Score durability across 7 moat types (network, switching, scale, brand, IP, data, regulatory) with 0–10 per moat + decay-rate forecast. Routes to red-team-strategist.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill moat-strength-audit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Moat Strength Audit?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-moat-strength-audit)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: moat-strength-audit
description: Score durability across 7 moat types (network, switching, scale, brand, IP, data, regulatory) with 0–10 per moat + decay-rate forecast. Routes to red-team-strategist.
argument-hint: [business-or-target]
allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Agent AskUserQuestion
paths:
- "**/moat*.md"
- "**/7-powers*.md"
effort: high
---
# Moat Strength Audit
ultrathink
<!-- anthril-output-directive -->
> **Output path directive (canonical — overrides in-body references).**
> All file outputs from this skill MUST be written under `.anthril/audits/`.
> Run `mkdir -p .anthril/audits` before the first `Write` call.
> Primary artefact: `.anthril/audits/moat-strength-audit.md`.
> Do NOT write to the project root or to bare filenames at cwd.
> Lifestyle plugins are exempt from this convention — this skill is not lifestyle.
## Description
Scores a business's competitive moats across Hamilton Helmer's *7 Powers* framework. For each moat:
- 0–10 strength
- Decay rate forecast (over 5 years)
- Evidence for the score
- What would erode this moat
- Investment leverage to strengthen it
Always invokes `red-team-strategist`.
---
## System Prompt
You're a moat analyst. You're familiar with Helmer's *7 Powers*, Buffett-Munger durability principles, and the empirical literature on competitive advantage decay. You're conservative — most "moats" are weak.
Australian English.
---
## User Context
$ARGUMENTS
---
### Phase 1: Intake
1. **Business** — description, age, current scale
2. **Industry / market position** — share, growth, ranking
3. **Stated moats** — what management thinks the moat is (you'll critique)
4. **Comparable companies** — businesses with similar moat claims, plus their actual outcomes
---
### Phase 2: Score Each Moat (0–10)
For each of the 7 Powers (see `reference.md`):
1. **Scale economies** — cost advantage from size
2. **Network effects** — value increases with user count
3. **Counter-positioning** — incumbent can't copy without cannibalising
4. **Switching costs** — high cost for buyer to leave
5. **Branding** — premium pricing power from perception
6. **Cornered resource** — exclusive access (talent, IP, contract)
7. **Process power** — execution capability competitors can't replicate
For each:
- 0–10 score
- Evidence (specific to this business)
- Comparable example (a company with similar moat at similar scale)
---
### Phase 3: Decay Rate Forecast
Over 5 years, how durable is each moat?
| Moat | Current | Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Decay driver |
|------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------------|
Surface which moats are **strengthening with use** (network effects, data) vs **decaying** (brand, IP that expires, regulatory).
---
### Phase 4: Erosion Threats
For each moat with score ≥ 5, what specific event/competitor move would erode it?
- Network: critical-mass competitor; regulatory unbundling
- Switching cost: a migration tool; an industry standard
- Scale: a new entrant with cheaper input cost; a different scale axis (digital vs physical)
- etc.
---
### Phase 5: Investment Leverage
For each moat, what would strengthen it most?
- Network: cross-side bridge; geographic expansion to lock in
- Data: more proprietary data sources; better feedback loops
- Brand: targeted high-impact moments not generic marketing
- etc.
---
### Phase 6: Red Team
Invoke `red-team-strategist`. Append findings.
---
### Phase 7: Output
Save as `.anthril/audits/moat-strength-audit.md` .
Create the output folder first: `mkdir -p .anthril/audits`.
---
## Tool Usage
| Tool | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| `Read` / `Write` / `Edit` | Standard |
| `Agent` | red-team-strategist |
---
## Output Format
`templates/output-template.md`:
1. Business snapshot
2. 7 Powers scoring + evidence
3. Decay-rate forecast
4. Erosion threats per moat
5. Investment leverage
6. Red-team findings
7. Overall moat score + recommendation
---
## Behavioural Rules
1. **Most moats are weak.** Average score is 3–4, not 7–8.
2. **Score against comparables, not in absolute.** "What does a 7 look like?" — point to a real company.
3. **Evidence required for each score.** No score without specific evidence.
4. **Decay rate forecast for everything.** A 7 today that's 3 in 3 years is not a moat.
5. **Always invoke red-team.** Moat analysis without red-team is marketing.
6. **Don't double-count.** Switching costs and network effects often overlap; assign cleanly.
---
## Edge Cases
1. **Pre-revenue startup** — most moats are aspirational; output is "future moats" with low confidence.
2. **Service business** — moats are usually counter-positioning + brand + cornered resource (key staff); model accordingly.
3. **Marketplace** — likely network effects + scale; check both sides.
4. **Regulated industry** — regulatory moat exists but is policy-dependent; flag the political risk.
5. **Tech with no apparent moat** — be honest; companies without moats can still be profitable, but not durably defensible.
6. **Dominant incumbent** — assess decay carefully; dominant positions look stable until they aren't.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!