466aa13a7b
* 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>
238 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
238 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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."
|