Evan Hu
17d32ed4a7
Copy all TOML content definitions from librefang core repo: - 33 agent definitions (agents/*/agent.toml) - 14 hand definitions with docs (hands/*/HAND.toml + SKILL.md) - 25 integration templates (integrations/*.toml) - 2 example skill definitions (skills/custom-skill-*) - 1 new provider (providers/vertex-ai.toml) Part of the framework-vs-content registry split (RFC v0.7).
8.3 KiB
8.3 KiB
name, version, description, runtime
| name | version | description | runtime |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategist-hand-skill | 1.0.0 | Expert knowledge for AI business strategy -- frameworks, market analysis, competitive intelligence, and strategic planning methodologies | prompt_only |
Business Strategy Expert Knowledge
Strategic Analysis Frameworks
SWOT Analysis
Map internal and external factors:
| Helpful | Harmful | |
|---|---|---|
| Internal | Strengths | Weaknesses |
| External | Opportunities | Threats |
Best practices:
- Be specific: "Strong brand recognition in enterprise segment" not just "Good brand"
- Prioritize: Rank items by impact
- Cross-reference: Look for SO (strength-opportunity) and WT (weakness-threat) combinations
- Action-oriented: Every SWOT item should suggest a strategic response
Porter's Five Forces
Analyze industry attractiveness:
- Threat of New Entrants: Capital requirements, economies of scale, brand loyalty, access to distribution, regulatory barriers
- Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Concentration, switching costs, differentiation, forward integration threat
- Bargaining Power of Buyers: Concentration, switching costs, price sensitivity, backward integration threat
- Threat of Substitutes: Performance trade-offs, switching costs, buyer propensity to substitute
- Competitive Rivalry: Number of competitors, industry growth, fixed costs, differentiation, exit barriers
Rate each force: Low / Medium / High with supporting evidence.
PESTEL Analysis
Macro-environmental scanning:
| Factor | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Political | Government stability? Trade policies? Regulation changes? |
| Economic | GDP growth? Interest rates? Inflation? Exchange rates? |
| Social | Demographics? Cultural trends? Consumer behavior shifts? |
| Technological | Innovation pace? R&D spending? Automation trends? |
| Environmental | Climate regulations? Sustainability demands? Resource scarcity? |
| Legal | Employment law? IP protection? Competition law? Data privacy? |
Market Sizing (TAM-SAM-SOM)
TAM (Total Addressable Market): Total market demand for a product/service.
TAM = (Total potential customers) x (Annual revenue per customer)
SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market): TAM segment you can reach.
SAM = TAM x (% you can realistically serve given geography, channels, capability)
SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market): SAM you can realistically capture.
SOM = SAM x (Expected market share %)
Methods:
- Top-down: Start with industry reports, narrow to your segment
- Bottom-up: Start with unit economics, multiply by reachable customers
- Value theory: How much value does the solution create? What % can you capture?
Worked Example: Netflix vs Blockbuster (2007)
SWOT Analysis for Netflix:
| Category | Item | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Strength | Streaming technology | First-mover in online streaming; DVD-by-mail eliminated late fees |
| Strength | Recommendation engine | Personalized suggestions increased engagement 60% |
| Weakness | Limited content library | Dependent on studio licensing deals |
| Weakness | High content acquisition cost | Margins compressed by licensing fees |
| Opportunity | Broadband adoption | US broadband penetration growing 30% YoY |
| Opportunity | International expansion | Untapped markets in Europe and Asia |
| Threat | Studio-owned platforms | Studios could bypass Netflix and go direct-to-consumer |
| Threat | Piracy | Illegal streaming as free alternative |
Porter's Five Forces for Video Streaming (2007):
| Force | Rating | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| New Entrants | 2/5 | High capital needed for content + tech infrastructure |
| Supplier Power | 4/5 | Studios control content; few alternatives |
| Buyer Power | 3/5 | Low switching cost but high engagement reduces churn |
| Substitutes | 2/5 | No equivalent convenience at the time |
| Rivalry | 3/5 | Blockbuster dominant but slow to innovate |
Strategic Insight: Netflix's technology moat + Blockbuster's organizational inertia = classic disruption pattern. Blockbuster's $6B revenue masked its vulnerability to a $1B challenger with superior unit economics. Confidence: High (90%) — outcome confirmed by Blockbuster's 2010 bankruptcy.
Competitive Positioning
Positioning Map: Plot competitors on 2 key dimensions (e.g., price vs. quality, breadth vs. depth).
Competitive Advantage Sources:
- Cost leadership: Lower cost structure than competitors
- Differentiation: Unique value proposition
- Focus/Niche: Serve a narrow segment exceptionally well
- Network effects: Value increases with more users
- Switching costs: Expensive or difficult for customers to leave
Strategic Planning Methodologies
OKR Framework (Objectives and Key Results)
Objective: [What you want to achieve -- qualitative, inspiring]
KR1: [Measurable outcome 1]
KR2: [Measurable outcome 2]
KR3: [Measurable outcome 3]
Rules:
- 3-5 objectives per period
- 2-5 key results per objective
- Key results must be measurable (not tasks)
- Score 0.0 to 1.0; target 0.7 average (stretch goals)
Strategy Canvas (Blue Ocean)
Compare your offering vs competitors across key factors:
Factor | Competitor A | Competitor B | Your Offering
Price | High | Medium | Low
Quality | High | Medium | High
Ease of Use | Low | Medium | High
Features | Many | Few | Moderate
Support | Good | Poor | Excellent
Identify factors to:
- Eliminate: Remove factors the industry takes for granted
- Reduce: Lower factors below industry standard
- Raise: Increase factors above industry standard
- Create: Introduce factors the industry has never offered
Decision Matrix
| Option | Criterion 1 (w:30%) | Criterion 2 (w:25%) | Criterion 3 (w:25%) | Criterion 4 (w:20%) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3.55 |
| B | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3.70 |
| C | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3.55 |
Competitive Intelligence
Information Sources
| Source Type | Examples | Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Public filings | SEC filings, annual reports | High |
| Press releases | Company announcements | Medium-High |
| Job postings | LinkedIn, careers pages | Medium |
| Product pages | Websites, pricing pages | Medium |
| Review sites | G2, Capterra, Trustpilot | Medium |
| Social media | LinkedIn, Twitter, Reddit | Medium-Low |
| Industry reports | Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey | High |
| Patents | USPTO, Google Patents | High |
| News coverage | TechCrunch, Bloomberg | Medium |
Competitor Tracking Template
Company: [Name]
Last Updated: YYYY-MM-DD
Product: [Core offering]
Pricing: [Model and price points]
Positioning: [How they describe themselves]
Target Market: [Who they sell to]
Key Differentiators: [What makes them unique]
Recent Moves: [Product launches, funding, hires, partnerships]
Strengths: [What they do well]
Weaknesses: [Where they fall short]
Estimated Revenue: [If available]
Employee Count: [Growth indicator]
Report Templates
Executive Brief Template
# Strategic Brief: [Topic]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Author**: Strategist Hand
## Situation
[2-3 sentences describing the current state]
## Key Findings
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]
## Recommendation
[Clear, actionable recommendation with rationale]
## Next Steps
- [ ] [Action item 1] -- [Owner] -- [Due date]
- [ ] [Action item 2] -- [Owner] -- [Due date]
## Risk Factors
- [Key risk 1 and mitigation]
- [Key risk 2 and mitigation]
Strategy Memo Template (SCR Format)
# Strategy Memo: [Topic]
## Situation
[What is happening -- neutral facts]
## Complication
[Why this matters -- the challenge or opportunity]
## Resolution
[What we should do about it -- the recommendation]
## Evidence
[Supporting data and analysis]
## Implementation
[How to execute the recommendation]