Assess moat sources
Skill Agent-Engineer-Master/skill-engineer/strategy/industry-analysis/assess-moat-sources
Shared public skills developed by Skill Engineer
npx -y skills add Agent-Engineer-Master/skill-engineer --skill assess-moat-sourcesAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 6 stars6 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Assesses which of Helmer's 7 Powers (scale economies, network economies, counter-positioning, switching costs, branding, cornered resource, process power) protect incumbents in a defined industry, how durable each is over the analysis horizon, and which Power combination the winning archetype must hold. Output: moat-sources.md with per-Power present/absent + intensity, benefit + barrier decomposition for each present Power, durability rating (erosion timeframe + vector), buildability for a new entrant or roll-up, winner-archetype Power profile, durability risks, and reconciliation against value-chain-profit-pools.md if present. Sub-skill of analyze-industry; invocable standalone. Triggers on 'assess moat for [industry]', '7 powers analysis of [industry]', 'how durable is the moat in [industry]', 'moat durability [industry]', 'will the moat hold'. Do NOT use for single-company moat (use build-company-model), customer-lock-in only (use analyze-demand), or share analysis (use map-competitive-arena).
SKILL.md
9.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Assess Moat Sources
For a defined industry, assess which of Helmer's 7 Powers protect incumbents (and which can be built by a new entrant), how durable each is, and what Power combination the winning archetype must hold. Output: moat-sources.md with per-Power assessment + durability + buildability + winner-archetype profile.
The discipline: moat is not a vibe. Helmer's 7 Powers is the canonical taxonomy: each Power requires a benefit (cash-flow improvement via higher price, lower cost, or reduced investment) AND a barrier (an obstacle that prevents competitors from arbitraging the benefit away). Without both, it is not a Power — it is operational excellence, branding aspiration, or wishful thinking.
Iron rules:
- All 7 Powers explicitly assessed (present / absent / nascent) — none silently omitted.
- For each present Power: explicit
benefit:statement +barrier:statement. Both required. - Durability rating per present Power: erosion timeframe (short <3y / medium 3-7y / long >7y) with named erosion vector.
- Buildability for new-entrant / roll-up archetype: per Power, can a well-resourced entrant build it within horizon? Conditions required?
- Winner-archetype Power profile: name the minimum Power combination an industry winner must hold.
- Power Progression alignment: cross-reference industry/company stage (per
analyze-trajectoryif present) — origination vs takeoff vs stability Powers. - Cross-reference reconciliation: if
working/value-chain-profit-pools.mdexists, the structural protection named there MUST match this skill's dominant Power. Mismatch flagged explicitly for Gate 2. - V/C/A/I tagging on every fact-claim per
../_shared/provenance-tagging.md. - 2026 vocabulary per
../_shared/2026-terminology.md— "strategic power" not "moat" in body prose; "moat" only in shorthand. - Append
next_skills:YAML at end of output.
Process
1. Intake
Confirm: industry slug, analysis horizon (5y / 10y default), whether a roll-up / new-entrant archetype is in scope. Read references/seven-powers-canonical.md for the verified Helmer definitions.
2. Per-Power diagnostic sweep
For each of the 7 Powers, run the diagnostic in references/power-diagnostics.md. Mark present / absent / nascent with one-line evidence. For each present Power, write paired:
benefit:what does the customer/holder get (higher price extracted / lower cost / lower investment)?barrier:why specifically cannot competitors replicate this within the horizon?
Both lines required. Missing either = not a Power.
3. Durability assessment
For each present Power, rate erosion timeframe per references/durability-assessment.md:
- Short (<3y): named erosion vector active now (e.g., AI agent reducing switching costs; expiring patent; commoditising standard)
- Medium (3-7y): erosion vector visible but not yet binding
- Long (>7y): no credible erosion vector identified within horizon
Name the erosion vector specifically. "Will erode eventually" is not an assessment.
4. Buildability for new entrant / roll-up
For each Power, per references/buildability-assessment.md, answer: can a well-resourced new entrant or roll-up platform build this Power within the horizon? Required conditions? Capital? Time?
This is the load-bearing output for the orchestrator's "roll-up archetype" questions.
5. Winner-archetype Power profile
Name the minimum Power combination the industry winner must hold. Be specific: not "scale + network" but "MES-scale in distribution + 2-sided network economies between buyer and seller". Reference Power Progression: which Powers are available at the current S-curve stage of the industry?
6. Cross-reference reconciliation
If working/value-chain-profit-pools.md exists:
- Read the structural-protection statement for the highest-EBIT stage.
- Compare to the dominant Power identified in step 5.
- Write a
## Cross-reference reconciliationsection that explicitly:- Quotes the value-chain-profit-pools Power name.
- States this skill's dominant Power name.
- Concludes:
MATCH/MISMATCH — flag for Gate 2.
- If MISMATCH, do NOT silently override either skill. Surface the contradiction with the candidate resolution (which is more likely correct + why).
If working/five-forces.md exists, also cross-reference: the governing force should be consistent with the dominant Power (e.g., high buyer power is inconsistent with strong switching-costs Power on the seller side).
7. Named durability risks
List the top 3 risks that could erode the winner-archetype's Power combination within horizon. Each risk: trigger event + estimated probability band + estimated impact. AI as a force is explicitly considered per references/seven-powers-canonical.md "AI impact" section.
8. Validate + write output
Run python scripts/validate_moat.py --output-path <path>. Write to working/moat-sources.md (orchestrator) or standalone/assess-moat-sources-YYYY-MM-DD.md (standalone).
HTML on request (standalone only): markdown is the default and the only format the validator and the orchestrator consume. If the user explicitly asks for an HTML version of a standalone run, then after validation passes, also render the output via the html-output skill and review it per ../_shared/output-conventions.md § "HTML deliverables and quality review". Never produce HTML automatically.
9. Append next_skills: YAML
At end of file. Example:
---
next_skills:
- analyze-trajectory # confirm Power Progression matches S-curve stage
- map-competitive-arena # identify which players hold which Powers
---
Gotchas
- Symptom: Power named without benefit + barrier decomposition. Cause: writer asserted "scale economies" without specifying MES or the cost penalty for sub-scale players. Fix: validator rejects any present-Power assertion without both
benefit:andbarrier:lines. - Symptom: "first-mover advantage" listed as a Power. Cause: position confused with structure. Fix: first-mover is durable only if it enabled a named Power (network economies, cornered resource). Validator rejects standalone.
- Symptom: "operational excellence" / "execution" labelled as Process Power. Cause: symptom confused with structure. Fix: Process Power requires multi-year compounding AND evidence that competitors who poached senior leaders could not replicate. Validator rejects "operational excellence" / "execution" alone.
- Symptom: only 3-4 Powers discussed; remainder silently omitted. Cause: writer focused on present Powers and skipped absent ones. Fix: validator counts explicit assessments for all 7 Powers (present OR absent OR nascent).
- Symptom: durability rated "long" with no erosion vector named. Cause: assumed permanence. Fix: validator requires an erosion vector phrase for every present Power, even if rated long.
- Symptom: value-chain-profit-pools.md says "branding" protects the highest pool, but moat-sources.md names "switching costs" as dominant. Cause: sub-skills written independently. Fix: step 6 reconciliation required; mismatch blocks Gate 2.
- Symptom: AI dismissed in one sentence. Cause: under-engagement with the strongest current erosion vector for 2026-era assessments. Fix: named-risks section must explicitly consider AI's effect on Switching Costs, Branding, and Scale Economies per
references/seven-powers-canonical.md.
Rules
- Never name a Power without explicit benefit + barrier.
- Never silently omit a Power — all 7 receive an explicit assessment.
- Never label "first-mover" / "differentiation" / "execution" / "expertise" / "relationships" / "quality" / "complexity" / "adds value" / "is critical" as a Power.
- Never declare a Power durable without naming the erosion vector being assessed against.
- Never override
value-chain-profit-pools.mdsilently — mismatches surfaced explicitly. - Every fact-claim carries a V/C/A/I tag.
- All file reads use
encoding='utf-8'.
Old patterns
v1.0 (2026-05-18) initial build. Canonical 7 Powers verified against Helmer (2016) + 2024-26 commentary including Strategy Capital posts and the Lenny's Newsletter interview on AI impact. Built as Phase 2 sub-skill of analyze-industry with explicit Gate 2 reconciliation against map-value-chain-profit-pools.md. Inherits _shared/provenance-tagging.md + _shared/2026-terminology.md.
<!-- Built with Agent Engineer Master — get your own production-ready skill: www.agentengineermaster.com/skill-engineer -->