{"id":19503,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a99cda269b0819180d65893e1de7811","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:15:37.745Z","digest":"34ea69f9e28a653e1c25e30b94899958abe7133ed4c94c9c4461077c95d0eb65","against":null,"payload":{"name":"brand-strategy-compiler","description":"Use when all Brandprint layers (Core Human Truth through Competitive Audit) are complete and the user needs the final client-ready deliverable — Layer 6 of the Brandprint research stack. Trigger when the user asks to compile the Brandprint into a final report, create a client deliverable, generate a strategy document, or produce a consulting-grade brand report. Also trigger on \"compile report,\" \"final deliverable,\" \"client report,\" \"strategy document,\" \"consulting report.\" If the competitive-positioning-audit skill has just completed with a PROCEED decision, move directly into this skill.","included_files":[],"skill_md_contents":"---\nname: brand-strategy-compiler\ndescription: Use when all Brandprint layers (Core Human Truth through Competitive Audit) are complete and the user needs the final client-ready deliverable — Layer 6 of the Brandprint research stack. Trigger when the user asks to compile the Brandprint into a final report, create a client deliverable, generate a strategy document, or produce a consulting-grade brand report. Also trigger on \"compile report,\" \"final deliverable,\" \"client report,\" \"strategy document,\" \"consulting report.\" If the competitive-positioning-audit skill has just completed with a PROCEED decision, move directly into this skill.\n---\n\n# Brand Strategy Report Compiler — Consulting-Grade Deliverable Directive\n\nAssemble all Brandprint outputs (Layers 1-5) into a single, cohesive Brand Strategy & Competitive Positioning Report formatted to the standard of top-tier strategy consultancies (Strategy&, EY-Parthenon, Monitor Deloitte, KPMG Strategy).\n\n## When NOT to Use\n\n- **Layers are incomplete.** Layers 1-4 outputs are required inputs. Layer 5 is strongly recommended; if it's missing, the report must disclose that competitive validation was not performed and recommend it — don't compile silently around the gap.\n- **Generating new strategy content.** This layer synthesizes what Layers 1-5 produced. If a section needs claims or evidence that don't exist upstream, run the missing layer — don't write it here.\n- **Quick one-page summaries.** The floor is 15-20 pages in rapid mode. For a brief, pull the executive summary structure manually instead of invoking the compiler.\n\n## Why This Layer Exists\n\nLayers 1-4 produce structured JSON outputs optimized for machines and chain-forward processing. Layer 5 produces a competitive analysis. None of these are client-ready. This layer transforms raw strategic outputs into a narrative document that leadership teams, boards, and investors can act on.\n\nThe report is not a summary — it is a synthesis. It resolves contradictions, builds arguments across layers, adds market context, models financial impact, and provides a phased implementation roadmap. It connects the \"what\" (positioning elements) to the \"why\" (evidence) to the \"how\" (implementation) to the \"when\" (roadmap).\n\n## Chain Position\n\nThis is **Layer 6** — the terminal layer of the Brandprint research stack:\n\n1. **Core Human Truth** (Layer 1) → foundational truth sentence\n2. **Brandprint Tier-A** (Layer 2) → 10 strategy elements\n3. **Brandprint Tier-B** (Layer 3) → 5 actionable elements\n4. **Brandprint Tier-C** (Layer 4) → 4 stylistic elements\n5. **Competitive Positioning Audit** (Layer 5) → differentiation validation\n6. **Brand Strategy Report** (this skill) → consulting-grade deliverable\n\n**Required inputs:** At minimum, Layers 1-4 outputs. Layer 5 (Competitive Audit) is strongly recommended. If Layer 5 is missing, the report will note that competitive validation was not performed and recommend it.\n\n## Variables to Resolve\n\n| Variable | What to Capture | Default |\n|----------|----------------|---------|\n| `brand_name` | The brand | *required* |\n| `client_name` | Who receives the report (may differ from brand) | brand_name |\n| `prepared_by` | Firm name for the cover page | *required* |\n| `report_date` | Date for the cover page | Current month/year |\n| `confidentiality` | Confidential / Internal / Public | Confidential |\n| `include_financials` | Include economic engine and financial modeling sections | true |\n| `include_roadmap` | Include implementation roadmap | true |\n| `format` | `narrative` (long-form) or `deck` (slide-style with exhibits) | `narrative` |\n| `layer_outputs` | JSON outputs from Layers 1-5 | *required* |\n\n## Principles (Non-Negotiable)\n\n1. **Synthesis over summary.** Do not paste layer outputs verbatim. Transform them into a coherent strategic narrative where each section builds on the previous one.\n2. **Every claim traces to evidence.** If a claim appeared in Layers 1-5 with sources, those sources appear in the report. No orphan claims.\n3. **Exhibits do the heavy lifting.** Tables, matrices, and frameworks should convey key findings at a glance. Narrative text explains what the exhibit means and what to do about it.\n4. **Strategic recommendations are specific.** \"Improve positioning\" is not a recommendation. \"Replace 'We Build Texas' with the Header Translation Line on the homepage hero section within 30 days\" is a recommendation.\n5. **Acknowledge uncertainty.** Confidence levels from Layers 1-5 carry forward. If evidence was thin, say so. If a recommendation is high-confidence, say that too.\n6. **Client-appropriate language.** The report should be readable by a C-suite executive who has never seen a Brandprint. No references to \"Layer 2\" or \"Sprint 4\" — translate framework language into business language.\n\n## Report Structure\n\nThe report follows an 11-section structure. Each section has a purpose, required content, and source layers.\n\n### Cover Page\n- Report title: \"Brand Strategy & Competitive Positioning Report\"\n- Brand name\n- Prepared for: [client_name] Leadership\n- Date\n- Prepared by: [prepared_by]\n- Confidentiality notice\n\n### Table of Contents\n- Auto-generated from section headers\n\n### Executive Summary (2-3 pages)\n**Purpose:** Give leadership the full strategic picture in under 5 minutes.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Strategic imperative (why this report exists, what market forces demand action)\n- The Core Human Truth (the foundational insight, stated plainly)\n- Strategic positioning statement (synthesized from Tier-A tagline + Tier-C translation line)\n- 3-5 headline findings (quantified where possible — use callout boxes)\n- The recommended path (one paragraph, decisive)\n\n**Source layers:** All layers contribute. The executive summary is the most synthesized section.\n\n### Section 1: Market Context & Strategic Imperative\n**Purpose:** Establish urgency and opportunity with data.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Market conditions relevant to the brand's category and region\n- Growth sectors and tailwinds (from Tier-A Backbone macro data)\n- Competitive dynamics (from Layer 5 territory ownership map)\n- Legislative or regulatory context (if applicable)\n- Academic or industry research supporting the strategic direction\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-A Backbone, Layer 5 Competitive Audit\n\n### Section 2: Core Human Truth & Buyer Psychology\n**Purpose:** Present the foundational insight and the evidence behind it.\n\n**Required content:**\n- The Core Human Truth sentence (from Layer 1)\n- Tension ladder (from Layer 1 — reformatted as exhibit)\n- Buyer psychology: how the audience actually makes decisions (from Layer 1 qualitative synthesis)\n- Current positioning baseline: gap between what the brand says and what buyers hear\n- Validation of the proposed truth (from Layer 1 red team report)\n\n**Source layers:** Layer 1 (Core Human Truth)\n\n**Key exhibit:** Buyer Tension Ladder (table: Level, Tension, Implication)\n\n### Section 3: Competitive Landscape & White Space Analysis\n**Purpose:** Show where competitors are positioned and where open territory exists.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Direct competitor assessment (from Tier-A Sprint 4 + Layer 5)\n- White space map (from Layer 5 territory ownership — reformatted as 2x2 or positioning grid)\n- Collision analysis results (from Layer 5 collision matrix)\n- Key competitor vulnerabilities to exploit\n- Specific competitor gap analysis (the \"Rogers-O'Brien Gap\" pattern — name the gap after the competitor)\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-A Sprint 4, Layer 5 Competitive Audit\n\n**Key exhibits:** Competitive Territory Ownership grid, White Space Map (2x2), Collision Matrix summary\n\n### Section 4: Target Audience Segments & Buyer Archetypes\n**Purpose:** Define who to pursue and how they decide.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Segment definitions (from Tier-A Sprint 3)\n- Buyer archetypes with core fears and brand fit (from Layer 1 archetypes + Tier-A)\n- Jobs to be done hierarchy (from Tier-A Sprint 2 — reformatted as exhibit)\n\n**Source layers:** Layer 1, Tier-A Sprints 2-3\n\n**Key exhibit:** Segment Overview table (Segment, Archetype, Core Fear, Brand Fit)\n\n### Section 5: Brand Architecture & Equity Framework\n**Purpose:** Present the complete brand system — the strategic toolkit.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Equity Ladder (from Tier-A Sprint 9 — reformatted as tiered exhibit)\n- Brand Platform Word (from Tier-B) with gatekeeper question\n- Brand Mantra (from Tier-C) with usage context\n- Header Translation Line (from Tier-C) with deployment guidance\n- Tagline system hierarchy (mantra → tagline → translation line with use contexts)\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-A Sprint 9, Tier-B Platform Word, Tier-C Mantra + Translation Line\n\n**Key exhibits:** Equity Ladder table, Tagline System hierarchy table\n\n### Section 6: Competitive Moat\n**Purpose:** Explain why the brand wins and why competitors can't replicate it.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Moat pillars (from Tier-B Moat sprint — reformatted as exhibit)\n- Time-to-replicate estimates for each pillar\n- Observable evidence per pillar (buyer-verifiable proof)\n- Switching cost analysis\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-B Moat, Tier-A Sprint 6\n\n**Key exhibit:** Moat Pillar Analysis table (Pillar, Observable Evidence, Time to Replicate, Buyer Verifiable?)\n\n### Section 7: Signature Offers & Growth Strategy\n**Purpose:** Map the brand's offerings to target segments and market opportunities.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Signature offers mapped to segments (from Tier-A Sprint 5)\n- Growth sector strategy (from Tier-A Backbone macro data)\n- Economic engine model (from Tier-A Sprint 7 — if include_financials = true)\n- Bridge strategy for market transitions (if applicable)\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-A Sprints 5, 7\n\n**Key exhibit:** Signature Offer Portfolio table (Offer, Target Segment, Project Range, Competitive Advantage, Market Tailwind)\n\n### Section 8: Brand Activation System\n**Purpose:** Translate strategy into observable, repeatable behaviors.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Brand Activator (from Tier-B) with touchpoint map and implementation phases\n- Tone & Manner guide (from Tier-B) with do/say conversion table\n- Personification vignette(s) (from Tier-C)\n- Tagline system with deployment contexts\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-B (Activator, Tone), Tier-C (Vignette)\n\n**Key exhibits:** Activator Touchpoint Map, Tone & Manner table (Adjective, Client Validation, Instead of/Say), Tagline Hierarchy table\n\n### Section 9: Strategic Guardrails & Brand Protection\n**Purpose:** Define the defensive perimeter — what the brand must never do.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Brand No-No's (from Tier-B) with rationale and risk prevented\n- Strategic tensions resolved (from Layer 5 repositioning analysis + Tier-A contradictions)\n- Expertise claims: what the brand can claim with confidence, what requires qualification, what it must not claim\n- Features list with equity ladder mapping (from Tier-C)\n\n**Source layers:** Tier-B No-No's, Tier-A Contradiction Matrix, Tier-C Features List\n\n**Key exhibits:** Brand No-No's table (Guardrail, Rationale & Risk Prevented), Expertise Claims (three-tier: Full Confidence, Requiring Qualification, Must Not Make)\n\n### Section 10: Implementation Roadmap\n**Purpose:** Translate strategy into a phased execution plan.\n\n**Required content (if include_roadmap = true):**\n- Phase 1: Immediate Actions (Months 1-3) — quick wins, positioning pivots, internal alignment\n- Phase 2: Foundation Building (Months 4-6) — sales enablement, content strategy, template redesign\n- Phase 3: Market Positioning (Months 7-12) — category ownership, thought leadership, speaking, PR\n- Phase 4: Expansion Phase (Months 12-24) — new sectors, geographic expansion, brand equity measurement\n- Measurable milestones per phase\n- Resource requirements and budget estimates\n\n**Source layers:** Synthesized from all layers\n\n**Key exhibit:** Implementation Roadmap visual (4-phase timeline with key actions per phase)\n\n### Section 11: Conclusion\n**Purpose:** Close with conviction. Restate the single most important strategic insight.\n\n**Required content:**\n- Strategic summary (3 sentences max)\n- The positioning opportunity restated\n- The \"excavation not construction\" insight: the positioning already exists in the portfolio, the people, and the performance — it just needs to be named\n- Closing statement with prepared-by attribution\n\n### Appendix (Optional)\n- Full source bibliography organized by category\n- Research methodology notes\n- Confidence scoring methodology\n- Detailed financial modeling assumptions\n- Glossary of terms\n\n## Formatting Standards\n\nTo match consulting-grade deliverables:\n\n- **Exhibits are numbered:** Exhibit 1.1, Exhibit 3.1, etc. (section.sequence)\n- **Key statistics in callout boxes:** Large numbers, bold, with context below\n- **Pull quotes for critical insights:** Blockquoted, italicized\n- **Consistent header hierarchy:** Section numbers match TOC\n- **Professional tone:** Authoritative but not academic. No hedging language (\"might,\" \"could possibly\"). State findings with appropriate confidence.\n- **Footer:** \"[Brand Name] [bullet] Brand Strategy & Competitive Positioning Report [bullet] Page X\"\n- **Cover page footer:** \"[Prepared by] [bullet] [City, State] / Brand Strategy [bullet] Competitive Intelligence [bullet] Market Positioning\"\n\n## Quality Checks (Run Before Finalizing)\n\n- [ ] Every section traces to specific layer outputs (no orphan sections)\n- [ ] Every exhibit has a number, title, and is referenced in the narrative text\n- [ ] The executive summary can stand alone — a reader who reads only this section gets the full strategic picture\n- [ ] No Brandprint framework jargon appears (no \"Layer 2,\" \"Sprint 4,\" \"Tier-B\")\n- [ ] Financial projections include ranges and assumptions, never point estimates\n- [ ] Competitor names are used only where the analysis requires it — the report positions the brand, not attacks competitors\n- [ ] The implementation roadmap has measurable milestones, not vague aspirations\n- [ ] Confidence levels are stated for key recommendations\n- [ ] All sources from Layers 1-5 are compiled in the bibliography\n- [ ] The report reads as a single coherent document, not a stack of skill outputs\n\n## What NOT to Do\n\n- Do not paste JSON outputs into the report. Transform everything into narrative and exhibits.\n- Do not use Brandprint layer/sprint terminology. Translate to business language.\n- Do not present recommendations without evidence chain.\n- Do not include financial projections without explicit assumptions and ranges.\n- Do not hedge excessively. If the evidence supports a recommendation, state it with conviction. If evidence is thin, state that too — but don't hedge everything.\n- Do not create a report shorter than 20 pages for standard mode. This is a comprehensive strategic deliverable, not a summary.\n- Do not invent market data to fill Section 1. If the Tier-A Backbone didn't collect it, mark the gap — fabricated context poisons an otherwise evidence-backed report.\n- Do not compile around a REFINE decision. If Layer 5 said REFINE and the client chose to ship anyway, the report must disclose the unresolved collisions, not present first-pass positioning as validated.\n- Do not reference an exhibit that isn't in the document, or include an exhibit the narrative never mentions. Orphan exhibits are the fastest tell of a stapled-together report.\n\n## Mode Adjustments\n\n- **Rapid:** 15-20 pages. Executive summary + sections 2, 3, 5, 9. Skip financial modeling and detailed roadmap. Include simplified exhibits.\n- **Standard:** 25-35 pages. All 11 sections. Full exhibits. Financial modeling with ranges. Phased roadmap.\n- **Enterprise:** 35-50+ pages. All 11 sections expanded. Add: sensitivity analysis, scenario modeling, board-ready executive brief (2-page standalone), competitive monitoring plan, quarterly review structure.\n\n## Output Format\n\nDeliver as:\n1. **Markdown document** — full report in clean markdown suitable for conversion to PDF or DOCX\n2. **If the user has PDF generation capabilities** — offer to generate a formatted PDF\n\nThe report should be immediately presentable to client leadership without additional editing.\n\n## Evaluation Rubric\n\n1. **Synthesis quality** — The report reads as one coherent narrative, not six skill outputs stapled together\n2. **Evidence density** — Every recommendation traces to cited evidence\n3. **Exhibit quality** — Tables and frameworks convey findings at a glance\n4. **Actionability** — Recommendations are specific enough to execute without additional interpretation\n5. **Professional standard** — Formatting, tone, and depth match top-tier strategy consultancy deliverables\n6. **Standalone executive summary** — A reader who skips everything except the exec summary still gets the full strategic picture\n7. **Completeness** — All layer outputs are represented; no strategic elements are missing from the final document\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}