Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/ace3000chao/book2startup/strategy-diff-execnpx skills add ace3000chao/book2startup --skill strategy-diff-execgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ace3000chao/book2startupWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00007 | $0.02631 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00526 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00263 |
Grade A, and why
strategy-diff-exec scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Strategy Diff Exec（战略是差异化，执行不是）
R — 原文 (Reading)
"You can imitate most elements of strategy. But your 7 Strata — X-Factor, Brand Promise Guarantee, One-Phrase Strategy — if well designed, are hard to copy."
— Verne Harnish, Scaling Up, 第7章 7 Strata
I — 方法论骨架 (Interpretation)
Harnish的核心战略洞察：执行可以模仿，战略很难复制。
很多企业在竞争时犯了一个根本性错误：他们在"执行层面"竞争（更低的价格、更快的服务、更多的功能），而不是在"战略层面"竞争。执行竞争是一条没有终点的跑步机——你跑得再快，总有人能模仿你。
什么是"战略层面"的竞争？ Harnish提出的7 Strata框架中，有三个核心差异化要素（X-Factor、Brand Promise Guarantee、One-Phrase Strategy），它们之所以难以复制，是因为：
- X-Factor：组织独特的历史、关系、数据、能力组合，是时间积累出来的，无法速成
- Brand Promise Guarantee：对客户的公开承诺，具有法律和声誉的约束力，竞品抄不起
- One-Phrase Strategy：一句话说清的差异化定位，是整个组织的北极星
执行 vs 战略的具体区分：
| 执行层面（可模仿） | 战略层面（难复制） |
|---|---|
| 产品功能 | X-Factor |
| 服务速度 | Brand Promise |
| 营销手段 | One-Phrase定位 |
| 技术工具 | 组织能力 |
| 定价策略 | 客户关系 |
核心推论： 如果你的战略可以被竞品在6个月内复制，说明你还没有找到真正的战略。真正的战略飞轮是：战略差异化 → 执行强化 → 客户认可 → 积累壁垒 → 更大的战略空间。
A1 — 书中的应用 (Past Application)
案例 1: 某手机品牌的"战略VS执行"错位
- 问题: 某国产品牌在功能上全面对标苹果（A系列芯片、iOS生态、定价策略），但市场份额持续下滑
- 方法论的使用: 分析发现该品牌在对标的全是"执行层面"——芯片性能对比、摄像头参数对比、价格对比，这些都是执行层面的模仿
- 苹果真正的战略壁垒：iOS生态黏性、Apple ID锁定、开发者生态——这些无法被模仿
- 结论: 在执行层面模仿战略是永远追不上的，正确的竞争是"找到自己的X-Factor"
- 结果: 重新聚焦"拍照+轻薄+线下服务体验"三个执行维度，并将"30天无理由退换+终身贴膜"固化为Brand Promise Guarantee，找到了自己的战略立足点
案例 2: 西南航空的成本领先执行误区
- 问题: 多家航空公司模仿西南航空的"低成本运营"模式（单一机型、点对点航线、快速周转），但全部失败
- 方法论的使用: Harnish分析发现西南航空的真正战略不是"低成本执行"而是：
- X-Factor：员工与工会的特殊关系 + 几十年积累的"有趣文化"
- Brand Promise："准时、低价、友好"是有体系的承诺而非口号
- One-Phrase：成为"短途旅行的绝对首选"
- 结论: 模仿执行层面（低成本）但没有复制战略层面（X-Factor+Brand Promise），注定失败
- 结果: 其他航司纷纷恢复高价/全服务模式，证明执行模仿不等于战略成功
案例 3: 某餐饮连锁的"服务差异化"误区
- 问题: 某连锁餐饮在门店推行"海底捞式服务"（擦桌子、扯面表演、生日歌），执行了一段时间后服务人员集体疲惫，客户感知差异不明显
- 方法论的使用: 诊断发现：
- 模仿的是"服务执行"（扯面、表演）
- 海底捞真正的战略壁垒是"员工关怀体系"（住宿、成长通道、师徒制）——这是X-Factor
- 没有员工关怀体系支撑的"服务执行"只是东施效颦
- 结论: 服务员累死了，但客户感知不到战略价值
- 结果: 放弃模仿执行，转向"家庭友好型餐厅"的差异化战略（儿童座椅、亲子套餐、游乐区），与海底捞正面区隔
A2 — 触发场景 (Future Trigger) ★
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2d ago First seen · 170 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3a1f07550181
strategy-diff-exec is a skill published in the GitHub repository ace3000chao/book2startup (72 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 2,631 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…