--- name: Product Type Classification slug: product-type-classification category: AI Engineering description: Product Type Classification helps choose whether to build a Clone, Unbundle, Undercut, Slice, Wrapper, or Innovation product from competitive landscape evidence. It records the decision and inherited GTM constraints after PRD v0.2 analysis. github: "https://github.com/mattgierhart/PRD-driven-context-engineering/tree/main/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification" language: HTML stars: 182 forks: 10 install: "npx degit https://github.com/mattgierhart/PRD-driven-context-engineering/tree/main/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification ~/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification" installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification source_path: .claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification/SKILL.md collection_size: 25 category_size: 3475 collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/mattgierhart/PRD-driven-context-engineering" added: 2026-09-07T05:20:12.190Z last_synced: 2026-09-07T05:20:12.190Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/product-type-classification" --- # Product Type Classification Product Type Classification helps choose whether to build a Clone, Unbundle, Undercut, Slice, Wrapper, or Innovation product from competitive landscape evidence. It records the decision and inherited GTM constraints after PRD v0.2 analysis. **Install:** ```bash npx degit https://github.com/mattgierhart/PRD-driven-context-engineering/tree/main/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification ~/.claude/skills/prd-v02-product-type-classification ``` ## README # Product Type Classification Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → **v0.2 Product Type Classification** → v0.3 Outcome Definition ## 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) — Evidence from 3+ direct competitors + adjacent solutions - **BR-\* positioning rules** (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Constraints derived from competitive analysis This skill assumes v0.2 Competitive Landscape is complete with documented landscape analysis. ## Produces This skill creates/updates: - **BR-\* entries** (product type classification) — Decision record showing which of the six types this product is - **BR-\* entries** (GTM constraints inherited from type) — Pricing, channel, scope, and timeline implications of the chosen type - **Product type artifact** — Named decision: "We are building a [Type] product because [specific evidence from landscape]" Example product type classification entry: ```markdown BR-042: Product Type Classification Type: Classification Decision Date: 2026-02-01 Confidence: 70% (source: competitive-landscape-analysis + 3-customer-interviews) Classification: UNDERCUT Rationale: All 3 direct competitors (Notion, Linear, Figma) serve enterprise/mid-market first; SMB segment underserved. We can deliver 80% of feature set at 40% price for SMB-specific workflows. Evidence: - CFD-015 (landscape): "All competitors start at $50/user/month enterprise pricing" - CFD-018 (landscape): "3 SMB teams using workarounds because pricing doesn't fit budget" - CFD-001 (value hypothesis): "$12,500/year value for 5 core features only" GTM Constraints (inherited): - Pricing: Must be <$200/user/month to justify switching - Channel: Direct sales to SMB, not marketplace/enterprise - Scope: Ruthlessly cut features; 5 core + 3 differentiators max - Timeline: Fast iteration with SMB feedback; can't outspend enterprise marketing ``` ## Six Product Types | Type | Definition | When Evidence Shows | |------|------------|---------------------| | **Clone** | Copy proven product, execute better | Leader validated market; weak moat; execution gap | | **Unbundle** | Extract one category from horizontal platform | Multi-category platform does your thing poorly | | **Undercut** | Same product, simpler + cheaper for niche | Tool overserves broad market; 60%+ price gap possible | | **Slice** | Plugin/extension in existing ecosystem | Platform has marketplace; users already there | | **Wrapper** | AI/API layer on existing data/tools | Middleware gap between tools; data accessible | | **Innovation** | New solution to known problem | Existing approaches fundamentally broken; high pain | ## Classification Decision Flow ``` START: What does v0.2 Competitive Landscape show? Q1: Is there a dominant horizontal platform doing many things? YES → Does it do YOUR thing poorly? YES → UNBUNDLE (extract the vertical) NO → Continue to Q2 NO → Continue to Q2 Q2: Is there a single-purpose leader with validated market? YES → Can you price 60%+ lower for a niche? YES → UNDERCUT NO → Can you execute better (speed/UX)? YES → CLONE NO → Continue to Q3 NO → Continue to Q3 Q3: Does target customer live in a platform ecosystem? YES → Does platform have marketplace/app store? YES → SLICE (build extension) NO → Continue to Q4 NO → Continue to Q4 Q4: Is there a data/API integration gap between tools? YES → Is the data accessible (API/scraping)? YES → WRAPPER NO → Continue to Q5 NO → Continue to Q5 Q5: Are existing solutions fundamentally broken? YES → Is pain severe enough for education investment? YES → INNOVATION NO → Reconsider market NO → Reconsider market or revisit Q1-Q4 ``` ## Evidence Requirements Per Type | Type | Required Evidence (from v0.2 Landscape) | Confidence Threshold | |------|----------------------------------------|---------------------| | Clone | Revenue proof + feature gap + weak moat | Medium (50%+) | | Unbundle | Platform size + category neglect + user complaints | Medium (50%+) | | Undercut | Price benchmarks + niche pain + simplification path | High (70%+) | | Slice | Platform MAU + marketplace presence + integration docs | High (70%+) | | Wrapper | API availability + use case validation + cost model | High (70%+) | | Innovation | Failed alternatives + severe pain + budget evidence | Very High (85%+) | ## Output Template After classification, create these entries: **BR-XXX: Product Type Classification** ``` Type: [Clone | Unbundle | Undercut | Slice | Wrapper | Innovation] Confidence: [X]% Primary Evidence: [CFD-XXX reference] Classification Rationale: [2-3 sentences] ``` **BR-XXX: GTM Constraints (inherited from type)** ``` Pricing Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Channel Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Scope Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Timeline Implication: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] ``` ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid 1. **Claiming Innovation when it's really Clone**: If competitor exists with revenue, you're not innovating 2. **Undercut without price evidence**: Must show 60%+ reduction is possible AND sustainable 3. **Slice without ecosystem validation**: Platform must actually want third-party apps 4. **Wrapper without API access confirmed**: Technical feasibility must precede classification 5. **Unbundle from small platform**: Only works against large horizontal players ## Reference Files - **Decision Framework**: See `references/decision-framework.md` for expanded decision trees - **Examples**: See `references/examples.md` for good/bad classification cases - **GTM Constraints**: See `references/gtm-constraints.md` for type → constraint mapping - **Classification Template**: See `assets/classification.md` for structured worksheet ## Downstream Impact Classification constrains v0.3 decisions: - **Outcome metrics** must match type (Clone = feature parity; Undercut = price advantage) - **Pricing model** anchored to type (Undercut must show savings; Slice follows platform norms) - **MVP scope** bounded by type (Clone = match leader; Undercut = ruthlessly cut features) - **GTM channel** determined by type (Slice = marketplace; Undercut = direct to niche)