Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Apply the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991) and VRIO framework to evaluate whether a firm's resources and capabilities confer sustained competitive advantage. Use this skill when the user needs to assess internal resources for strategic value, determine if a competitive edge is sustainable, audit resource portfolios for VRIO criteria, or when they ask 'what makes our advantage sustainable', 'which resources matter most', or 'can competitors replicate this'.
.claude/skills/asgard-ai-platform-grad-strat-rbv/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 7% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -5% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 32% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 46% | 0% |
| case-22 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 29% | 0% |
The Resource-Based View argues that firms achieve sustained competitive advantage through resources that are heterogeneous and immobile across firms. Barney (1991) formalized the VRIO framework as the diagnostic test.
IRON LAW: A resource must satisfy ALL four VRIO criteria simultaneously
to generate sustained competitive advantage. Failing ANY single
criterion downgrades the outcome.Key assumptions:
| Criterion | Question | If NO | |-----------|----------|-------| | Value | Does it exploit opportunity or neutralize threat? | Competitive disadvantage | | Rarity | Is it controlled by few firms? | Competitive parity | | Imitability | Is it costly to imitate? (history, ambiguity, complexity, patents) | Temporary advantage | | Organization | Is the firm organized to capture value? | Unrealized advantage |
markdown## RBV / VRIO Analysis: [Context] ### Resource Inventory | Resource | Type | V | R | I | O | Implication | |----------|------|---|---|---|---|-------------| | [name] | [tangible/intangible/human] | Y/N | Y/N | Y/N | Y/N | [outcome] | ### Key Findings - Sustained advantage resources: ... - Temporary advantage resources: ... - Parity resources: ... ### Strategic Recommendations 1. [Protect/invest in VRIO resources] 2. [Develop missing criteria for near-VRIO resources] 3. [Divest or deprioritize parity resources]
Analyze a tech firm's proprietary algorithm: classified as V+R+I (causal ambiguity) but lacking O (no team to commercialize) — recommendation to build organizational support.
Listing "brand" as VRIO without specifying which competitors lack equivalent brands or why imitation is costly. VRIO requires granular, evidence-backed assessment per criterion.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 23,091 | 22,881 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,766 | 4,045 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 21,829 | 18,066 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,962 | 3,777 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 27,510 | 18,985 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,096 | 3,899 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 17,025 | 19,478 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,961 | 3,916 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 16,814 | 21,788 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,689 | 3,927 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 11,221 | 10,470 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,780 | 2,325 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 25,977 | 21,233 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,540 | 4,036 | +14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 14,650 | 13,575 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,140 | 2,602 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 6,868 | 6,193 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,248 | 1,929 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 17,880 | 8,702 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,799 | 2,206 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 7,716 | 4,894 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,053 | 1,694 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 5,703 | 5,146 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,010 | 1,675 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,568 | 15,969 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,342 | 3,220 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 23,576 | 18,210 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,427 | 3,796 | +11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 3,789 | 3,225 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 621 | 1,414 | +128% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 14,640 | 16,068 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,485 | 3,442 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 12,220 | 8,503 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,938 | 2,121 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 11,077 | 8,654 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,497 | 2,068 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 18,943 | 24,115 | +27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,064 | 4,626 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 15,974 | 28,980 | +81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,436 | 5,115 | +110% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 14,584 | 18,222 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,567 | 3,800 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 15,401 | 14,232 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,501 | 3,219 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.