---

name: prd-v03-moat-definition description: Assess competitor defensibility and define our own moat strategy during PRD v0.3 Commercial Model. Triggers on requests to analyze competitor moats, define our defensibility, assess switching costs, identify vulnerabilities, find wedge opportunities, or when user asks "what's our moat?", "how defensible are they?", "where can we compete?", "switching costs?", "defensibility", "who to target". Consumes Competitive Landscape (v0.2) CFD- entries. Outputs CFD- entries for competitor moats and BR- entries for targeting rules and our defensibility strategy.

Moat Definition

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

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:

CopyMoat 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

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

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

CopyBR-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