* 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>
16 KiB
Brand Positioning Reference
Practical frameworks for defining, communicating, and defending your market position. Not theory — applied tools for CMOs who need to get this right.
1. Category Design Frameworks
The Category Design Principle
Every product exists in a category — either one you define or one someone else defined. If you're not designing your category, your competitors are designing it for you, and they'll design it to exclude you.
Category design is not renaming an existing category. It's declaring that the existing category no longer solves the problem adequately, and that a new category — which you happen to lead — is required.
The Three-Act Category Design Narrative
Act 1: Name the problem Identify a problem that's real, growing, and underserved. Not a problem you invented — a problem your best customers articulate before they've heard your pitch.
"Enterprise software teams are deploying faster than ever, but their security reviews still take 3 weeks — because security was built for a world where deployments happen monthly, not hourly."
Act 2: Define the new category Name the category in terms of the outcome, not the feature. The category name should describe what customers achieve, not what the product does.
"Continuous security" — not "automated security scanning" or "DevSecOps platform."
Act 3: Position yourself as the category leader You can't just claim leadership — you need proof: customers, analysts, community, content, events. Leadership is built, not declared.
"Snyk is building the continuous security category. 1.2M developers have adopted Snyk. Gartner lists us as a Cool Vendor in AppSec."
When Category Design Works
| Condition | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Market timing | The problem is growing but the existing category is inadequate |
| CEO commitment | Category design is a 3-5 year initiative, not a marketing campaign |
| Analyst alignment | Gartner, Forrester, or G2 need to recognize your category |
| Community | Practitioners adopt the vocabulary before buyers do |
| Content moat | You publish the defining content for the category before competitors |
Category Design Pitfalls
- Naming the category after yourself: "The [Your Company] Category" is not a category. It's a vanity.
- Categories that don't solve analyst definitions: If Gartner doesn't have a Magic Quadrant for your category, you're fighting uphill.
- Jargon without adoption: If your category name requires a two-paragraph explanation, it won't stick.
- Starting a category war you can't win: If an incumbent can copy your category name and launch in 90 days, you don't have a defensible category.
The Lightning Strike Strategy
Category design requires concentrated, coordinated effort — not slow drip. Execute these simultaneously:
- Major piece of research or data (the "State of X" report)
- Category-defining event (host it, don't just attend)
- Analyst briefing (educate Gartner/Forrester on the category before they define it themselves)
- Book or manifesto (long-form content that becomes the category Bible)
- Community formation (a Slack group, a conference, a certification that practitioners want)
Do all five within a 3-month window. This creates gravity around your category claim.
2. Messaging Architecture
The Messaging Hierarchy
Every piece of content — from a tweet to a 60-page whitepaper — should trace back to this hierarchy. When it doesn't, you have messaging drift.
Level 1: Brand Promise
"[Company] [verb] [outcome] for [audience]"
→ Doesn't change. This is the north star.
Level 2: Positioning Statement (internal)
For [target customer] who [has this problem],
[Company] is the [market category] that [differentiated capability]
unlike [alternatives], [Company] [proof of differentiation].
Level 3: Value Propositions (3-4 max, one per key outcome)
Each VP: headline (5-8 words) + 2-3 sentence explanation + proof point
Level 4: Proof Points
Data, case studies, certifications, analyst recognition — evidence for each VP
Level 5: Channel Adaptations
Website copy, sales deck, ad copy, email — same hierarchy, different format
Writing a Positioning Statement
The Geoffrey Moore / April Dunford format is still the best framework:
Template:
For [specific target customer]
who [has this specific, painful problem],
[Company name] is the [market category]
that [key differentiated capability].
Unlike [primary alternatives],
[Company] [proof of differentiation — something measurable or unique].
Bad example (too generic):
For B2B companies who want to grow faster, Acme is the marketing platform that helps you get more leads. Unlike other platforms, Acme is easy to use and powerful.
Good example (specific and falsifiable):
For DevOps teams in regulated industries who spend 20% of their sprint cycles on compliance reviews, Acme is the compliance automation platform that embeds regulatory checks directly into the CI/CD pipeline. Unlike manual compliance tools that create a separate review queue, Acme's policy-as-code approach reduces compliance-related cycle time by 60% without slowing deployments.
Test your positioning statement:
- Can a competitor say the exact same thing? (If yes, it's not differentiated)
- Does it describe what you do or what the customer gets? (Should be the latter)
- Would your best customer say "yes, that's exactly my problem"? (If not, wrong ICP)
- Is it falsifiable? (Claims you can't prove are liabilities)
Value Proposition Development
Structure for each VP:
| Element | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome headline | What changes for the customer (5-8 words) | "Ship features 3x faster" |
| The problem | Why this matters now (1 sentence) | "Compliance reviews block 40% of releases in regulated industries" |
| Our approach | How we solve it differently (1-2 sentences) | "Policy-as-code embeds checks in the pipeline instead of adding a gate at the end" |
| Proof | Evidence this is real (1 sentence + data point) | "Customers reduce compliance cycle time by 60% in the first 90 days" |
3-VP Architecture is the standard:
- VP1: Core outcome (what most customers primarily buy for)
- VP2: Secondary benefit (makes the decision easier or stickier)
- VP3: Differentiator (what tips competitive decisions in your favor)
Proof Point Hierarchy
Not all proof is equal. When you make a claim, match the strength of your proof to the importance of the claim.
| Proof Type | Strength | Best Used For |
|---|---|---|
| Third-party data (analyst report, research) | Highest | Category claims, market size |
| Customer ROI data with name | High | Value propositions |
| Customer quote with name and company | Medium-high | Specific pain points and outcomes |
| Aggregated customer data ("customers report…") | Medium | Directional claims |
| Internal testing or benchmark | Medium-low | Product capability claims |
| "Designed to…" or "built for…" | Low | Product direction only |
| "We believe…" or "we think…" | Lowest | Vision statements only |
Proof point development process:
- Write the claim you want to make
- Identify the strongest available proof
- If proof is weak, either soften the claim or invest in getting better proof
- Never publish a claim without knowing what happens when a skeptic asks "prove it"
3. Competitive Positioning Maps
The Two-Axis Map
Choose two dimensions that:
- Both matter to your target buyer
- Create clear differentiation between you and competitors
- You can credibly defend
Choosing the axes:
- Axis 1 should show a dimension where you win and most competitors cluster on the wrong side
- Axis 2 should show a dimension buyers care about deeply (ease, speed, breadth, price, compliance, etc.)
What to avoid:
- "Quality" vs. "Price" — too generic, every company claims the top-left
- Dimensions your competitors can match in one release cycle
- Dimensions that only your product team understands, not buyers
Competitive Analysis Template
For each major competitor:
Company: _______________
| Dimension | What They Claim | What Customers Actually Experience | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning | |||
| Primary differentiator | |||
| Pricing | |||
| Ideal customer | |||
| Weakness (win/loss data) | |||
| What they say about you |
Sources for competitive intelligence:
- Win/loss interviews (primary source — nothing beats this)
- G2/Capterra reviews (what customers say publicly)
- Glassdoor (tells you about internal culture and focus)
- LinkedIn job postings (what they're building next)
- Their pricing page changes (what they're competing on)
- Conference talks from their product and sales leaders
Battlecard Format
One page per competitor. Used by sales, not marketing.
COMPETING AGAINST: [Competitor Name]
WHY CUSTOMERS CONSIDER THEM:
(2-3 bullets — be honest about their appeal)
OUR DIFFERENTIATION:
(2-3 bullets — factual, not marketing language)
THE LANDMINE QUESTION:
(One question that exposes their weakness. The answer should make the buyer uncomfortable choosing them.)
Example: "How long does your typical implementation take? And what's your SLA if it runs over?"
OUR PROOF POINTS IN THIS COMPARISON:
- [Customer name] switched from [competitor] after [specific reason], saw [specific result]
- [Data point that directly contradicts competitor's primary claim]
THEIR LIKELY COUNTER-MOVES:
(What will they say about us? How do we respond?)
WHEN TO WALK AWAY:
(If the prospect values X more than Y, we are not the right fit — say so)
4. Brand Voice Development
What Brand Voice Is (and Isn't)
Brand voice is NOT:
- A list of adjectives ("we are professional, innovative, and customer-focused")
- The tone you use in formal communications
- The font and color palette (that's visual identity)
Brand voice IS:
- How the company sounds across every written touchpoint
- Consistent enough to be recognizable, flexible enough to be human
- Grounded in what your best customers actually value
The Voice Attribute Framework
Define 3-4 voice attributes. For each:
- What it means (in one sentence)
- What it sounds like (one example)
- What it doesn't mean (the common mistake that goes wrong)
Example:
| Attribute | Means | Sounds like | Doesn't mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | We say what we mean without hedging | "Your compliance review takes 3 weeks. It shouldn't." | Blunt, rude, or dismissive |
| Expert | We speak from depth, not from trend | "Here's why most security gates fail at scale, and what actually works." | Jargon-heavy or condescending |
| Honest | We acknowledge what we don't do | "We're not the best fit if you need a one-size-fits-all platform." | Self-deprecating or uncertain |
| Human | Real people write for real people | "Deploying on a Friday? Here's what we'd check first." | Casual, unprofessional |
Voice Consistency Testing
Take a random sample of 10 recent pieces of content:
- Website homepage and pricing page
- 3 blog posts from different authors
- 5 outbound emails from sales
- 3 social posts
- 1 press release
Score each on: Does this sound like us? (1-5)
Average < 3: You have a brand voice problem. The cause is usually no documented guidelines, or guidelines that exist but aren't enforced.
Voice in Different Contexts
The attribute stays the same. The tone adjusts.
| Context | Tone adjustment | Example of "Direct" |
|---|---|---|
| Homepage | Confident | "Compliance reviews don't have to slow you down." |
| Technical docs | Precise | "Set the policy threshold to 0.95 to enforce mandatory approval." |
| Error messages | Helpful | "That didn't work. Here's the most common reason why, and how to fix it." |
| Support | Empathetic | "That's frustrating. Here's what happened and what we're doing about it." |
| Sales outreach | Respectful | "Most teams in your space have this problem. Worth 20 minutes to explore?" |
5. Rebrand Decision Framework
When Rebrands Succeed vs. Fail
Successful rebrands:
- Driven by a genuine strategic shift (new category, new ICP, new market)
- Have internal alignment before external launch
- Are accompanied by product and messaging changes — not just visual
- Have a 6-12 month transition plan for existing customers
Failed rebrands:
- Driven by internal boredom with the old brand
- Executed as a "refresh" without repositioning the value proposition
- Lack leadership conviction (executives still describe the company in the old terms)
- Launch with a new logo but same product, same messaging, same ICP
The Rebrand Decision Matrix
Answer each question. More "yes" answers = more likely rebrand is warranted.
| Question | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Has our ICP changed significantly in the last 18 months? | Rebrand | Stay |
| Are we entering a new market where the current brand creates friction? | Rebrand | Stay |
| Does the brand name have negative associations in the market? | Rebrand | Stay |
| Has an acquisition changed our core identity? | Rebrand | Stay |
| Is the current brand actively hurting sales conversations? (evidence required) | Rebrand | Stay |
| Are we bored with the brand? | Stay | — |
| Did leadership change? | Stay | — |
| Are competitors rebranding? | Stay | — |
Score: 3+ "Rebrand" answers with evidence = worth a serious evaluation.
Rebrand Risk Assessment
Name change is the highest-risk rebrand element. Before committing:
- Legal: trademark availability in all target markets
- SEO: 18-24 months to recover domain authority after a domain change
- Customer: existing customers need to update all integrations, contracts, documentation
- Analyst: re-education of Gartner, Forrester, G2 category definitions
- Employee: company identity shift is a culture event, not just an HR task
Minimum viable rebrand (lower risk):
- New positioning and messaging (always worth doing if positioning is wrong)
- Visual identity refresh (keep the name, update the look)
- Tagline change (the cheapest, lowest-risk brand change)
Full rebrand (high risk, sometimes necessary):
- New company name and domain
- New visual identity
- New positioning and messaging
- New category narrative
Rebrand Execution Checklist
Pre-launch (90 days):
- Finalize positioning before finalizing design (in that order)
- Legal trademark clearance in all target markets
- Domain secured (with redirects planned)
- Internal alignment: every leader can describe the new positioning in one sentence
- Customer comms plan (existing customers, especially enterprise, need advance notice)
- Analyst briefings scheduled (Gartner, Forrester — brief them before launch)
- PR plan finalized
Launch (day 1):
- Website flipped
- Social profiles updated
- Email signatures updated company-wide
- Sales deck updated
- Press release published
- Existing customers notified (email from CEO or CMO, not marketing automation)
Post-launch (90 days):
- SEO monitoring (watch for ranking drops on key terms)
- Win rate monitoring (did conversion change?)
- Employee feedback (are they using the new messaging correctly?)
- Partner/channel update (resellers, integrations, directories)
- Analyst follow-up (did they update their reports?)
Quick Reference: Brand Positioning Diagnostic
Use this as an audit against your current positioning:
| Check | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Can every sales rep state the positioning in one sentence without looking it up? | ✓ | Positioning isn't working |
| Is the ICP specific enough to disqualify companies? | ✓ | ICP is too broad |
| Does the homepage lead with customer outcome, not product features? | ✓ | Copy needs rewrite |
| Can you name 3 companies you're NOT a good fit for? | ✓ | Positioning is unfocused |
| Do win/loss interviews confirm the stated differentiator? | ✓ | Differentiator is assumed, not proven |
| Is the category name used by analysts or industry media? | ✓ | Category design needed |
| Does every piece of content trace back to a VP from the hierarchy? | ✓ | Messaging drift — need guidelines |