* 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>
9.7 KiB
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:
- "Can you walk me through your evaluation process from the beginning?"
- "Who were the key stakeholders involved in the decision?"
- "What were the 3 most important criteria you were evaluating against?"
- "Which vendors did you seriously consider?"
- "Where did [company] fall short of your expectations?" (For losses) OR "What tipped the decision in [company]'s favor?" (For wins)
- "Was price a factor? How significant?"
- "What would have had to be different for you to choose [us / the other option]?"
- "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-intelfor 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:
- Read the announcement objectively
- Talk to 3 customers: "Did you see this? What do you think?"
- Assess: does this change any buying criteria in your deals?
- If yes: update battlecard and positioning within 1 week
- 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."