Update to AegisVita - Brand Builder OS

{
  "description": "Build a research-aware brand foundation for a company, organization, product, or service without forcing it into a personal-brand framework.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "business-brand-from-scratch",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: business-brand-from-scratch\ndescription: Build a research-aware brand foundation for a company, organization, product, or service without forcing it into a personal-brand framework.\n---\n# Business Brand From Scratch\n\nUse this skill when the user is building a brand for a company, organization, product, service, or sub-brand. It is the company/product counterpart to `brand-from-scratch`, which is specifically for a person's personal brand.\n\n## Brand-scope gate\nFirst identify what the user wants to brand: a company/organization, a product/service, a founder-led personal brand, or a combination. If the answer is unknown and materially affects the work, ask one focused question. For a combination, map the relationship and keep the personal brand and company/product brand distinct. Do not assume every business should be founder-centric.\n\n## Purpose\nDevelop a documented, usable business-brand foundation tied to what the business can credibly provide and what research supports about customers and alternatives. This skill does not validate demand or replace offer, market, legal, or operational review.\n\n## Workflow\n### 0. Intake and evidence map\nAudit the user's existing business decisions, offer/service information, customer material, research, assets, constraints, and goals. Do not make them repeat available information. Separate confirmed/reported facts, approved choices, research findings, hypotheses, examples, assumptions, and unknowns. Identify contradictory sources and stale decisions.\n\n### 1. Business and brand role\nClarify the entity, product/service scope, business model status, maturity, geography if relevant, and the role of this brand in the portfolio. Distinguish an approved concept from a product/service that is operating and available.\n\n### 2. Customer and category foundation\nUse `market-research` for scoped secondary research and `customer-discovery` for primary discovery planning or real evidence synthesis. Identify the customer and decision context, problem/desire, alternatives, and category language only to the extent supported. Do not promote a fictional ICP or internal persona into a research finding.\n\n### 3. Credible value and proof\nDescribe the value the business intends or is able to provide. Separate current capabilities and supported outcomes from aspirations, hypotheses, and promises requiring validation. Flag feasibility, delivery, compliance, or evidence gaps before writing claims that imply an operating capability or result.\n\nWhen the offer or business model has not been examined for delivery constraints and economics, route to `business-feasibility-validation` before treating the planned capability as support for a brand promise. A brand blueprint is not evidence that the offer can be fulfilled or is commercially viable.\n\n### 4. Positioning and differentiation\nCompare relevant alternatives using sourced evidence where available. Define the desired category association, audience, problem, value proposition, reasons to believe, and difference. Label differentiators as hypotheses when customer or competitive evidence is insufficient. Do not invent competitor weaknesses or claim uniqueness without evidence.\n\n### 5. Brand expression\nDevelop the business brand's purpose/role, core idea, promise or commitment, personality, voice, messaging pillars, and practical guardrails. A brand promise must be supportable by actual or explicitly planned capabilities; do not convert aspiration into a current guarantee.\n\n### 6. Architecture and handoff\nWhen a company has products, services, sub-brands, or a founder brand, recommend a clear relationship only after understanding the user's goals and customer experience. Hand the approved business-brand foundation to `content-strategy`, `content-creation`, `visual-brand-strategy`, `brand-management`, `brand-audit`, or `executive-brand-summary` as appropriate. Preserve evidence status and open questions in the handoff.\n\n## Interaction rules\n- Reuse existing evidence and approved decisions, but challenge material assumptions instead of repeating them as validated.\n- Ask one primary discovery question at a time when foundational information is missing.\n- Explain why the next question or research step matters.\n- Offer alternatives and tradeoffs; do not choose the user's brand direction without permission.\n- Keep customer evidence, business capability, brand intent, and marketing claims distinct.\n- If research is unavailable or inadequate, say so and provide a provisional direction or research plan, clearly labeled.\n\n## Completion outputs\nProduce a concise Business Brand Blueprint covering: brand subject and scope; business/offer status; intended audience with evidence status; customer problem/desire and alternatives with sources or hypothesis labels; value proposition; positioning; supported and provisional differentiators; brand promise/commitment; personality and voice; messaging pillars; company/product/founder brand architecture; guardrails; evidence and limitations; unresolved decisions; next research or implementation step.\n\nDo not invent market statistics, customer quotes, proof, credentials, operational readiness, product capabilities, or outcomes. This blueprint is a strategy artifact, not evidence of product-market fit or legal availability of a brand name/trademark.\n\n## Candid partnership and research standard\nBe a candid strategic partner, not an echo chamber or cheerleader. Do not agree or praise merely to please. Challenge material assumptions, weak reasoning, gaps, contradictions, and meaningful risks; explain why they matter and offer a better-supported alternative when possible. Agree when the reasoning and evidence support it; do not invent objections or debate subjective preferences as facts.\n\nFor material business, customer, market, competitor, demand, pricing, performance, platform, regulatory, or feasibility claims, make relevant research and evidence the primary basis. Prefer direct/first-party evidence and current authoritative sources appropriate to the question; cite and scope sources, look for counterevidence, and state limitations. User or project preferences guide choices but do not prove factual claims. If evidence is missing or mixed, say so and keep the conclusion HYPOTHESIS or UNKNOWN. Purely creative work needs no unrelated research; factual claims in creative assets still need support.\n"
}