From PRD-Driven Context Engineering
Assesses competitor defensibility and defines moat strategy during PRD v0.3. Analyzes switching costs, identifies vulnerabilities, and produces targeting rules.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/prd-ce:prd-v03-moat-definitionThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → **v0.3 Moat Definition** → v0.3 Pricing Model Selection
Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.3 Moat Definition → v0.3 Pricing Model Selection
This skill requires prior work from v0.2:
This skill assumes v0.2 analysis is complete with documented competitors.
This skill creates/updates:
All CFD moat analysis entries should include:
confidence: 2-3/5 (based on public evidence + user interviews about switching friction)Example moat analysis entry:
CFD-055: Competitor Moat Analysis — Notion
Competitor: Notion
Primary Moat Type: Switching Costs (data lock-in)
Moat Strength Tier: Strong
Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 2-user-interviews)
Date: 2026-02-01
Switching Cost Quantification:
- Financial: Multi-year contract, no early termination ($0 direct cost)
- Time/Effort: 20+ hours migration, team retraining
- Data Migration: Proprietary database format (complex export)
- Workflow Retraining: Unique templates, team habits
- Integration Rework: Deep Slack/GitHub dependencies
Total Switching Cost: $3K in labor + 20 hours = Material friction
Moat Verdict: Strong — switching costs >$3K + meaningful time investment
Vulnerability Signal: SMB segment with small teams; they use <20% of feature set (opportunity for simpler tool)
Targeting Decision: Avoid direct competition. Wedge in SMB with simplified, cheaper offering.
Evidence:
- CFD-042 (landscape): Reviews show enterprise love; SMB complaints focus on cost + complexity
- CFD-015 (value hypothesis): SMB would save $12,500/year with simpler tool
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we interview 5+ SMB teams about exact switching cost dollars"
Every moat falls into one of six types. Identify primary + secondary moats per competitor:
| Moat Type | Definition | Strong When | Weak When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Switching Costs | Friction to leave (data, workflow, contracts) | Multi-year data, deep integrations | Easy export, monthly contracts |
| Network Effects | Value increases with users | Two-sided marketplace, content platform | Single-player tool, linear value |
| Data/IP | Proprietary data or algorithms | Unique training data, patents | Commodity ML, public datasets |
| Brand/Trust | Recognition, credibility | Regulated industry, high-risk decisions | Low-stakes, undifferentiated |
| Scale/Cost | Volume economics | Infrastructure-heavy, marginal cost near zero | Labor-intensive, linear cost |
| Regulatory | Compliance barriers | Certifications required, government contracts | No compliance requirements |
For micro-SaaS: Switching costs and brand/trust matter most. Network effects and scale rarely apply.
Rate each competitor's defensibility:
| Tier | Criteria | Evidence Signals | Targeting Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impenetrable | Multi-layered moat, 10+ years data lock-in | "Would take years to switch" | Avoid direct competition |
| Strong | Significant switching friction, 1-2 year contracts | High NPS + low churn despite complaints | Target underserved segments only |
| Moderate | Some friction, workarounds exist | Churn 5-10%, export options | Wedge opportunity exists |
| Weak | Easy to replace, commodity offering | Monthly plans, high churn, price shopping | Direct competition viable |
| Eroding | Former strength declining | New alternatives gaining share | Aggressive targeting |
Gate rule: Don't compete where incumbent has Impenetrable or Strong moat unless targeting segment they explicitly ignore.
Quantify ALL switching costs — the sum determines moat strength:
| Cost Type | High Impact | Low Impact | How to Assess |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial | >6mo contract, early termination fees | Monthly billing, no penalty | Check pricing page terms |
| Time/Effort | 40+ hr migration, retraining | <4 hr setup, familiar UX | Trial the competitor |
| Data Migration | Proprietary format, no export | Standard export (CSV, API) | Test export function |
| Workflow Retraining | Unique methodology, team habits | Standard patterns | Read onboarding docs |
| Integration Rework | Deep API dependencies | Standalone tool | Map their integrations |
Calculation: Sum hours + dollars. >$5K or >40hr = material switching cost.
Use moat analysis to determine where to compete:
Moat Impenetrable/Strong → DON'T COMPETE HERE
↓ unless
Target ignored segment (SMB, specific vertical)
Moat Moderate → WEDGE STRATEGY
↓ identify
Entry point that bypasses switching friction
Moat Weak/Eroding → DIRECT COMPETITION
↓ execute
Feature + price attack on their core
A wedge exists when:
Retrieve CFD- entries from v0.2 Competitive Landscape. For each competitor, you need: pricing, complaints, feature set.
For each competitor, determine primary moat type. Use evidence from reviews, pricing structure, integration depth.
Apply tier criteria. Flag if insufficient evidence (Tier 4-5 confidence).
Complete the 5-category switching cost assessment. Quantify hours + dollars.
Where is their moat weakest? Which segments do they ignore? What's eroding?
CFD entries (customer_feedback.md): Template: assets/cfd-moat-analysis.md
CFD-MOT-###: [Competitor] Moat Analysis — [Moat Type], [Strength Tier]
BR entries (BUSINESS_RULES.md): Template: assets/br-targeting.md
BR-TGT-###: [Targeting Rule] — based on [Competitor] moat weakness
| Don't | Do Instead |
|---|---|
| "They're big" | Specify which moat type + evidence |
| Assume low switching cost | Quantify: hours + dollars |
| Only analyze direct competitors | Include Type 4-5 (workarounds, inertia) |
| Underestimate integration moat | Map actual dependency depth |
| Ignore eroding moats | Track signals: new entrants, complaints |
| Target where moat is strong | Find the segment where moat doesn't apply |
Before advancing to Our Moat Articulation:
| Consumer | What It Needs | Format |
|---|---|---|
| v0.3 Our Moat Articulation | Where competitors are weak, what moats work | CFD-MOT entries |
| v0.3 Pricing Model | What price points bypass switching friction | BR-TGT entries |
| v0.5 Red Team | Risks of competitor response | Moat strength tiers |
| v0.9 GTM | Positioning against competitor moats | Targeting rules |
references/examples.mdassets/cfd-moat-analysis.mdassets/br-targeting.mdnpx claudepluginhub mattgierhart/prd-driven-context-engineering --plugin prd-ceAssesses a product or company's defensibility across 8 moat types using habit-forming product theory, the Fogg Behaviour Model, and aggregation theory. Active when users ask about moat analysis or defensibility.
Analyzes competitive landscapes using Porter's Five Forces, competitor discovery, feature/pricing matrices, positioning maps, and moat assessment via WebSearch.
Use this skill when the user asks about "7 powers", "Hamilton Helmer", "competitive moats", "how do we build a moat", "sustainable competitive advantage", "defensibility", "what makes us hard to copy", "long-term defensibility", or wants to evaluate which structural competitive advantages apply to their product and how to build them deliberately.