Imported from sethmblack/paks-skills (know-your-enemy/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add sethmblack/paks-skills --skill know-your-enemy. Copyright stays with the author (MIT).

Know Your Enemy Assessment

Conduct dual-lens competitive analysis to understand both yourself and your opponent, identifying advantages, vulnerabilities, and knowledge gaps that determine strategic outcomes.

When to Use

• User asks "How do I stack up against [competitor]?"
• Preparing for competition, negotiation, or confrontation
• Analyzing why previous efforts against this opponent failed
• Request to "analyze my competitor" or "what are their weaknesses?"
• Need to understand whether to engage or avoid a particular opponent

Inputs

The Dual-Lens Framework

Sun Tzu taught that strategic outcomes depend on knowledge:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." "If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

This framework ensures complete knowledge on both sides.

Part 1: Know Your Enemy

1.1 Stated Position vs. True Interest

1.2 Capabilities Assessment

1.3 Behavioral Patterns

1.4 Strategic Tendencies

Part 2: Know Yourself

2.1 Honest Self-Assessment

2.2 Comparative Position

2.3 Knowledge Gaps

Part 3: Strategic Synthesis

3.1 Exploitable Asymmetries

Where does your strength meet their weakness? Where does their strength meet your weakness? What does this suggest about where to compete?

3.2 Engagement Recommendation

Based on knowledge assessment:

3.3 If Engaging: Where and How

• Terrain to choose: Where does the ground favor you?
• Timing to seek: When are conditions most favorable?
• Approach to use: Direct or indirect? Concentrated or distributed?
• Victory condition: What specific outcome ends this favorably?

Workflow

Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:

• Review the provided data and context
• Identify key parameters and constraints
• Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
• Establish success criteria

Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:

• Identify patterns and relationships
• Evaluate against established frameworks
• Consider multiple perspectives
• Document key findings

Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:

• Synthesize insights from analysis
• Prioritize recommendations by impact
• Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
• Consider implementation feasibility

Output Format

## Know Your Enemy Assessment

### Context
[Brief description of the competitive arena and stakes]

---

### Enemy Analysis

**Who They Are:** [Brief profile]

**Stated vs. True Interest:**
- They say: [stated position]
- They want: [true interest]
- Core non-negotiable: [what they will not sacrifice]

**Capabilities:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| [S1] | [W1] |
| [S2] | [W2] |

**Behavioral Pattern:** [How they typically operate and respond]

**Strategic Tendency:** [Preferred approach and risk tolerance]

---

### Self-Analysis

**Honest Assessment:**
| Strength | Weakness |
|----------|----------|
| [S1] | [W1] |
| [S2] | [W2] |

**Comparative Position:**
| Factor | Advantage |
|--------|-----------|
| Resources | [You/Them/Neither] |
| Position | |
| Momentum | |
| Adaptability | |
| Will | |

---

### Knowledge Assessment

**What You Know:**
- About them: [confident assessments]
- About yourself: [confident assessments]

**What You Don't Know:**
- About them: [gaps, assumptions]
- About yourself: [uncertainties, avoided truths]

**Knowledge State:** [Full / Partial-Self / Partial-Enemy / Neither]

---

### Strategic Verdict

**Exploitable Asymmetry:** [Where your strength meets their weakness]

**Vulnerable Asymmetry:** [Where their strength meets your weakness]

**Engagement Recommendation:** [Engage / Delay / Avoid]

**If Engaging:**
- Choose terrain that: [favors your strengths]
- Seek timing when: [conditions favor you]
- Use approach: [direct/indirect, concentrated/distributed]
- Victory looks like: [specific outcome]

**If Avoiding:**
- Because: [reason]
- Alternative path: [what to do instead]

Constraints

• Self-assessment must be brutally honest - overestimating yourself is more dangerous than underestimating the enemy
• Distinguish between what you know and what you assume
• Identify knowledge gaps explicitly - they are strategic vulnerabilities
• Do not recommend engagement when knowledge is incomplete
• Consider that the enemy is also assessing you

Outputs

Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

Format:

## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]

Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

Example

Input: "I'm a small consulting firm considering whether to compete for a major contract against Accenture. We've never gone head-to-head with them before."

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Know Your Enemy Assessment

Context

Small consulting firm evaluating competition against a global giant for a major contract. First direct encounter.

Enemy Analysis

Who They Are: Accenture - global consulting firm with $60B+ revenue, hundreds of thousands of employees, and decades of enterprise relationships.

Stated vs. True Interest:

• They say: "We're the best partner for your digital transformation"
• They want: Revenue, relationship lock-in, reference client
• Core non-negotiable: Profitability - they will not win unprofitable business

Capabilities:

Behavioral Pattern: Methodical, relationship-driven, risk-averse. Will leverage existing client relationships. Responds to competition by emphasizing safety and scale.

Strategic Tendency: Uses brand and relationships as primary weapons. Competes on trust and risk reduction, not price or innovation.

Self-Analysis

Honest Assessment:

Comparative Position:

Knowledge Assessment

What You Know:

• About them: General capabilities, public positioning, typical approach
• About yourself: Your team, your costs, your capabilities

What You Don't Know:

• About them: Their specific relationship with this client, who will lead their team, how badly they want this contract, their pricing
• About yourself: Whether your team can actually deliver at this scale, how you'll be perceived, your true differentiation

Knowledge State: Partial-Enemy (you know yourself better than them)

Strategic Verdict

Exploitable Asymmetry: Your senior people do the work; their seniors sell, juniors deliver. If client values expertise over brand, this is your angle.

Vulnerable Asymmetry: They have brand credibility you cannot match. If client prioritizes safety, you lose.

Engagement Recommendation: Delay (gather intelligence)

Before Deciding:

1. Learn the client's true priority: Safety/brand or results/value?
2. Discover Accenture's relationship status: Incumbent? Preferred? Unknown?
3. Identify the decision-maker: Executive (favors Accenture) or operational leader (might favor you)?
4. Assess: Is this contract winnable at a price you'd accept?

If Intelligence Suggests Proceeding:

• Choose terrain that: Emphasizes expertise, responsiveness, senior engagement
• Seek timing when: Client has had disappointing experience with big firm bureaucracy
• Use approach: Direct differentiation - "Our partners do the work"
• Victory looks like: Winning on value and expertise, not price

If Intelligence Suggests Avoiding:

• Walk away if client prioritizes safety over results
• Walk away if Accenture has strong incumbent relationship
• Alternative: Position for smaller, lower-profile contracts to build track record

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. You do not yet know enough to engage."

Integration

This skill is part of the Sun Tzu expert persona. Use it when facing competition and needing to understand the strategic landscape. It pairs well with:

• five-factors-assessment for comprehensive situation analysis
• terrain-analysis for understanding the competitive ground
• victory-without-battle for non-confrontational alternatives