Moat Definition

Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.3 Moat Definition → v0.3 Pricing Model Selection

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.2:

• Landscape map artifact (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, competitor analysis
• CFD-* entries (competitive intelligence, from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Documented competitors with pricing, features, user feedback
• BR-* product type entry (from Product Type Classification) — Classification constrains which competitors are relevant to analyze

This skill assumes v0.2 analysis is complete with documented competitors.

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• CFD-* entries (competitor moat analysis) — Assessment of each competitor's defensibility by moat type
• BR-* entries (targeting rules) — Constraints derived from moat analysis, defining where to compete vs. avoid
• Moat strength inventory artifact — Summary of competitor moats with vulnerability signals

All CFD moat analysis entries should include:

• confidence: 2-3/5 (based on public evidence + user interviews about switching friction)
• Evidence source (pricing pages, reviews, customer interviews)
• Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we interview 5+ current/former customers about switching costs"

Example moat analysis entry:

markdown
1CFD-055: Competitor Moat Analysis — Notion
2
3Competitor: Notion
4Primary Moat Type: Switching Costs (data lock-in)
5Moat Strength Tier: Strong
6Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 2-user-interviews)
7Date: 2026-02-01
8
9Switching Cost Quantification:
10  - Financial: Multi-year contract, no early termination ($0 direct cost)
11  - Time/Effort: 20+ hours migration, team retraining
12  - Data Migration: Proprietary database format (complex export)
13  - Workflow Retraining: Unique templates, team habits
14  - Integration Rework: Deep Slack/GitHub dependencies
15
16Total Switching Cost: $3K in labor + 20 hours = Material friction
17Moat Verdict: Strong — switching costs >$3K + meaningful time investment
18
19Vulnerability Signal: SMB segment with small teams; they use <20% of feature set (opportunity for simpler tool)
20Targeting Decision: Avoid direct competition. Wedge in SMB with simplified, cheaper offering.
21
22Evidence:
23  - CFD-042 (landscape): Reviews show enterprise love; SMB complaints focus on cost + complexity
24  - CFD-015 (value hypothesis): SMB would save $12,500/year with simpler tool
25Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we interview 5+ SMB teams about exact switching cost dollars"

Moat Type Taxonomy

Every moat falls into one of six types. Identify primary + secondary moats per competitor:

For micro-SaaS: Switching costs and brand/trust matter most. Network effects and scale rarely apply.

Moat Strength Tiers

Rate each competitor's defensibility:

Gate rule: Don't compete where incumbent has Impenetrable or Strong moat unless targeting segment they explicitly ignore.

Switching Cost Inventory

Quantify ALL switching costs — the sum determines moat strength:

Calculation: Sum hours + dollars. >$5K or >40hr = material switching cost.

Targeting Decision Framework

Use moat analysis to determine where to compete:

Moat Impenetrable/Strong → DON'T COMPETE HERE
                          ↓ unless
                          Target ignored segment (SMB, specific vertical)
                          
Moat Moderate → WEDGE STRATEGY
                ↓ identify
                Entry point that bypasses switching friction
                
Moat Weak/Eroding → DIRECT COMPETITION
                    ↓ execute
                    Feature + price attack on their core

Wedge Opportunity Signals

A wedge exists when:

• Competitor moat doesn't apply to specific segment
• One feature has LOW switching cost (can start there)
• Integration allows coexistence (not replacement)
• Price sensitivity > switching friction

Analysis Workflow

Step 1: Pull Competitor Data

Retrieve CFD- entries from v0.2 Competitive Landscape. For each competitor, you need: pricing, complaints, feature set.

Step 2: Identify Moat Type

For each competitor, determine primary moat type. Use evidence from reviews, pricing structure, integration depth.

Step 3: Rate Moat Strength

Apply tier criteria. Flag if insufficient evidence (Tier 4-5 confidence).

Step 4: Inventory Switching Costs

Complete the 5-category switching cost assessment. Quantify hours + dollars.

Step 5: Identify Vulnerabilities

Where is their moat weakest? Which segments do they ignore? What's eroding?

Step 6: Generate IDs

CFD entries (customer_feedback.md): Template: assets/cfd-moat-analysis.md

CFD-MOT-###: [Competitor] Moat Analysis — [Moat Type], [Strength Tier]

BR entries (BUSINESS_RULES.md): Template: assets/br-targeting.md

BR-TGT-###: [Targeting Rule] — based on [Competitor] moat weakness

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Output Requirements

Before advancing to Our Moat Articulation:

• ≥3 competitors with moat type identified
• ≥2 competitors with switching costs quantified
• Moat strength tier assigned (with evidence)
• Targeting decision per competitor (compete/avoid/wedge)
• CFD-MOT entries created (≥3)
• BR-TGT entries created (≥2)

Downstream Connections

Detailed References

• Good/bad examples: See references/examples.md
• CFD-MOT template: See assets/cfd-moat-analysis.md
• BR-TGT template: See assets/br-targeting.md