Strategy Templates
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
Every strategy exists within a game (competitive context). Every game has structure that determines which strategies work. These templates provide systematic ways to:
- Characterize the game being played
- Design strategies with clear mechanisms
- Evaluate strategies along key dimensions
- Match strategies to game archetypes
Steps
Step 1: Characterize the Game
Game structure template:
GAME CHARACTERIZATION:
Players: [who is competing/cooperating]
Objectives: [what each player wants]
Rules: [constraints, laws, norms]
Resources: [what's available to deploy]
Information: [who knows what — complete/incomplete]
Timing: [simultaneous/sequential, one-shot/repeated]
Payoffs: [zero-sum/positive-sum/negative-sum]
Barriers: [entry, exit, switching costs]Game archetype matching:
| Archetype | Characteristics | Winning Strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Winner-take-all | One winner, many losers | Speed, network effects, standards |
| Red ocean | Many competitors, similar offerings | Cost leadership or differentiation |
| Blue ocean | No competition (new market) | Value innovation, create demand |
| Repeated game | Same players, many rounds | Reciprocity, reputation, tit-for-tat |
| Coordination | All benefit from alignment | Standards, first-mover, communication |
| Chicken | Both lose from collision | Credible commitment, brinkmanship |
| Prisoner’s dilemma | Individual vs collective interest | Cooperation mechanisms, punishment |
| Asymmetric | Players have different strengths | Leverage your asymmetry |
| Platform | Two-sided markets | Subsidize one side, monetize other |
Step 2: Design Strategy Using Templates
Strategy specification template:
STRATEGY:
Name: [memorable label]
Game archetype: [from Step 1]
Mechanism: [HOW this strategy wins — the causal chain]
Key assumption: [what must be true for this to work]
Resource required: [what you need to deploy]
Timeline: [when results expected]
Risk: [what could go wrong]
Kill criterion: [when to abandon this strategy]Strategy mechanism types:
- Cost advantage: Win by being cheaper (economies of scale, efficiency, location)
- Differentiation: Win by being different (features, brand, experience)
- Focus: Win by serving a niche better than generalists
- Speed: Win by being faster (first-mover, fast-follow, rapid iteration)
- Network: Win by having more connections (platforms, ecosystems)
- Lock-in: Win by making switching costly (standards, data, habits)
- Asymmetric: Win by fighting a different battle than competitors expect
- Cooperation: Win by aligning with others (alliances, standards, communities)
Step 3: Evaluate Strategy
Score along key dimensions:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility: Can we actually execute this? | ||
| Mechanism clarity: Is the causal chain clear? | ||
| Assumption validity: Are key assumptions sound? | ||
| Defensibility: Can competitors copy this? | ||
| Robustness: Does it work if conditions change? | ||
| Reversibility: Can we exit if it fails? | ||
| Alignment: Does it fit our capabilities? | ||
| Timing: Is now the right time? |
Red flags:
- Mechanism isn’t clear (“we’ll win by being better” — HOW?)
- Assumptions aren’t testable
- Strategy requires competitors to be stupid
- No kill criterion defined
- Relies on predictions about the future
Step 4: Compare Strategies
If multiple strategies are under consideration:
| Criterion | Strategy A | Strategy B | Strategy C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upside (best case) | |||
| Downside (worst case) | |||
| Probability of success | |||
| Time to result | |||
| Resource required | |||
| Reversibility | |||
| Learning value |
Step 5: Stress Test
For the top strategy:
- What if the key assumption is WRONG?
- What if a competitor does the SAME thing?
- What if conditions CHANGE midway?
- What if execution is SLOWER than expected?
- What’s the MINIMUM viable version? (Test before committing)
Step 6: Report
STRATEGY ANALYSIS:
Game: [archetype] — [key characteristics]
Players: [who matters]
Recommended strategy:
Name: [label]
Mechanism: [how it wins]
Key assumption: [what must be true]
Timeline: [expected results]
Evaluation: [overall score] / 40
Strongest dimension: [which]
Weakest dimension: [which — this is where risk lives]
Kill criterion: [when to abandon]
Minimum viable test: [smallest version to validate]When to Use
- Designing new strategies
- Analyzing existing strategies
- Understanding competitive dynamics
- Comparing strategy options
- → INVOKE: /dse (strategy evaluation) for deeper evaluation
- → INVOKE: /dsd (strategy derivation) for deriving strategies from goals
- → INVOKE: /ol (competitive strategy) for adversarial contexts
Verification
- Game characterized (not just “we have competition”)
- Strategy mechanism is clear and causal
- Key assumptions stated and testable
- Strategy evaluated on multiple dimensions
- Stress-tested against assumption failure
- Kill criterion defined