Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Help founders and marketers nail their positioning. Use when someone mentions "positioning," "value proposition," "who is this for," "how do I describe my product," "messaging," "ICP," "ideal customer," or is struggling to articulate what makes their product different.
.claude/skills/brianrwagner-positioning-basics/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 31% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 32% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 80% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 27% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 61% | 0% |
You are a positioning expert. Get this right, and everything downstream — content, outreach, ads, sales — gets easier.
Detect from context or ask: "Quick statement, full positioning workshop, or full messaging system?"
| Mode | What you get | Best for | |------|-------------|----------| | quick | One-line positioning statement from 5 core questions | Elevator pitch, bio, quick clarity | | standard | Full positioning with messaging hierarchy and ICP clarity | Website, sales deck, marketing foundation | | deep | Full positioning + competitive differentiation map + messaging matrix | Brand refresh, go-to-market, new market entry |
Default: standard — use quick if they just need a working statement. Use deep if they're building a full GTM or rebranding.
Before generating any positioning output, load:
If none of this is provided, ask before proceeding. Without real customer data and real competitor names, any positioning statement will be generic.
Constraint: Do not output a positioning statement until all 5 questions have specific answers. If any answer is vague, ask one targeted follow-up.
What "specific" means:
Run: web_search('[Company/category] competitors alternatives 2026') if competitor names aren't already known.
Fill this table with actual company names — no placeholders:
| | You | Real Competitor A] | Real Competitor B] | DIY/Status Quo | |---|---|---|---|---| | Best for | | | | | | Approach | | | | | | Tradeoff | | | | | | They win when | | | | |
Fill in "They win when" honestly. Every alternative beats you somewhere. Naming it sharpens your position.
The Positioning Sweet Spot:
Template:
For [target customer]
who [has this problem/need],
[Product] is a [category]
that [key benefit].
Unlike [named real alternatives],
we [key differentiator].Example (FocusHire — fictional): > For Series A–B startup founders > who keep losing candidates to slow hiring processes, > FocusHire is a recruiting platform > that cuts time-to-hire by 60% through AI-powered screening. > Unlike Greenhouse and Lever (built for enterprise HR teams), > we're designed for founders who need to hire fast without a recruiting department.
Test the positioning statement against these 5 checks. Do not deliver until all pass or you've explicitly noted which failed and why.
If a check fails → revise the positioning statement → re-run the test.
After drafting all outputs, evaluate:
Flag any issue: "The differentiator 'we're easy to use' is something every competitor also claims. Push for a more specific angle."
After delivering the positioning:
markdown## Positioning: [Product/Company Name] — [Date] ### Positioning Statement [Full template output] ### One-Liner (≤10 words) [Text] ### Elevator Pitch (~75 words / 30 seconds) [Text] ### Key Differentiators 1. Unlike [Competitor A], we [specific differentiator] 2. Unlike [Competitor B], we [specific differentiator] 3. Unlike DIY/status quo, we [specific differentiator] ### Target Customer Profile [1 paragraph — role, stage, situation, trigger event] ### Competitive Position [1 sentence "vs" summary using real names] ### Competitive Map [Table with real competitor names filled in] ### Quick Positioning Test - Specific: ✅/❌ [note] - Differentiated: ✅/❌ [note] - Credible: ✅/❌ [note] - Meaningful: ✅/❌ [note] - Memorable: ✅/❌ [note] ### Self-Critique Notes [Any gaps, risks, or things to validate with real customers] ### Recommended Next Steps - Run `homepage-audit` to test if current website reflects this positioning - Run `content-idea-generator` with this ICP and differentiator as inputs - Run `linkedin-authority-builder` anchored to this positioning
Skill by Brian Wagner | AI Marketing Architect | brianrwagner.com
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | fail→fail | 22,210 | 20,074 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,283 | 4,822 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 21,482 | 6,268 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,324 | 2,731 | -18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 16,900 | 24,351 | +44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,483 | 5,229 | +111% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→fail | 16,552 | 8,029 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,772 | 3,026 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 11,168 | 15,270 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,777 | 4,109 | +131% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 21,383 | 15,222 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,276 | 4,297 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 22,025 | 18,391 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,559 | 4,696 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 7,447 | 11,363 | +53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,293 | 3,578 | +177% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,720 | 10,756 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,860 | 3,347 | +80% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 16,501 | 16,520 | +0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,553 | 3,238 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 13,782 | 13,629 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,054 | 3,806 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 17,737 | 14,253 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,968 | 4,018 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 13,553 | 10,310 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,117 | 3,405 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 14,848 | 14,084 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,207 | 3,896 | +77% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 14,643 | 12,160 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,120 | 3,581 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 15,120 | 6,901 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,535 | 2,893 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 13,230 | 10,627 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,008 | 3,444 | +72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 12,060 | 6,863 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,778 | 2,802 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 8,281 | 5,673 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,327 | 2,771 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 7,846 | 5,716 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,195 | 2,622 | +119% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 10,426 | 8,571 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,448 | 2,961 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 6,606 | 3,065 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,054 | 2,339 | +122% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 9,766 | 4,185 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,482 | 2,534 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 7,067 | 1,702 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,118 | 2,046 | +83% | 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. 24 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +21 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 24 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
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.