playing-to-win

Develop a strategy using the Playing to Win cascade — Winning Aspiration, Where to Play, How to Win, Capabilities, and Management Systems. Use when you need to make strategic choices about markets, positioning, and competitive advantage.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-organized instruction skill with an actionable workflow, a ready-to-use output template, and clean progressive disclosure to a single reference file. The only meaningful weakness is minor conceptual restatement that assumes less prior knowledge than needed.

Suggestions

Tighten conciseness by removing or compressing concepts Claude already knows, e.g., drop the opening slogan 'Strategy is an integrated set of choices...' and the 'two generic strategies: cost leadership or differentiation' aside, leaving only decision-relevant guidance.

Keep the per-choice prose focused on the diagnostic prompt and the 'how to do it' instruction, moving any definitional restatement into framework.md where it is already covered.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and well-delegated to framework.md, but includes brief conceptual restatements Claude already knows ('Strategy is an integrated set of choices that positions you to win', 'There are only two generic strategies: cost leadership or differentiation'); not 3 due to these unnecessary explanations, not 1 because the bulk is lean action-oriented guidance.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete probing guidance per choice and a copy-paste output template with fill-in fields and tables; not below 3 because, for an instruction-only skill, the guidance is specific and executable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered 5-step sequence with an explicit coherence-check validation checkpoint and a 5-bullet checklist; not below 3 because validation steps and a checklist are present, and the operations are not destructive/batch so the strict feedback-loop cap does not apply.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Concise overview with one clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/framework.md (verified to exist and self-contained); not below 3 because content is appropriately split and navigation is easy.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

82%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A clear, well-structured description that answers both what and when with natural trigger terms and a named framework. The main weakness is mild overlap risk with adjacent strategy skills and a single-action framing rather than multiple distinct actions.

Suggestions

Sharpen distinctiveness by differentiating the trigger from sibling strategy skills (e.g., 'Use when making integrated strategic choices across a cascade' vs. validating existing advantage) so it does not overlap with 7-powers.

Reframe specificity from one action ('Develop a strategy') into a few distinct concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Map the five-choice cascade, test coherence, and surface must-be-true conditions').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Develop a strategy') and the five cascade components, but these are sub-parts of one action rather than multiple distinct concrete actions like the score-3 example; not below 2 because concrete actions and the framework are explicitly named.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what it does ('Develop a strategy using the Playing to Win cascade...') and an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; not below 3 because both what and when are explicit.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural terms a user would say — 'strategy', 'strategic choices', 'markets', 'positioning', 'competitive advantage'; not below 3 because these are genuine user-language triggers rather than jargon.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Playing to Win cascade framing is a distinct niche, but generic strategy triggers like 'competitive advantage' and 'positioning' could overlap with sibling strategy skills (e.g., 7-powers); not 3 due to this overlap risk, not 1 because the named framework is clearly distinguishable.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: amplitude/builder-skills
Commit: 22b0634

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.