benchmark-methodology

Name: benchmark-methodology
Author: affaan-m

523installs35kforks

How to install benchmark-methodology?

affaan-m/ecc/benchmark-methodology

$npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set. Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with e

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Benchmark Methodology
2
3	Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
4	scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
5	explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
6	the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
7	number for any competitor.
8
9	## When to Activate
10
11	- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
12	- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
13	- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
14	- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
15
16	## Client positioning brief (establish first)
17
18	Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
19
20	- Strategic tension — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
21	intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
22	the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
23	- Differentiator — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
24	dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
25	- Brand balance — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
26	recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
27
28	## Why these dimensions
29
30	The client competes on a specific tension held across two poles, not on
31	service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
32	dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
33	together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
34	achieves both simultaneously.
35
36	## The nine dimensions (with weights)
37
38	Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
39	composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
40
41	1. Positioning clarity & distinctiveness (18%) — Is the studio's position
42	sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
43	2. Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness (15%) — Does the copy have an
44	ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
45	3. Visual identity & site craft (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
46	system; site as proof-of-craft.
47	4. Service offer & packaging (12%) — Productized and legible (named
48	sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
49	5. Evidence & credibility (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
50	case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
51	6. Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity (10%) — Signals they can land
52	and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
53	7. Thought leadership / content presence (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
54	newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
55	8. Pricing transparency & engagement model (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
56	legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
57	9. [Client's strategic tension] (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
58	report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
59	client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
60	target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
61	there?
62
63	## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
64
65	Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
66	specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
67
68	- 1 — Absent / generic. No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
69	from a template. Active liability.
70	- 2 — Below par. Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
71	Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
72	- 3 — Competent / table-stakes. Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
73	expectation, ownable by nobody.
74	- 4 — Strong / distinctive. Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
75	would notice and cite.
76	- 5 — Category-defining. Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
77	bar others react to.
78
79	### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
80
81	Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
82	brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
83
84	- Memorability — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
85	5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
86	- Credibility — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
87	unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
88
89	Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
90	the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single mo

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

benchmark-methodology

523installs35kforks

View on GitHub

How to install benchmark-methodology?

affaan-m/ecc/benchmark-methodology

$npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Benchmark Methodology
2
3	Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
4	scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
5	explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
6	the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
7	number for any competitor.
8
9	## When to Activate
10
11	- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
12	- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
13	- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
14	- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
15
16	## Client positioning brief (establish first)
17
18	Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
19
20	- Strategic tension — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
21	intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
22	the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
23	- Differentiator — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
24	dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
25	- Brand balance — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
26	recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
27
28	## Why these dimensions
29
30	The client competes on a specific tension held across two poles, not on
31	service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
32	dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
33	together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
34	achieves both simultaneously.
35
36	## The nine dimensions (with weights)
37
38	Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
39	composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
40
41	1. Positioning clarity & distinctiveness (18%) — Is the studio's position
42	sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
43	2. Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness (15%) — Does the copy have an
44	ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
45	3. Visual identity & site craft (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
46	system; site as proof-of-craft.
47	4. Service offer & packaging (12%) — Productized and legible (named
48	sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
49	5. Evidence & credibility (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
50	case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
51	6. Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity (10%) — Signals they can land
52	and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
53	7. Thought leadership / content presence (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
54	newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
55	8. Pricing transparency & engagement model (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
56	legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
57	9. [Client's strategic tension] (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
58	report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
59	client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
60	target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
61	there?
62
63	## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
64
65	Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
66	specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
67
68	- 1 — Absent / generic. No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
69	from a template. Active liability.
70	- 2 — Below par. Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
71	Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
72	- 3 — Competent / table-stakes. Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
73	expectation, ownable by nobody.
74	- 4 — Strong / distinctive. Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
75	would notice and cite.
76	- 5 — Category-defining. Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
77	bar others react to.
78
79	### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
80
81	Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
82	brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
83
84	- Memorability — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
85	5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
86	- Credibility — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
87	unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
88
89	Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
90	the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single mo

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type