Go To Market Strategy

Purpose

Produce an elite-tier go-to-market strategy document that identifies the market wedge, selects and scores beachhead segments, designs channel strategy with unit economics, sequences launch phases with gates and kill criteria, positions against competitors, and defines success metrics with explicit failure conditions — a GTM strategy a PM cannot produce unaided. The output is a GTM Strategy Document — not a launch checklist, but a structural argument for how to win the first customers and compound from there.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Launching a new product or feature into a market (new or existing)
• Entering a new market with an existing product
• Pivoting an existing product's GTM motion (e.g., sales-led to product-led)
• Evaluating whether a market entry is viable (go/no-go decision)
• Designing channel strategy with unit economics constraints
• Planning launch sequencing with explicit gates and kill criteria
• Assessing launch readiness before committing budget

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need a competitive analysis without a launch plan (use Competitive Market Analysis skill)
• You need a product specification (use Specification Writing skill)
• You need to validate a problem exists before solving it (use Problem Framing skill)
• You need to run experiments to validate assumptions (use Metric Design & Experimentation skill)
• You need a marketing campaign plan (this produces strategy, not execution assets)
• The product is already at scale and you need retention/growth optimization (this is for market entry, not market defense)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

• Marketing copy, email sequences, or campaign assets (downstream of GTM strategy)
• Pricing model design in isolation (pricing is one dimension of channel economics here, not the sole output)
• Organizational design for GTM teams (team structure follows strategy, not the other way around)
• International expansion playbooks (this covers market entry logic; localization is a separate discipline)

---

Context Gate (Step -1: Is GTM Strategy the Right Artifact?)

Before applying any framework, verify that a GTM strategy document is what the situation actually needs. The most common failure mode is producing an excellent GTM strategy for a product that shouldn't be launched yet.

Run these checks BEFORE proceeding:

| Check | Question | If NO → Redirect | |-------|----------|-------------------| | Problem validated? | Has the problem been validated with ≥5 target users? | → Problem Framing skill first. A GTM strategy for an unvalidated problem is a plan to efficiently deliver something nobody wants. | | Product exists or is specced? | Is there a product, prototype, or detailed spec to launch? | → Specification Writing skill first. GTM without a product is strategy theater. | | Market is external? | Is the target market external customers, not internal adoption? | → For internal rollout (enterprise feature adoption, internal tool deployment), GTM frameworks over-engineer the problem. Use a simpler adoption playbook. | | Competitive landscape known? | Do you know who the alternatives are (including "do nothing")? | → Run Competitive Market Analysis skill first, or do lightweight competitor scan. GTM positioning requires knowing what you're positioning against. | | Decision authority exists? | Is there someone who can act on this GTM strategy? | → If this is exploratory ("should we even consider this market?"), produce a market entry memo instead of a full GTM strategy. |

If all checks pass: Proceed to Framework Selection (Step 0).

If 1-2 checks fail: Note the gaps explicitly in the output header and proceed with caveats. Flag which sections are hypothetical.

If 3+ checks fail: Stop. The right artifact is not a GTM strategy. Recommend the upstream skill.

---

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Document

| Time Available | What to Read | What You'll Get | |---------------|-------------|-----------------| | 5 minutes | Executive Summary + Segment Selection table + Failure Criteria table | Go/no-go signal, who to target first, when to stop | | 15 minutes | Above + Market Entry Thesis + Channel Strategy + Launch Sequence | Full strategic logic: why this market, how to reach customers, what order | | 30 minutes | Full document | Complete GTM strategy with all frameworks, unit economics, positioning, and self-critique |

| Your Role | Start Here | Focus On | |-----------|-----------|----------| | VP/GM | Executive Summary → Failure Criteria → Assumption Registry | Decision: fund this GTM or not. Kill criteria tell you when to pull the plug. | | PM | Full document, sequentially | You own execution. Every section has specific actions, timelines, and gates. | | Marketing Lead | Positioning section → Channel Strategy → Launch Sequence | Positioning statement, channel selection, launch phases and messaging per phase. | | Sales Lead | Segment Selection → Channel Strategy (direct sales row) → Battlecards | Who to call, what to say, how to handle objections. | | Finance/Ops | Channel Unit Economics → Launch Sequence (budget per phase) → Failure Criteria | CAC, payback period, budget gates, kill thresholds. |

Notation Key

| Symbol | Meaning | |--------|---------| | H / M / L | Confidence level: H = >70% confident, M = 40-70%, L = 6 months old — verify before acting | | [EVIDENCE-LIMITED] | Key conclusion rests on T4-T6 evidence only — validate with T1-T2 before committing budget | | ████░░░░░░ | Progress bar showing relative strength (1-10 scale) | | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ | Gate passed / gate at risk / gate failed |

---

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are quality enforcement mechanisms, not style preferences.

1. Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words. "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from conclusions. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: H (>70% confident), M (40-70%), L ( Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Stage: [newmarketentry / existingmarketexpansion / feature_launch / pivot] | Confidence band: [Overall H/M/L] | Staleness window:** [Date after which key claims need revalidation]

---

How to Read This Document

[Reader Navigation table — by time available and by role. See Reader Navigation section above.]

Notation Key

[Symbol definitions table. See Notation Key above.]

---

Executive Summary

[≤300 words. Zero jargon. A VP reads only this and decides whether to fund the GTM. Must answer: What are we launching? For whom? Why now? What's the entry point? What does success look like in 6 months? What kills this? Final sentence = the recommended action in bold.]

---

Step 0: Framework Selection

| Stage | Primary frameworks (apply in full) | Supporting frameworks (scan only) | Skipped (why) | |---|---|---|---| | [e.g., "New market entry"] | [e.g., Market Entry Thesis, Segment Selection, Channel Strategy] | [e.g., Distribution & Growth Mechanics] | [e.g., "Competitive Positioning — no direct competitors yet"] |

---

1. Market Entry Thesis

Why This Market

[Market selection rationale — size, growth, structural opportunity]

Why Now (Timing Thesis)

| Timing Signal | Evidence | Confidence | |--------------|----------|------------| | [e.g., "Regulatory change creating demand"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L | | [e.g., "Incumbent distracted by platform migration"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L | | [e.g., "Cost curve crossing — AI makes X viable at Y price"] | [specific evidence] (TX) | H/M/L |

The Wedge

[What is the specific gap in the incumbent's armor? What gives you disproportionate advantage in a specific segment? This is NOT "we're better" — it's "we can win THIS slice because of THIS structural advantage."]

Wedge Defensibility Assessment

| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | |-----------|-----------|----------| | Time to replicate | [months/years] | (TX) | | Capital to replicate | [$X] | (TX) | | Structural barrier | [what prevents copying — counter-positioning, data moat, regulatory, network effects] | (TX) | | Verdict | [Durable moat / Temporary arbitrage / Speed-dependent] | H/M/L |

Go/Wait/Pivot Decision Table

| Signal | Market Ready | Market NOT Ready | |--------|-------------|-----------------| | Product readiness | → GO: launch beachhead | → WAIT: build MVP, re-assess in [X weeks] | | Product NOT ready | → BUILD: market is ready, accelerate product | → PIVOT: wrong market or wrong product |

---

2. Segment Selection & Prioritization

Beachhead Candidates

| Segment | Description | Size (est.) | Evidence | |---------|------------|-------------|----------| | [Segment A] | [Specific enough to find 100 prospects by name] | [$ or # users] (TX) | [How you know this segment exists] | | [Segment B] | [Same specificity] | [$ or #] (TX) | [Evidence] | | [Segment C] | [Same specificity] | [$ or #] (TX) | [Evidence] |

ICP Scoring Matrix

| Criterion | Weight | Segment A | Segment B | Segment C | |-----------|:------:|:---------:|:---------:|:---------:| | Acute pain (validated) | 25% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Willingness to pay | 20% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Accessibility (can you reach them?) | 20% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Reference-ability (will they tell others?) | 15% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Expansion potential (leads to adjacent segments?) | 10% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Competitive vacuum (incumbents weak here?) | 10% | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | [1-5] (TX) | | Weighted Score | | [X.X] | [X.X] | [X.X] |

Expansion Path

[Beachhead → Adjacent Segment 1 → Adjacent Segment 2 → Mainstream] [For each transition: what evidence or milestone triggers expansion? What do you carry from the previous segment (references, product features, channel)?]

---

3. Channel Strategy with Unit Economics

Channel Selection Matrix

| Channel | Segment Fit | CAC (est.) | Payback (mo.) | LTV/CAC | Scalability | Evidence | |---------|:-----------:|:----------:|:-------------:|:-------:|:-----------:|:--------:| | [Direct sales] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] | | [PLG / self-serve] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] | | [Content/SEO] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] | | [Paid acquisition] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] | | [Partnership/channel] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] | | [Community] | [H/M/L] | [$X] (TX) | [X mo.] (TX) | [X:1] (TX) | [H/M/L] | [source] |

Primary Channel Deep-Dive

[For the #1 selected channel: full conversion funnel, unit economics at each stage, evidence requirements before scaling budget]

Channel Sequencing

| Phase | Channel | Budget | Success Criteria to Add Next Channel | |-------|---------|--------|--------------------------------------| | Phase 1 | [ONE channel] | [$X] | [Metric ≥ threshold, e.g., "CAC For [target customer] who [need/job-to-be-done], [product] is a [market category] that [key benefit]. Unlike [primary alternative], we [key differentiator].

Battlecards (per competitor)

vs. [Competitor A]: | They'll Say | You Say | Evidence | |------------|---------|----------| | "[Objection 1]" | "[Counter + proof point]" | (TX) | | "[Objection 2]" | "[Counter + proof point]" | (TX) |

vs. [Competitor B]: [Same structure]

Positioning Validation Checklist

• [ ] Tested with ≥5 prospects before launch
• [ ] Positioning resonates with target segment (not just internal team)
• [ ] Differentiation is verifiable (not aspirational)
• [ ] Category choice is intentional (creating new vs. entering existing)

---

6. Success Metrics & Failure Criteria

Leading Indicators (weekly review)

| Metric | Target | Goodhart Countermeasure | Antidote Metric | |--------|--------|------------------------|-----------------| | [e.g., Activation rate] | [≥X%] | [How it could be gamed] | [What to also watch] | | [e.g., Time-to-value] | [≤X days] | [How it could be gamed] | [What to also watch] |

Lagging Indicators (monthly review)

| Metric | Target (6-mo) | Target (12-mo) | |--------|:-------------:|:--------------:| | [e.g., Revenue] | [$X] | [$X] | | [e.g., Retention] | [≥X%] | [≥X%] |

Failure Criteria (HARD stops — not "reassess")

| Condition | Timeframe | Action | |-----------|-----------|--------| | [e.g., "3x target after 100 conversions"] | [By date] | STOP: [Specific action] | | [e.g., "NPS This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces a GTM strategy that requires these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to a generic launch plan.

Framework 1: Market Entry Thesis

The structural argument for why this market, why now, and what gives you a disproportionate right to win a specific slice. Without a market entry thesis, a GTM strategy is a plan to spend money without a theory of why it will work.

The Three Pillars:

| Pillar | Question | What "Good" Looks Like | What "Bad" Looks Like | |--------|----------|------------------------|-----------------------| | Why This Market | Is there a structural opportunity, not just a large TAM? | "Regulatory change X creates $Y of newly addressable demand in segment Z" | "The market is $50B and growing" | | Why Now | What timing signal makes this the right moment? | "Incumbent is mid-platform migration; 18-month window before they stabilize" | "AI is changing everything" | | What's the Wedge | Where is the gap in the incumbent's armor? | "Design agencies with 15+ Figma users hit collaboration limits the incumbent can't fix without re-architecting" | "Our product is better" |

Timing Thesis — The Four Forces:

| Force | Signal | Example | Evidence Tier Needed | |-------|--------|---------|---------------------| | Technology shift | New capability makes previously impossible product viable at target price | "LLM costs dropped 90% in 12 months — AI-native analytics now viable at $50/user/mo" | T1-T2 (cost data, product benchmarks) | | Regulatory change | New rules create demand or remove barriers | "GDPR created demand for privacy-first analytics; EU AI Act will do the same for explainable AI" | T1 (regulatory text, enforcement timeline) | | Behavior change | User expectations shifted by adjacent products | "Users now expect natural language interfaces after ChatGPT — SQL-based tools feel broken" | T2-T3 (user research, adoption data) | | Cost curve crossing | Economics that didn't work now work | "Cloud compute at $X means we can offer real-time analytics at SMB pricing" | T1 (pricing data, unit economics model) |

Decision Table — Should We Enter?

| Market Ready? | Product Ready? | Decision | |:------------:|:--------------:|----------| | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | GO — launch into beachhead segment | | ✅ Yes | ❌ No | BUILD — market window is open; accelerate product; set deadline | | ❌ No | ✅ Yes | WAIT — monitor timing signals; re-assess in [X weeks] | | ❌ No | ❌ No | PIVOT — wrong market or wrong product; return to Problem Framing |

Wedge Identification Method:

A wedge is not "our product is better." A wedge is a structural advantage in a specific segment that incumbents cannot easily replicate. The wedge is what gets you the first 10 customers without competing on brand, distribution, or scale — advantages you don't have yet.

| Wedge Type | Mechanism | Example | Durability | |-----------|-----------|---------|-----------| | Counter-positioning | Incumbent can't copy you

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Avyayalaya
• Source: Avyayalaya/agent-prime
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://avyayalaya.github.io/agent-prime/

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.