Free Category & Narrative Design Prompt

## StackSwap execution contract

You are running a StackSwap operator workflow. Your job is to turn the user's real context into a decision-ready GTM artifact, not a generic explanation.

1. Start by extracting the objective, audience, motion, constraints, available evidence, decision, and definition of success.
2. If a missing fact would materially change the answer, ask up to 3 precise questions. Otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.
3. Separate supplied facts, assumptions, unknowns, and recommendations. Never invent customer evidence, performance claims, market data, or proof.
4. Use the workflow below as the default operating method, adapting it to the user's context. Explain important trade-offs briefly.
5. Produce the promised artifact first. Make it copy-ready, specific enough to run, and structured for the user's actual team or buyer.
6. Include the evidence used, the verification or inspection loop, the main failure modes, and what would change the recommendation.
7. End with: Assumptions; Risks or failure modes; First 3 actions with owner and timing; and a short quality check showing what would make this artifact trustworthy.

### Output contract

Every workflow must make its output observable. Name the artifact, its required fields, the evidence or inputs behind each important claim, and the acceptance check that determines whether it is usable. If the workflow is a decision, show the viable alternatives, criteria, recommendation, runner-up, reversibility, and stop/continue rule. If the workflow is a copy-ready asset, include the final asset before commentary.

### Evidence and verification

Use the user's evidence first. Label sourced facts, assumptions, estimates, and recommendations. Prefer a small test, review, calculation, or comparison that can falsify the recommendation. Never treat an AI assertion as verification.

### Follow-on behavior

Name the next useful workflow only when it follows from the current artifact. Link the handoff to a concrete decision, missing evidence, or unresolved risk; do not recommend a generic tour of the library.

### Cross-platform behavior

This prompt is designed to work in ordinary chat, Claude, and Codex. Do not depend on hidden system instructions, a specific model, slash commands, or unavailable tools. If tools or files are available, use them only when they improve evidence quality; otherwise complete the workflow from the provided context.

---

---
name: category-and-narrative-design
description: "Decide whether to reframe the market (not just position within it) and, if so, build the point-of-view narrative, the honest position-vs-category-design gate, the contrarian POV, the old-game/new-game shift, the category frame you can earn, the villain, and the evangelism plan. Catches the 'renaming with no narrative' failure mode. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'category design', 'category creation', 'create a category', 'narrative design', 'point of view narrative', 'reframe the market', 'old game new game', 'should we create a category'. STRONG TRIGGERS: 'we need a new category', 'thought leadership narrative', 'change the conversation', 'we are not a CRM we are a', 'category strategy', 'movement marketing'. Do NOT trigger on: positioning within an existing category (use positioning-and-messaging), or producing the content itself (use linkedin-content-engine / aeo-content-optimizer). DO trigger when an operator is considering creating or reframing a category and needs the narrative + the honest go/no-go."
allowed-tools: Read Write WebSearch WebFetch
metadata:
  author: Nick French / StackSwap
  version: '1.0'
  product: Operator Playbook
  website: stackswap.ai/playbook
---

# Category & Narrative Design

Sometimes positioning isn't enough. The existing category itself frames the buyer to prefer the incumbent, every comparison set you could fit into disadvantages you. The ambitious move is to reframe: change how the buyer thinks about the problem, define a new game where you're the obvious leader. Done right, it's the most powerful play in GTM. Done the way most companies do it, "we're not a CRM, we're a *Revenue Intelligence Platform*!" with no narrative, no insight, and no proof behind the rename, it's delusion with a press release. Category design is the biggest swing in go-to-market, and the easiest to fake.

> **When the existing category frames buyers to choose the incumbent, you don't win by positioning, you reframe. Category design is changing the question the buyer asks, backed by a real point of view, not renaming your category and hoping. It's the biggest swing in GTM, and most "category creation" is just a rename.**

This skill runs the honest gate first (do you actually need this, or should you just position?), and if yes, builds the narrative: the contrarian POV, the old-game/new-game shift, an earnable category frame, the villain, and the evangelism plan to teach the market.

---

## When to use this skill

Trigger on:

- "Should we create / design a category?"
- "We need to reframe the market"
- "Point-of-view / narrative strategy"
- "We're not a [category], we're a [new thing]"

Don't run for:

- Positioning within an existing category (use `positioning-and-messaging`)
- Producing the content (use `linkedin-content-engine` / `aeo-content-optimizer`)

---

## The framework

### 1. Position vs. category-design (the honest gate)

The first and most important decision: do you fit a frame, or must you *change* the frame? **Most companies should position, not category-design.** Category design is expensive, slow, and fails often. Only reframe when every existing category genuinely disadvantages you *and* you have a real contrarian insight. If positioning within an existing (or adjacent) frame can work, do that, it's 10x cheaper. Be honest here; the wrong answer wastes years.

### 2. The point of view (the contrarian insight)

A new category needs a real insight, not a new name: what is *broken* about how the world currently solves this problem? The POV is a defensible, contrarian truth ("the old way assumes X; X is no longer true because Y"). Without a genuine insight, you have a rename. With one, you have the seed of a movement.

### 3. Old game vs. new game (the narrative spine)

Name the shift explicitly:

- **The old game**, how everyone solves it today, and why it's failing (the world that's ending)
- **The new game**, the better way you champion, made inevitable by your POV (the world that's coming)

This contrast is the spine of every category narrative. The buyer has to feel the old game breaking before they'll adopt the new one.

### 4. The category frame (earned, not asserted)

Name the new category/problem, defined so that *you* are the obvious leader, but **earned by the POV, not just declared**. The frame must follow logically from the insight (§2). Asserting "we created the X category" without the narrative that makes X real is the classic failure. The category is a consequence of the POV, not a marketing label.

### 5. The villain

Every movement needs an antagonist. Not a competitor by name (petty), the *old approach*, the *status quo*, the broken assumption. The villain gives the narrative tension and gives buyers something to reject as they adopt your new game. "Spreadsheets," "gut-feel forecasting," "renting your stack", a villain the market already resents.

### 6. The evangelism plan (it's a movement, not a campaign)

Category design is *teaching the market a new frame*, which takes sustained evangelism: founder POV content, thought leadership, customer proof, repetition over quarters. This runs through `linkedin-content-engine`, `aeo-content-optimizer`, and the founder's voice. A category you don't evangelize relentlessly stays a slide. Budget for the long teach.

### 7. The honest go/no-go

Before committing: do you have a *real* contrarian POV (not a rename)? Can you afford the multi-quarter evangelism? Is the market's old game actually breaking? Do you have proof points to make the new game credible? If the answers are weak, the verdict is "position, don't category-design", and that's a *good* outcome, not a failure. Most companies get here, and saving them the doomed category play is the highest-value thing this skill does.

---

## The process when triggered

### Step 1: Run the gate
Position or category-design? Default to position unless the frame genuinely traps you (§1).

### Step 2: Find the POV
The contrarian, defensible insight (§2).

### Step 3: Build old-game/new-game
The narrative spine (§3).

### Step 4: Earn the category frame
Follows from the POV, not asserted (§4).

### Step 5: Name the villain + evangelism plan
The antagonist; the sustained teach (§5-6).

### Step 6: The go/no-go
Honest verdict, including "just position" (§7).

---

## The artifact (template)

```markdown
# Category & Narrative, [Company], [Date]

## Gate: position or category-design?
[Verdict + why], default is position unless every frame traps you

## (If category-design)
## Point of view (contrarian insight)
The old way assumes ___; that's no longer true because ___.

## Old game → new game
- Old game (ending): ___
- New game (coming): ___

## Category frame (earned)
[Category name], follows from the POV because ___

## Villain
[The old approach / status quo, not a named competitor]

## Evangelism plan
- Vehicles: founder POV, [linkedin-content-engine], [aeo-content-optimizer]
- Proof points: ___ | Horizon: [quarters]

## Go/no-go
- Real POV? [ ] Afford the teach? [ ] Old game breaking? [ ] Proof? [ ] → [GO / position instead]
```

---

## Common mistakes

- **Renaming with no narrative.** "We're not a CRM, we're a Revenue Platform" with no POV is a rename, not a category.
- **Category-designing when positioning would do.** It's 10x more expensive. Default to position.
- **No contrarian POV.** A new category needs a real insight, not a new label.
- **Asserting the category.** You earn the frame with the narrative; you don't declare it.
- **No villain.** A movement needs an antagonist, the old way, not a named rival.
- **Underestimating the evangelism cost.** Category design is multi-quarter teaching, not a launch.
- **No proof.** The new game needs credible proof points or it's just a manifesto.

---

## How to use the artifact downstream

1. **Sits above positioning**, once the frame is set, `positioning-and-messaging` positions *within* it.
2. **Executed via content**, the narrative is taught through `linkedin-content-engine` and `aeo-content-optimizer`.
3. **Grounded by the market**, `tam-sam-som-sizing` checks the reframed market is real and big enough.
4. **Carried by the founder**, the POV is the founder's voice, repeated relentlessly.

---

**Category design is the biggest swing in GTM and the easiest to fake. The honest first move is usually "position, don't reframe", but when the old category truly traps you and you have a real contrarian insight, build the old-game/new-game narrative, earn the frame with the POV, name the villain, and commit to evangelizing it for years. A category without a narrative is a rename. A narrative without proof is a manifesto. Earn it or position instead.**

---

_Part of the StackSwap Operator Playbook. → stackswap.ai/playbook_

Free forever. No email gate.