| Category | Proposals & Pricing |
|---|---|
| Time to Run | 15 min |
| Difficulty | Standard |
| Output | Analysis |
| Client-Facing | No — internal use |
A prospect just told you they're "also talking to a couple other firms." Or you're walking into a proposal situation where you know there's a shortlist. Maybe you've seen a competitor's name come up in conversation, or the prospect is comparing you to doing it in-house or hiring someone full-time.
Run this when you're entering a competitive situation and need to think clearly about how your approach differs — not to bash competitors, but to sharpen your own positioning before you write the proposal or walk into the next conversation. The brief is for you, not the client. It organizes your thinking so your pitch lands on the differentiators that actually matter for this specific prospect.
Copy the code block below and save it as a .md file. Upload it to Claude as a Project Knowledge file or attach it directly to a conversation. Then provide the inputs listed above and Claude will generate your competitive positioning brief.
---
name: competitive-positioning-brief
description: Generates an internal analysis that maps your approach against known competitors or alternatives — triggered when entering a competitive situation or when a prospect is evaluating options.
metadata:
author: "Kathryn Brown, Practice Builders"
version: "1.0.0"
date: "2026-04-25"
---
# Competitive Positioning Brief
Generates an internal positioning analysis that clarifies how your approach differs from alternatives the prospect is considering.
**Core Principle: Position against the alternative's structural weakness, not their reputation. Every competing approach has a trade-off baked into its model — find it and build your pitch around what they can't easily change.**
## What This Skill Does
**Job 1: Alternative Mapping** — Takes whatever the user knows about competitors or alternatives and organizes them into a structured comparison. Even vague inputs ("they mentioned a big firm") get mapped to likely approach patterns, trade-offs, and structural constraints.
**Job 2: Differentiator Sharpening** — Takes the user's self-described differentiators and pressure-tests them. "We're more responsive" isn't a differentiator — everyone says that. "We staff a senior person on every engagement, not a junior team with a partner who shows up quarterly" is. The skill forces specificity.
**Job 3: Talking Point Generation** — Produces 3-5 conversation-ready points the user can deploy in the next prospect meeting or proposal. Not scripts — positions. Each one names what the prospect cares about and connects it to the user's structural advantage.
## Section 1: Competitive Landscape Summary
Map each known competitor or alternative into a brief profile. For each:
- **Who they are** (name or category)
- **Likely approach** (what the prospect probably hears from them)
- **Structural trade-off** (what their model makes hard to deliver)
If the user only knows categories ("a big firm," "a freelancer"), infer the likely approach pattern. Big firms over-staff with junior people. Freelancers under-resource. In-house hires take 6 months to ramp. These aren't assumptions — they're structural patterns.
**Format:** Table with columns: Alternative | Likely Approach | Structural Trade-off.
## Section 2: Your Approach Distilled
Summarize the user's approach in 3-4 sentences. Name the engagement model, typical involvement level, and what the client gets that they wouldn't get from the alternatives mapped above. This is the "if I had to explain what I do in 30 seconds" version.
## Section 3: Differentiator Analysis
For each differentiator the user provides:
- **Restate it sharply** — if they said "we're more hands-on," translate to "senior-level involvement in every working session, not delegated to junior staff"
- **Connect to prospect pain** — name what problem this solves for the prospect specifically
- **Grade its strength** — Strong (hard to replicate), Moderate (replicable but not common), or Weak (everyone claims this)
If a differentiator grades as Weak, note it and suggest what to pair it with to make it defensible.
**Format:** Table with columns: Differentiator | Sharpened Version | Prospect Pain | Strength.
## Section 4: Talking Points
Generate 3-5 talking points the user can use in conversation or weave into a proposal. Each talking point follows this format:
- **What the prospect cares about** (the decision factor)
- **What the alternative likely offers** (the comparison point)
- **What you offer instead** (the reframe)
These aren't meant to be read aloud. They're positions to hold in conversation. The user adapts the language to their style.
## Section 5: What to Skip / What to Watch For
**Leave alone:** Don't try to counter every competitor advantage. If a competitor genuinely beats you on price, acknowledge it internally and don't make price the battleground. Fight where you win.
**Watch for:** If the prospect keeps asking about the competitor's specific methodology or deliverables, they may be further down the path with that alternative than they've let on. That's a signal to move faster on your proposal timeline, not to add more differentiators. Also watch for prospects who name no alternatives at all — they may be using you for a free diagnostic with no intent to engage.
## Quality Check (Internal — never shown to the user)
| # | Check | Pass? |
|---|-------|-------|
| 1 | Does every competitor profile name a structural trade-off (not just a subjective weakness)? | |
| 2 | Are all differentiators graded honestly, including any that are Weak? | |
| 3 | Do the talking points connect to specific prospect concerns, not generic value claims? | |
| 4 | Is the brief free of competitor bashing or negative language? | |
| 5 | Would the user actually bring these talking points into a conversation? | |
**Enforcement:** Run all five checks. Identify the weakest section. Rewrite it. Verify the rewrite improved the output. Present only the finished version.
## Rules
- Never disparage competitors by name. The brief analyzes structural trade-offs, not character flaws.
- Every differentiator must be specific and verifiable. "We care more" is not a differentiator.
- If the user provides no competitor information, build the brief around the three most common alternative categories: large firm, small firm/freelancer, in-house.
- Keep the brief under 800 words. This is a thinking tool, not a research paper.
- Talking points must be conversational. If they sound like marketing copy, rewrite them.
- Do not recommend specific pricing strategies — that's the domain of the Proposal Builder.
- Grade at least one differentiator as Moderate or Weak. If everything grades Strong, the analysis isn't honest enough.
## Output Format
# Competitive Positioning Brief: [Prospect or Situation Name]
## Competitive Landscape
| Alternative | Likely Approach | Structural Trade-off |
|------------|----------------|---------------------|
| [Name/Category] | [What they probably pitch] | [What their model makes hard] |
| [Name/Category] | [What they probably pitch] | [What their model makes hard] |
## Your Approach
[3-4 sentence summary of engagement model and structural advantages.]
## Differentiator Analysis
| Differentiator | Sharpened Version | Prospect Pain | Strength |
|---------------|-------------------|---------------|----------|
| [Raw input] | [Specific, evidence-based version] | [What this solves] | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
**Signal:** [What in the competitive landscape triggered this differentiator focus]
**Do This:** [Lead with this in the proposal or next conversation]
## Talking Points
1. **[Decision Factor]** — They'll hear [alternative's version]. You offer [your reframe].
2. **[Decision Factor]** — They'll hear [alternative's version]. You offer [your reframe].
3. **[Decision Factor]** — They'll hear [alternative's version]. You offer [your reframe].
## What Makes This Different
A standard competitive analysis tells you what competitors do. This brief tells you where their model breaks — the structural trade-off they can't fix without changing their business. That's the position you build your pitch around, because it's the one thing they can't counter by simply trying harder. Most consultants compete on claims. This skill makes you compete on architecture.
---
Copyright (c) 2026 Kathryn Brown, Practice Builders
This skill is licensed for your personal and business use. You may run this skill inside your own practice and share the outputs it produces with your team and clients. "Your practice" includes employees and contractors engaged to perform work for your business under your direction — virtual assistants, operations support, bookkeepers, and similar team members.
You may not share, distribute, resell, or repackage the skill file itself — including this SKILL.md document, its prompts, frameworks, and structure — with anyone outside your practice. This includes peer practitioners, other consultants who would use it in their own client work, and anyone outside your operating team. Written permission from Kathryn Brown ([email protected]) is required for any redistribution.
This skill is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, express or implied.
This gives you an internal analysis document under 800 words that includes a competitive landscape table, your approach summary, a differentiator analysis with honest strength grades, and 3-5 conversation-ready talking points. This is a thinking tool — use it to sharpen your proposal, not as a deliverable.