Go to market strategy

Go-to-Market-Strategy — Skill

How This Works

Assigns a launch tier and generates a complete GTM strategy brief grounded in your brain and sharper with every launch. Not a template-filler. A strategic thinking partner that interrogates scope before recommending resource investment.

The skill runs in 7 steps:

Step 0 — Load brain context (ICP, positioning, competitive landscape, proof points, launch history) and guardrails from /context/meta-patterns.md (e.g., "T2 launches with <0.5 launch readiness score have underperformed 80% of the time").

Step 1 — Intake: Initiative name, success metric (90 days), timeline.

Step 2 — Load brain silently (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7).

Step 3 — Apply four-signal tier assignment (market impact, revenue potential, competitive urgency, resource requirement).

Step 4 — Generate full GTM brief (7 sections: strategic context, channels, metrics, competitive, proof points, timeline, next steps).

Step 5 — Update brain Section 7 with new launch entry (on user confirmation).

Step 6 — Output markdown brief, copy-paste ready.

Step 7 — Log session to /context/skill-sessions.md with quality score, tier assigned, signals applied, confidence, guardrails triggered, brain updates proposed.

---

Step 0 — Pre-Flight: Load Context & Surface Guardrails

Before intake, load:

• Brain context (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7): ICP, positioning, competitive landscape, proof points, launch history — these anchor all tier signals
• Guardrails from /context/meta-patterns.md: If a pattern fired 2+ times in prior GTM briefs (e.g., "T2 launches with launch readiness <0.5 fail," "Product launches without proof points slip 3+ weeks"), surface it now

Surface guardrails like this:

🔁 PATTERN FROM PRIOR GTM BRIEFS

I've seen [pattern description] in 2+ prior sessions.
Examples: [specific launches or outcomes]

Quick check: Does this apply to your initiative?
- If YES → We'll watch for this during brief generation
- If NO → Let's flag it if it emerges

You can skip a guardrail if you disagree, but you'll see it first.

Gate check — block if brain is missing: If /foundation/brain.md is absent or Section 2 (ICP) is empty, block and surface:

"Brain not found. Run product-marketing-context first. GTM strategy without ICP and positioning produces generic output, not defensible strategy."

---

Step 1 — Intake (Conversational, One Round)

Ask in one message. Never generate brief before this is complete.

"Before I assign a tier and build the brief, three things I need:

1. What's the initiative? (Product, feature, pricing change, new segment, market expansion — one sentence)

2. What does success look like in 90 days? Specific metric with a number.

3. Timeline? Launch date or rough window."

Reflect back in 2 sentences:

"Got it. We're launching [X] for [segment] with a goal of [metric] by [date]. Let me check the brain and assign a tier."

---

Step 2 — Load Brain Context

Load silently. Extract Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. Do not narrate.

If launch history (Section 7) shows a tier calibration mismatch (T2 that performed like T1, or T1 that underdelivered), surface as calibration note before assigning tier.

---

Step 3 — Assign Tier

Apply all four signals before assigning. Single signal does not override others.

Signal	T1	T2	T3	T4
Market impact	New category or primary segment	Major new segment or significant feature	Existing segment, incremental feature	Internal only, maintenance
Revenue potential	Materially moves ARR/NRR	Meaningful pipeline contribution	Conversion or retention support	Minimal or indirect
Competitive urgency	Closes gap or creates advantage	Responds to or anticipates competitor	No immediate pressure	n/a
Resource requirement	All teams, full budget, exec visibility	2–4 teams, dedicated PMM, targeted budget	PMM + one team, standard budget	Minimal, no external comms

Tier definitions:

• T1 — Company bet. 6–12 weeks. All channels. Full exec alignment.
• T2 — Major initiative. 2–4 weeks. Targeted GTM. Dedicated PMM.
• T3 — Routine launch. 1 week. Focused enablement. Limited external comms.
• T4 — Minimal lift. Internal or beta only. Changelog or in-product only.

Calibration check: Before confirming tier, check Section 7. If similar initiative was under- or over-resourced, adjust and name precedent:

"Based on [prior launch], similar scope was assigned T2 but performed at T1. Recommending T1 here to avoid under-resourcing."

Output tier with one-sentence rationale before generating brief:

[T#] — [one sentence why, grounded in the four signals]

---

Step 4 — Generate Full GTM Brief

Generate only after tier is assigned. Structure (7 sections):

## GTM Brief — [Initiative Name]
**Tier:** [T1 / T2 / T3 / T4]
**Rationale:** [one sentence — four signals applied]
**Launch date:** [date or range]
**DRI:** [name]
**Success metric:** [specific number + timeframe]

### Strategic Context
**Why now:** [1–2 sentences on market timing or competitive signal]
**ICP fit:** [Who specifically this is for, from brain Section 2 + buying trigger]
**Positioning angle:** [Sharpest differentiator, from brain Section 3]

### Channel Strategy
| Channel | Why | Tactic | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Primary] | [Specific reason tied to ICP] | [Concrete tactic] | [Function] |
| [Secondary] | [Specific reason] | [Concrete tactic] | [Function] |

### Success Metrics
| Metric | Type | Target | Timeframe | Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Primary] | Lagging | [number] | [date] | [where] |
| [Leading indicator 1] | Leading | [number] | [earlier date] | [where] |
| [Leading indicator 2] | Leading | [number] | [earlier date] | [where] |

### Competitive Context
**Primary alternative:** [From brain Section 4]
**Defensive angle:** [What you say when they bring it up]
**Attack angle:** [Specific gap the alternative has]

### Proof Points
- [Claim + metric or quote]
- [Claim + metric or quote]

⚠️ [If missing proof points: flag]

### Timeline
| Week | Milestone | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| -4 to -2 | Pre-launch prep | PMM |
| -1 | Launch readiness check | PMM + Sales |
| 0 | Launch day | All |
| +2 | First signal check | PMM |
| +12 | Retro trigger | PMM |

### Next Steps
1. Confirm tier and brief with [stakeholder] by [date]
2. Run positioning-messaging to sharpen angles
3. Run pre-mortem to stress-test
4. Run stakeholder-maps for internal alignment
5. After launch, run retro → updates brain Section 7

---

Step 5 — Update Brain Section 7 (on Confirmation)

After brief confirmed by user:

"Logging to brain Section 7 as Planned. Run retro after launch to update with actuals."

Write to /foundation/brain.md Section 7:

## Launch: [Initiative Name]
- **Date planned:** [launch date]
- **Tier assigned:** [T#]
- **Tier rationale:** [one sentence]
- **Primary metric:** [metric + target]
- **Status:** Planned
- **Actuals:** [Updated after retro]

---

Step 6 — Post-Session Logging

Log to /context/skill-sessions.md with YAML metadata:

skill: go-to-market-strategy
session_date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
decision_type: [new brief / tier calibration / launch audit]
initiative_name: [Name]
initiative_type: [product launch / feature / pricing change / segment entry / market expansion]
quality_score: [0-100]
tier_assigned: [T1/T2/T3/T4]
tier_rationale: [one-sentence rationale]
four_signals:
  - "Market impact: [score reasoning]"
  - "Revenue potential: [score reasoning]"
  - "Competitive urgency: [score reasoning]"
  - "Resource requirement: [score reasoning]"
confidence_score: [🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴]
launch_readiness_score: [0-1.0, if calibration mode]
guardrails_triggered:
  - "[Pattern name if surfaced]"
brain_context_loaded: true
brain_sections_referenced:
  - "ICP (Section 2)"
  - "Positioning (Section 3)"
  - "Competitive (Section 4)"
  - "Proof points (Section 5)"
  - "Launch history (Section 7)"
brain_updates_proposed:
  - "[Emerging pattern or meta-learning, if any]"
calibration_note: "[Prior launch precedent if applicable]"
leading_indicators_count: [count]
proof_point_gaps: [count, if any]
brain_write_executed: [true/false]
success_metric: [metric + target]
output_path: "[Where brief was saved]"

Quality score: 90+ = All four signals applied, proof points present, leading indicators clear. 70+ = Most signals applied, some gaps in proof points. <70 = Major gaps in reasoning.

---

Operating Rules

• Load brain before intake. ICP and launch history change what tier is appropriate.
• First-run blocks without brain. Missing brain triggers onboarding, not a warning.
• All four tier signals must be applied. Revenue alone does not make something T1.
• Tier rationale mandatory. One-sentence grounded reason required. "It feels big" is not a rationale.
• Leading indicators required. Every brief has ≥1 leading indicator + primary metric.
• Channel recommendations ICP-specific. Every channel tied to ICP + motion type, not generic.
• Calibration history checked. Before confirming tier, check Section 7 for precedent.
• Brain write requires explicit confirmation. Ask before writing to Section 7.
• Proof point gaps must be flagged. If brief requires unverified claim, surface before launch.

---

Quality Gate

Check	Pass =
Four signals applied	All signals reasoned through before tier assigned
Brain loaded	Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 extracted before brief
Intake complete	Initiative reflected back and confirmed
Leading indicator present	≥1 leading indicator + primary metric
Channel specificity	Every channel has ICP-specific reason
Competitive context	Primary alternative + attack/defend angles
Proof point check	Missing proof points flagged if brief requires them
Timeline present	Tier-appropriate timeline with milestones
Next steps include retro	Retro named as post-launch trigger
Brain write confirmed	User accepted before writing Section 7

---

Self-Improvement Loop

Each session logs to /context/skill-sessions.md with:

• Tier assigned and four signals reasoning
• Launch readiness calibration (if auditing)
• Guardrails triggered and usefulness
• Proof point gaps discovered
• Brain updates proposed

Monthly, meta-synthesis reads logs and detects patterns:

• "T2 launches with <0.5 readiness have underperformed" → Guardrail surfaces next time
• "Tier calibration drift: we systematically over-assign T1" → Recommend recalibration
• "Proof point gaps in positioning cause messaging rework" → Alert positioning skill

Patterns feed back into guardrail injection (Step 0) and brain updates (Section 7).

---

Do Not Use For

• workflow-orchestrator — for chaining multiple skills end-to-end
• positioning-messaging — for messaging work (use after this skill)
• pre-mortem — for risk analysis (use after this skill)
• retro — for post-launch review (run after)