mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC.git
synced 2026-09-18 07:37:59 +02:00
754b8dd76c
* fix: make the installer runtime pass strict supply-chain vetting
Remediate the four enterprise supply-chain vetting blockers from
affaan-m/ECC#2502 so the installer runtime (package.json + manifests +
scripts/lib/**) passes strict exact-pin evidence policy:
1. Remove the package.json `postinstall` lifecycle script (it only echoed a
post-install banner) and move that banner to an explicit opt-in
`npm run welcome` command. No install-time lifecycle script remains.
2. Exact-pin every dependency in package.json (dependencies + devDependencies)
to the versions already resolved in package-lock.json; no ^/~ ranges.
3. Replace non-ASCII characters on the installer runtime script/config surface:
em-dashes (U+2014) in scripts/lib/{path-safety,install-executor,
install/link-rewrite}.js comments and the two "Itô" (U+00F4) occurrences in
manifests/{install-components,install-modules}.json descriptions become
ASCII, so strict-surface Unicode scanners are clean.
4. Drop the bare `require("ajv")` from scripts/lib/install-state.js; the file
already carries a complete hand-rolled validator enforcing the same
schemas/install-state.schema.json (ecc.install.v1) constraints, so the
installer closure is dependency-free (zero non-builtin bare requires).
Refs affaan-m/ECC#2502
* fix: avoid unpinned welcome invocations
Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>
* fix: validate translated skill frontmatter
Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>
* fix: repair skill frontmatter YAML
Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>
* fix: add MIT license to core skill manifests; pin verification-loop tsc invocation
* fix: preserve tsc/pyright exit status in verification-loop type-check (set -o pipefail)
* chore(deps): sync lockfiles with exact-pinned package.json
Regenerate package-lock.json and yarn.lock so the pinned dependency
specs are reflected in both lockfiles. npm ci and Yarn's --immutable
install now pass the sync check. The resolution tree is unchanged
(231 yarn resolutions, byte-identical set; zero npm transitive drift);
only the root descriptor strings move from ranges to the versions
already resolved in the committed lockfiles.
Addresses the Codex P1 on #2503.
---------
Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Samarjeet Singh Tomar <samartomar@gmail.com>
192 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
192 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: benchmark-methodology
|
||
description: >-
|
||
Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set.
|
||
Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice,
|
||
visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought
|
||
leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics
|
||
and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.
|
||
license: MIT
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Benchmark Methodology
|
||
|
||
Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
|
||
scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
|
||
explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
|
||
the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
|
||
number for any competitor.
|
||
|
||
## When to Activate
|
||
|
||
- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
|
||
- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
|
||
- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
|
||
- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
|
||
|
||
## Client positioning brief (establish first)
|
||
|
||
Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
|
||
|
||
- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
|
||
intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
|
||
the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
|
||
- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
|
||
dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
|
||
- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
|
||
recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
|
||
|
||
## Why these dimensions
|
||
|
||
The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
|
||
service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
|
||
dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
|
||
together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
|
||
achieves both simultaneously.
|
||
|
||
## The nine dimensions (with weights)
|
||
|
||
Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
|
||
composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
|
||
|
||
1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
|
||
sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
|
||
2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
|
||
ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
|
||
3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
|
||
system; site as proof-of-craft.
|
||
4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
|
||
sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
|
||
5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
|
||
case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
|
||
6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
|
||
and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
|
||
7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
|
||
newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
|
||
8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
|
||
legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
|
||
9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
|
||
report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
|
||
client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
|
||
target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
|
||
there?
|
||
|
||
## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
|
||
|
||
Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
|
||
specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
|
||
|
||
- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
|
||
from a template. Active liability.
|
||
- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
|
||
Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
|
||
- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
|
||
expectation, ownable by nobody.
|
||
- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
|
||
would notice and cite.
|
||
- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
|
||
bar others react to.
|
||
|
||
### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
|
||
|
||
Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
|
||
brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
|
||
|
||
- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
|
||
5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
|
||
- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
|
||
unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
|
||
|
||
Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
|
||
the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
|
||
important finding of the benchmark.
|
||
|
||
## How to collect the data
|
||
|
||
For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
|
||
|
||
1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
|
||
posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
|
||
study.
|
||
2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
|
||
Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
|
||
verifiable).
|
||
3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
|
||
→ credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
|
||
4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
|
||
thought leadership, model.
|
||
5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
|
||
the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
|
||
6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
|
||
|
||
**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
|
||
source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
|
||
|
||
## Bias controls
|
||
|
||
- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
|
||
separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
|
||
- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
|
||
self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
|
||
- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
|
||
they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
|
||
credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
|
||
- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
|
||
lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
|
||
credibility.
|
||
- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
|
||
note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
|
||
- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
|
||
scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
|
||
Adjust outliers.
|
||
|
||
## Competitor profile card (output format)
|
||
|
||
Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
|
||
from:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
## <Competitor name>
|
||
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
|
||
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
|
||
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
|
||
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
|
||
|
||
### Dimension scores
|
||
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
|
||
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
|
||
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
|
||
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
|
||
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
|
||
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
|
||
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
|
||
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
|
||
|
||
### Tension plot
|
||
- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
|
||
- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
|
||
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
|
||
|
||
### Read for [client]
|
||
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
|
||
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
|
||
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
|
||
|
||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||
|
||
- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
|
||
- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
|
||
- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
|
||
- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
|
||
- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
|
||
|
||
## Related Skills
|
||
|
||
- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
|
||
- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.
|