icp-positioning

ICP & Positioning

Reference

• ID: S-PROD-01
• Category: Product
• Inputs: market research, user interviews, competitive landscape, product capabilities
• Outputs: ICP document and positioning statement → artifacts/product/
• Used by: Product Agent
• Tool scripts: ./tools/artifact/validate.sh

Purpose

Produces a clear ideal customer profile (ICP) and positioning statement that align the team on who the product is built for, what problem it solves, and why it wins against alternatives.

Procedure

Step 0: Evidence Check

If no user evidence exists (no CONV- artifacts in artifacts/decision-memos/, no interview summaries):

Produce a Hypothesis ICP with clearly labeled assumptions:

• Each assumption should have a validation method (interview question, signup data, usage metric)
• Tag artifact status draft and add assumption_based: true to frontmatter
• Once 5+ customer conversations validate or invalidate assumptions, update to Evidence ICP and promote to review

Proceed to full evidence-based ICP when sufficient data exists.

1. Gather inputs: market research data, user interview summaries, competitor analysis.
2. Define ICP demographics: company size, industry, role/title, budget range.
3. Define ICP psychographics: pain points, goals, buying triggers, objections.
4. Identify the primary job-to-be-done the product addresses for this ICP.
5. Map the competitive landscape — direct competitors, indirect alternatives, status quo.
6. Draft a positioning statement using the format: For [ICP] who [need], [Product] is a [category] that [key benefit] unlike [alternatives] because [differentiator].
7. Validate positioning against known customer feedback and win/loss data.
8. Save ICP document and positioning statement to artifacts/product/.
9. Validate the artifact using ./tools/artifact/validate.sh.

Quality Checklist

• [ ] ICP is specific enough to disqualify non-ideal customers
• [ ] Pain points are grounded in real user evidence, not assumptions
• [ ] Competitive landscape includes at least the top 3 alternatives
• [ ] Positioning statement follows the standard format
• [ ] Differentiator is defensible and not easily copied
• [ ] Document links to supporting evidence (interviews, data)
• [ ] Artifact passes validation