Free Agent Skill
Moat Analysis
Assess whether a competitive advantage is durable (a real "moat," in Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger's terms) or temporary, by checking it against the standard sources of durable advantage — switching costs, network effects, economies of scale, brand/trust, and regulatory or IP protection — rather than taking "we're ahead right now" at face value.
Use when: the user is evaluating a business, a product's competitive position, a startup idea, an investment, or their own company's defensibility, especially when the current advantage is described in terms of being first, faster, or better rather than structurally harder to copy.
Install this skill
- Create a folder named `moat-analysis`.
- Save the skill content below as `SKILL.md` inside that folder.
- Place the folder in `~/.codex/skills/` for Codex, `.cursor/skills/` for Cursor or `.claude/skills/` for Claude Code.
- Describe the task normally. Your agent loads the skill when its description matches.
---
name: moat-analysis
description: Assess whether a competitive advantage is durable (a real "moat," in Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger's terms) or temporary, by checking it against the standard sources of durable advantage — switching costs, network effects, economies of scale, brand/trust, and regulatory or IP protection — rather than taking "we're ahead right now" at face value. Use whenever the user is evaluating a business, a product's competitive position, a startup idea, an investment, or their own company's defensibility, especially when the current advantage is described in terms of being first, faster, or better rather than structurally harder to copy.
---
# Moat Analysis
"We're ahead" and "we have a moat" are different claims. Being first or
currently better is often temporary — a moat is a structural reason a
competitor with equal resources and full knowledge of your position still
can't easily catch up.
## The five structural sources of durable advantage
Check the advantage in question against these, specifically:
**Switching costs.** Would a customer face real cost, risk, or effort to
leave — not just mild preference for the incumbent? Data lock-in,
retraining cost, and integration depth create this; a slightly better UI
does not.
**Network effects.** Does the product get better *for each user* as more
users join, in a way a new entrant can't shortcut? Beware fake network
effects — lots of users isn't the same as the product getting structurally
better because of them.
**Economies of scale.** Does unit cost meaningfully drop as volume grows,
in a way a smaller competitor structurally can't match without first
reaching the same scale?
**Brand / trust.** Would customers pay a premium or default to this
option specifically because of accumulated trust, in a category where
trust is hard to earn quickly (health, finance, safety)? Brand recognition
alone, without a trust-sensitive category, is weaker than it looks.
**Regulatory or IP protection.** Is there a real legal barrier (patent,
license, regulatory approval) that a well-funded competitor can't simply
route around or wait out?
## How to run the analysis
1. State the advantage as currently described by the user.
2. Check it against each of the five sources above — most real advantages
are a combination of one or two, not all five.
3. For each one that seems to apply, ask the stress-test question: "if a
well-funded, competent competitor knew exactly what we're doing and
copied it starting today, what specifically stops them?" A good answer
names a structural reason. A weak answer names a temporary lead
("we're just further along," "we move faster").
4. Be honest about "moats" that are really just current execution
advantages — those are real and valuable, but they erode, and should be
treated differently (as something to keep re-earning) than a structural
moat (something to defend once built).
## Output
Name which of the five sources actually apply, flag any claimed advantage
that's really just a temporary lead, and state plainly whether the
overall position looks durable or needs continued execution to hold.
More free skills
Prompt Refiner
Turns a vague request into an executable brief without silently inventing missing requirements.
Decision Framer
Separates the real choice from noise, then tests options against explicit criteria and uncertainty.
Meeting to Actions
Converts messy notes into decisions, owned actions, deadlines and unresolved questions.
Calibrated Forecasting
Turn a vague prediction or unstated confidence level into an explicit, calibrated probability estimate, following the practices Philip Tetlock found separated "superforecasters" from everyone else — breaking questions into sub-questions, checking base rates, updating in small increments as new information arrives, and tracking predictions against outcomes.
Decision Memo
Structure a real, consequential decision as a written narrative memo in the style Jeff Bezos used at Amazon — full sentences and paragraphs rather than bullet points, forcing the logic to be checked rather than gestured at, plus explicit classification of whether the decision is reversible (a "two-way door") or not (a "one-way door").
Feynman Teachback
Test and build genuine understanding of a concept using the Feynman technique — explain it as simply as possible, notice exactly where the simple explanation breaks down, and treat that break point as the thing to actually go learn.
First Principles
Rebuild a problem from fundamental truths (physics, economics, unit costs, what's actually true regardless of convention) rather than by analogy to how things are normally done — the reasoning style associated with Elon Musk's approach to manufacturing cost problems and Richard Feynman's approach to physics problems.
Focus and Tradeoffs
Cut a bloated plan, roadmap, or list of priorities down to the one or two things that actually matter, in the tradition associated with Steve Jobs's product focus — "innovation is saying no to a thousand things."
Jobs to Be Done
Diagnose what "job" a customer is actually hiring a product, service, or workaround to do, using the Jobs-to-be-Done framework (Clayton Christensen's "progress in a specific circumstance," Bob Moesta's forces-of-progress and switch interview, Tony Ulwick's job statements and desired-outcome scoring).
Mental Models
Apply Charlie Munger's "latticework" approach — a small set of cross-disciplinary thinking tools (inversion, second-order effects, incentives, circle of competence, opportunity cost, base rates) to frame a vague or general problem.
Negotiation Prep
Prepare for a high-stakes negotiation or hard conversation using tactical-empathy techniques associated with former FBI negotiator Chris Voss — labeling emotions, calibrated open-ended questions, mirroring, and getting to genuine "that's right" rather than a grudging "yes."
Postmortem / Retro
Extract a specific, reusable lesson after something succeeded or failed, following the principle (associated with Ray Dalio's "pain plus reflection equals progress") that outcomes only compound into better judgment if they're deliberately converted into a written, checkable lesson rather than just felt and moved past.
Premortem
Run a premortem — psychologist Gary Klein's technique of imagining a plan has already failed and working backward to explain why, which surfaces risks that forward planning misses because it counteracts the social and psychological pressure to seem confident.
Want this skill connected to a complete workflow?
Every skill is free and works independently. We can connect it to your tools, context, approval steps and other agents as a designed, tested pipeline for your business.