Positioning StatementSAFE

Product Management skills framework built on battle-tested methods for Claude Code, Cowork, Codex, and AI agents.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: positioning-statement
argument-hint: "[product] [target customer]"
description: Create a Geoffrey Moore-style positioning statement. Use when clarifying who you serve, what problem you solve, your category, and why you're different from alternatives.
intent: >-
  Create a Geoffrey Moore-style positioning statement that clearly articulates who your product serves, what need it addresses, how it's categorized, what benefit it delivers, and how it differs from alternatives. Use this when you need to align stakeholders on product strategy, guide messaging, or test if your value proposition is crisp and defensible.
type: component
theme: strategy-positioning
best_for:
  - "Defining your product's market position clearly for the first time"
  - "Differentiating from specific competitors in your messaging"
  - "Aligning your team on who you serve, what problem you solve, and why you're different"
scenarios:
  - "I need to write a positioning statement for a new B2B SaaS product targeting mid-market HR teams"
  - "Our positioning feels generic and I need to sharpen it against two specific competitors"
estimated_time: "10-15 min"
---


## Purpose
Create a Geoffrey Moore-style positioning statement that clearly articulates who your product serves, what need it addresses, how it's categorized, what benefit it delivers, and how it differs from alternatives. Use this when you need to align stakeholders on product strategy, guide messaging, or test if your value proposition is crisp and defensible.

This is not a tagline or elevator pitch—it's a strategic clarity tool that forces you to make hard choices about target, need, and differentiation.

## Input

**Works best with:** The product and its target customer.
**Also useful:** The unmet need, product category, primary benefit, and nearest alternative — the skill drafts from what you give and asks only for what's missing.

Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.

**Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The skill asks for product and target customer first, then works through the Moore template slots.

**Example invocation:** `Positioning statement for LaunchDarkly-style feature flags aimed at platform engineering leads at 200+ eng orgs.`

## Key Concepts

### The Geoffrey Moore Framework
From *Crossing the Chasm*, Moore's framework splits positioning into two parts:

**Value Proposition:**
- **For** [target customer]
- **that need** [underserved need]
- [product name]
- **is a** [product category]
- **that** [benefit statement]

**Differentiation Statement:**
- **Unlike** [primary competitor or competitive alternative]
- [product name]
- **provides** [unique differentiation]

### Why This Structure Works
- **Forces specificity:** You can't say "for everyone" or "unlike all competitors"
- **Exposes assumptions:** If you can't fill in "unlike X," you may not have defensible differentiation
- **Focuses on outcomes, not features:** "That reduces churn by 40%" beats "that has analytics"
- **Category anchors perception:** Saying "is a CRM" vs. "is a workflow tool" changes how buyers evaluate you

### Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- **Not a tagline:** "Positioning" ≠ "Nike: Just Do It"
- **Not a feature list:** Don't say "that provides AI, automation, and integrations"
- **Not generic:** "For businesses that need efficiency" = positioning theater
- **Not aspirational fluff:** "That revolutionizes productivity" without specifics is noise

### When to Use This
- Defining a new product or major pivot
- Aligning exec/founder/PM/marketing on strategy
- Testing if your differentiation is real or imagined
- Before writing PRDs, launch plans, or sales collateral

### When NOT to Use This
- For internal tools with captive users (positioning is for markets)
- When you're still in problem validation (position after you know the problem)
- As a substitute for customer research (this synthesizes insights, doesn't create them)

---

## Application

Use `template.md` for the full fill-in structure.

### Step 1: Gather Context
Before drafting, ensure you have:
- **Target customer segment:** Demographics, behaviors, role (not just "SMBs" or "developers")
- **Underserved need:** Pains, gains, jobs-to-be-done (reference `skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md` if needed)
- **Product category:** How buyers mentally file your solution (CRM, analytics platform, etc.)
- **Competitive landscape:** Direct competitors AND substitute behaviors (e.g., "Excel" is often the real competitor)

**If missing context:** Use discovery interviews, market research, or customer interviews to fill gaps. Don't guess.

---

### Step 2: Draft the Value Proposition

Fill in the template:

```markdown
## Value Proposition

**For** [specific target customer/persona]
- **that need** [statement of underserved need—focus on pains, gains, JTBD]
- [product or service name]
- **is a** [product category]
- **that** [benefit statement—focus on outcomes, not features]
```

**Quality checks:**
- **Target specificity:** Could you describe this person to a recruiter? If not, narrow it.
- **Need clarity:** Does this need resonate emotionally? Or is it generic ("need efficiency")?
- **Category fit:** Does this category help or hurt you? (Sometimes creating a new category is strategic, but risky.)
- **Outcome focus:** Are you saying what the user *gets*, not what the product *has*?

---

### Step 3: Draft the Differentiation Statement

Fill in the template:

```markdown
## Differentiation Statement

- **Unlike** [primary competitor or competitive alternative]
- [product or service name]
- **provides** [unique differentiation—outcomes, not features]
```

**Quality checks:**
- **Competitor honesty:** Is this the *real* alternative buyers consider? (Not just who you wish they compared you to.)
- **Differentiation substance:** Could a compet

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.