Best for
- "Our messaging sounds exactly like competitors"
- "Brand awareness is strong but conversion is weak"
- "Sales team can't explain why we're different"
github/awesome-copilot/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/SKILL.md
Find and own a defensible market position. Use when messaging sounds like competitors, conversion is weak despite awareness, repositioning a product, or testing positioning claims. Includes Crawl-Walk-Run rollout methodology and the word change that improved enterprise deal progression.
Decision brief
Find and own a defensible market position. Turn generic messaging into clear differentiation — or at least test whether your differentiation actually resonates before committing to it.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/gtm-positioning-strategy"Inspect the Agent Skill "gtm-positioning-strategy" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Principle: A positioning is only valuable if competitors can't easily copy it.
Review the “Should We Move from Crawl to Walk Phase?” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Triggers: - "Our messaging sounds exactly like competitors" - "Brand awareness is strong but conversion is weak" - "Sales team can't explain why we're different" - "Buyers see us as interchangeable" - "Should we reposition before we rebrand?" - "How do we test positioning claims…
Early enterprise conversations for an autonomous AI product. Positioned as "autonomous AI agent."
Early enterprise conversations for an autonomous AI product. Positioned as "autonomous AI agent."
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 92/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 37,126 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Find and own a defensible market position. Turn generic messaging into clear differentiation — or at least test whether your differentiation actually resonates before committing to it.
Triggers:
Context:
The Pattern:
Early enterprise conversations for an autonomous AI product. Positioned as "autonomous AI agent."
Developers: "Cool, but scary." Managers: "Will this replace our team?" Deal progression: Slow. Lots of "we'll think about it."
The Change:
One word: "autonomous" → "AI teammate"
Same product. Same capabilities. Different framing.
Result:
Developers: "This helps me." Managers: "This makes my team more productive." Deal progression: Measurably faster.
Why This Matters:
Positioning isn't what you do. It's what you don't say.
We could've said "replaces developers" (technically true for some tasks). Would've killed every enterprise deal.
The Framework: Word Choice Shapes Buyer Psychology
Words that scare enterprises:
Words that convert:
How to Test Word Choice:
Don't guess. Test.
Test 1: Outbound Email A/B
Test 2: Website Homepage A/B
Test 3: Sales Call Scripts
Common Mistake:
Changing positioning based on internal consensus, not customer feedback. Your team isn't the buyer.
The Pattern:
Positioning changes create risk. Brand confusion. Sales misalignment. Customer churn (if existing customers don't recognize you).
De-risk through phased rollout:
Crawl Phase (1-2 weeks): Validation
Test messaging without committing product/org resources.
Actions:
Measurement:
Go/No-Go:
Walk Phase (2-3 weeks): Alignment
If testing validates, align product and sales to new positioning (but don't rebrand publicly yet).
Actions:
Measurement:
Go/No-Go:
Run Phase (2-3 weeks and ongoing): Scale
Full commitment. This is the rebrand.
Actions:
Measurement:
Common Mistakes:
The Pattern:
If your messaging closely resembles competitors' messaging, you have a positioning problem, not a product problem.
Positioning Failure Manifests As:
How to Execute:
Step 1: Competitor Messaging Audit
Example:
If everyone says "fastest," "most reliable," "easiest to use" — these are table stakes, not differentiation.
Step 2: Assess Your Actual Strengths
Step 3: Find Under-Served Position
Step 4: Stake a Clear Claim
Must be:
Common Mistakes:
Layer 1: Market Context
Example: "Infrastructure teams manage increasingly complex deployments across hybrid environments. Organizations adopt microservices and distributed systems. This creates operational complexity that traditional monitoring tools can't handle."
Layer 2: Positioning Statement (1-2 sentences)
Example: "We help platform teams ship faster through [core capability] that connects [workflow A], [workflow B], and [business outcome] in real-time."
Layer 3: Narrative
Expand positioning into story:
How to Execute:
Write all three layers before testing. Test Layer 2 (positioning statement) first with Crawl-Walk-Run methodology. If that validates, build out Layer 3.
Principle: Clear positioning requires testable structure: headline (what are you?) + sub-headline (for whom? why?).
Main Headline Formats:
Examples:
Red Flags:
Sub-headline Purpose:
Clarifies who, why, how it's different from status quo.
Examples:
How to Test:
A/B test headline + sub-headline combinations:
Measure CTR, reply rates, conversion.
Pick winner based on data, not opinion.
Principle: A positioning is only valuable if competitors can't easily copy it.
Defensibility Hierarchy:
1. Structural Advantage (Strongest)
2. Market Position (Strong if First)
3. Product Feature (Weak)
How to Assess:
For each positioning claim, ask:
Common Mistake:
Positioning on features competitors can easily match. This creates positioning treadmill — you're always defending, never owning.
Is brand awareness strong but conversion weak?
├─ Yes → Positioning problem, test new angles
└─ No → Continue...
│
Does our messaging sound like competitors?
├─ Yes → Positioning problem
└─ No → Not a positioning issue
Do we have structural advantage competitors can't copy?
├─ Yes → Position on structural advantage
└─ No → Continue...
│
Are we first in a category?
├─ Yes → Position on category ownership
└─ No → Find under-served segment/use case
Did new positioning outperform incumbent by 20%+?
├─ Yes → Move to Walk (alignment phase)
└─ No → Continue...
│
Did we run test long enough (2+ weeks)?
├─ No → Run longer
└─ Yes → Try different positioning angle or stay with incumbent
1. Claiming to be "better" at what everyone does
2. Positioning on easily-copied features
3. Waiting for perfect product before positioning shift
4. Testing too many positioning angles simultaneously
5. Skipping validation phase
6. One positioning for all buyer personas
7. Generic positioning that doesn't differentiate
Crawl-Walk-Run Testing:
Word choice that converts:
Positioning audit steps:
Defensibility hierarchy:
Testing hierarchy (signal strength):
Based on positioning work at AI agent and developer platforms, including navigating the framing spectrum from "autonomous" to "AI companion" and how category framing changes enterprise buyer perception. Also includes Crawl-Walk-Run rollout methodology from repositioning products without breaking existing customer recognition. Not theory — patterns from testing positioning before committing to rebrands.
Alternatives
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
event4u-app/agent-config
Use BEFORE writing/changing tests, adding mocks, or test-only methods on production classes — vs mocking-the-mock, production pollution, partial mocks, and overfit/tautological assertions
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when writing, generating, or improving Pest tests for Laravel — clear intent, good coverage, maintainable structure, and alignment with project testing conventions.