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 skills add daddia/claude-for-strategy --skill test-positioninggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/daddia/claude-for-strategyWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/test-positioning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/test-positioning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/test-positioning/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/test-positioning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/test-positioning.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What 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 5.1 | $0.00056 | $0.01163 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00465 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
test-positioning 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 1mo 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 — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Positioning
When to use
When a positioning claim needs trade-off discipline — what you're choosing not to do — before treating it as strategy.
What this skill does not do
- Does not write positioning from scratch — tests an existing claim; practice-setup captures baseline.
- Does not map competitors — route to
/market-intelligence:map-competitive-landscape. - Does not validate marketing slogans without trade-offs — flags aspiration vs. strategic choice.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Positioning statement (profile or user) | Ask user to state claim |
| Practice profile | Proceed from user input |
map-incentives output (optional) |
Skip incentive coherence check; note gap |
Provisional mode
No trade-off named by user: output TRADE-OFF: NONE FOUND and stop short of validating as real strategic choice.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
option-evaluation):- High: Trade-off explicit, stuck-in-the-middle check passed, alienation assessed, incentive coherence checked.
- Medium: Trade-off named but alienation acceptance unclear —
[review]. - Low: No trade-off — positioning flagged as aspiration only.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces trade-offs and failures; does not declare positioning "good" or "bad."
- Client confidentiality: Positioning may be pre-release — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: "Who this alienates" forces deliberate acceptance question.
- Analytical Rigor: Stuck-in-the-middle pattern named directly when present.
- Incentive Gaming: Checks whether internal incentives undermine stated position.
- Escalation triggers: Stuck-in-the-middle with no structural mechanism — flag as blocking for strategy credibility.
Workflow
- Read the practice profile for current positioning.
- State the positioning as claimed, plainly.
- Demand the trade-off — segment, use case, or feature set walked away from. If none: flag explicitly.
- Check stuck-in-the-middle — cost leadership + differentiation without credible mechanism.
- Stress-test who this alienates — deliberate and accepted, or unexamined side-effect?
- Check incentive coherence against
map-incentivesif available. - Validate before output: trade-off discipline applied; no false validation of slogans.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 117 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A c8438eb15669
test-positioning is a skill published in the GitHub repository daddia/claude-for-strategy (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,163 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Run the full pre-merge panel: parallel audit and lens reviewers over a diff, consolidated into one severity-ranked verdict.
to-tickets
Slice a spec or a ticket into tracer-bullet tickets with blocking edges, published through the repo's tracker: .specs/tickets/ .md by default.
tdd
Test-driven development, from unit to end-to-end tests. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration or end-to-end tests (Playwright, Cypress). Don't use to backfill tests on existing code (/refactor) or diagnose an unknown bug (/debug).
visual-review
Two visual modes — render a PR diff as an HTML page with each hunk annotated by principle, or check a UI change in a real browser (screenshots, console, network). Use for a visual/HTML diff report, "check the UI", or "screenshot before/after". Don't use for text-only feedback (/code-review), unit tests (/tdd), or full…
to-pr
Gate, push, and open a GitHub pull request on the repo's PR template, then watch CI.
debate
Settle a go/no-go on one risky change against an alternative through an advocate, a skeptic, and a neutral investigator.