What do you think?"
  3. Assess: does this change any buying criteria in your deals?
  4. If yes: update battlecard and positioning within 1 week
  5. If no: log it, move on

The test: After reviewing a competitor move, do you feel urgency to ship something? If yes, you're reacting. The right feeling is "noted — let's see if customers care."