Neue Skills, Referenzen & OpenWiki-Doku integriert

Umfangreiche Erweiterung der Skill-Bibliothek: Neue Skills für Humanisierung (Englisch/PT-BR), Design-Validierung, AI-SEO und Coolify-Deployment inkl. Regelwerke, Presets, Pattern-Referenzen, Testfälle und Automatisierungsskripte. Zusätzliche Skills für Revenue-Centric Design, Pier Cloud, OKF, Lebenslauf- und LinkedIn-Optimierung sowie zahlreiche Referenzdateien, Checklisten und YAML/JSON/Markdown-Templates. Einführung einer vollständigen OpenWiki-Dokumentation mit Architektur-, Domain- und Workflow-Beschreibungen, zentralem Index und automatisierten Updates. Modularer Aufbau, restriktive Lizenzen und umfassende Qualitäts- und Evaluationsmechanismen für alle neuen Inhalte.

.github/skills/revenue-centric-design/references/positioning-icp-and-gtm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Positioning, ICP & Go-to-Market
+
+> Curated, distilled wisdom from @richardrx ("Richard — Design for startups"), translated from Portuguese. Each entry is a reusable principle linked to its source post.
+
+## Size the market with TAM → SAM → SOM (and know which one matters)
+**Principle.** Your real market is far smaller than the population — TAM is a theoretical ceiling (Brazil's 213M becomes ~101M credit-card holders for a paid app). Investors often ignore a TAM under ~R$1B, but the number that matters is the **SOM** — what you can actually capture.
+**Apply when.** Sizing a market, writing a deck, or judging whether a niche is big enough.
+**The move.** TAM = total addressable ceiling; **SAM** = the realistic slice your model reaches (~40% in his example); **SOM** = the 1–5% you truly win in ~36 months — and SOM isn't a guessed %, it comes from real CAC, activation, support capacity and LTV. You can't change your TAM; you change how much of your SAM you convert and retain.
+**Evidence.** RepareCar: ~76k mechanic shops (honest TAM) → SAM ~47k → ~3% ≈ 1,414 shops ≈ R$1.6M ARR; current pace (~10 shops/day) ≈ 7% of SAM in 12 months.
+**Visual.** TAM/SAM/SOM concentric-circle diagram with definitions
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-06-25](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2070140923380420796)
+
+## Frame the referral prize as a gift to the friend, not a commission to the referrer
+**Principle.** Member-get-member (MGM) referral programs win on framing and timing, not just on a two-sided reward. Money makes the exchange feel transactional; an in-product benefit feels like a genuine gift.
+**Apply when.** Designing or fixing a referral program and defaulting to "refer a friend, get $20."
+**The move.** Apply the framing effect: surface the prize on the receiver's side ("João gave you 500MB"). Ask for the referral at the peak of value (right after a concrete win, or when the user hits a limit). Avoid cash; give a reward that deepens use of your own product. Embed it as continuous in-product operation, not a one-off campaign. Caveat: referral amplifies a product people already love; it can't fix one nobody recommends for free.
+**Evidence.** Dropbox grew 3900% in 15 months (100k → 4M users), peaking near 3M invites in a single month; ~1/3 of users already arrived via word-of-mouth before the program.
+**Voice.** "A referral amplifies a product people already love — it doesn't fix a product nobody recommends for free."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-06-02](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2061766945582559509)
+
+## Pick a deliberately under-served niche as your ICP
+**Principle.** A clear ICP (ideal customer profile) is not "everyone who could use my product." It's a deliberately chosen, under-served niche — and a sharp niche beats no niche, because you can't out-fight the entrenched generalist giant.
+**Apply when.** Early traction; tempted to "embrace the world" out of fear of a small TAM.
+**The move.** Validate four ICP filters: (1) feels the pain with real weight — pain is proportional to what's lost when unsolved (a lost lead costs a face-aesthetics clinic R$3,000 vs. R$60 for a barber); (2) big enough TAM to sustain operations; (3) money to pay your required ticket so unit economics close; (4) founder-fit, giving native language, a fast validation network, and instinct that money can't buy. With a clear ICP, failure has a diagnosis ("I got the messaging wrong"); without one, you can't tell if product, copy, channel, price, or audience failed — and every test burns runway.
+**Voice.** "A generalist ERP is hard to sell; an ERP for cabinetmaking is a different conversation."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-05-19](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2056789797646029232)
+
+## Don't claim PLG without the four structural conditions
+**Principle.** Product-led growth (PLG) is a consequence of structural conditions, not a product decision you declare. Most B2B SaaS that pitches PLG is really sales-led wearing a PLG label.
+**Apply when.** Writing a pitch deck or strategy and calling the motion "self-service" / PLG.
+**The move.** Require all four conditions: (1) TTV < 10 minutes — if it needs a consultant demo, API support, or paid implementation, it's not PLG (tell: full trial, zero activation); (2) ticket below ~R$1,000 — higher means a buying committee; (3) native virality or collaboration (Notion, Figma, Slack pull users in; a CRM/AI tool needs SDRs, demos, follow-up); (4) a huge addressable market with a real bottom-up TAM. If you fail these, run sales-led honestly.
+**Evidence.** Brazil has ~20,000 companies with 100+ employees, and only ~a dozen B2B SaaS where PLG makes real economic sense.
+**Voice.** "Founders love PLG because it seems to delete the part they don't master — selling."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-05-04](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2051262752547536941)
+
+## Charge your first ten users from day one
+**Principle.** The first ten users define the product's entire curve, and payment is the cheapest test of real pain — curiosity is free, an open wallet demands a concrete problem.
+**Apply when.** Validating a new product and tempted to give early access away to "build a base."
+**The move.** Source the first ten from closed communities, personal reach, or pure guerrilla. Charge even while in prototype. When someone says they can't pay, ask directly: "What does the system need to do for you to pay right now?" Treat the payment friction as part of the test. Collect dense feedback; only start visual design after ~20 paying users. For B2C apps the method shifts (e.g., pre-sale of a solution-in-progress) but the principle holds.
+**Evidence.** RepareCar's first 25 auto shops tested the product in prototype; the team visited each and charged at the end, designing visuals only after 20 paying shops.
+**Voice.** "Curiosity is free; an open wallet demands a concrete problem."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-04-26](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2048359526487716333)
+
+## Reverse-engineer the funnel math before celebrating an MRR target
+**Principle.** Building the product is the easy part; distribution is the game. A revenue target is really a traffic-and-retention problem, and churn quietly resets the whole funnel every month.
+**Apply when.** Someone asks "is it hard to hit X MRR?" or you're sizing acquisition for a target customer count.
+**The move.** Work backwards: to net 2,500 customers at 5% LP conversion you need 50,000 visitors; from ads at 3% creative CTR, ~1.6M impressions (5% and 3% are top-decile — most land at 1–2% LP and under 1% CTR, so you test dozens). Then add the leaky bucket: at 20% monthly churn, average customer life is 5 months, so you replace 500 customers every month forever just to stand still (≈10,000 visitors / 333,000 impressions). The problem lives at the intersection of dev, design, and marketing — none alone owns it.
+**Evidence.** 20% monthly churn → 5-month average lifetime; at low ticket many operate at 40–50% churn, so "the bucket never fills."
+**Voice.** "Building the product is the easy part; distribution is the game."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-04-20](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2046222319912132977)
+
+## Concentrate channels with the Bullseye framework, not scattershot testing
+**Principle.** Testing ten channels at once means you never know what drove results and you blame the channel when the business stalls. Distribution needs prioritized focus — and a perfect channel still fails if the receiving structure leaks.
+**Apply when.** You're spreading content and traffic across many channels with no clear read on what works.
+**The move.** Use the Bullseye framework (from the book *Traction*): three rings of priority. Inner ring = at most three highest-potential channels with total focus; middle ring = up to six channels you probe with small experiments; outer ring = everything plausible long-term, no active focus now. Choose between channels with an ICE Score (Impact, Confidence, Ease, each 0–10, divide by 3, prioritize). Crucial gap the book skips: scaling distribution onto a broken reception structure (LP, onboarding, first product steps) yields no growth — distribution and retention are simultaneous, not sequential.
+**Visual.** Bullseye as nested circles — What's Possible → What's Probable → What's Working — beside a "Marketing Framework for Startups" triangle (Prioritization, Testing, Quick Iteration).
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-03-23](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2036035304868434115)
+
+## Diagnose the bottleneck: no entries is distribution, leaving without paying is design
+**Principle.** Design can't save a "ghost product." Design optimizes and raises the LTV of something that already has traffic; it can't manufacture demand.
+**Apply when.** A builder ships an app, gets near-zero users, and hopes a redesign will rescue it.
+**The move.** Split the diagnosis cleanly: if nobody enters your product, it's a distribution problem; if they enter, don't pay, and leave, it's design. Read *Traction* even if you can afford an agency or a marketing team — the lever isn't just cost-per-channel but each channel's awareness level, which drives different conversion and retention behavior depending on where and how the user arrived.
+**Voice.** "If nobody enters your product, it's distribution. If they enter, don't pay, and leave, that's design."
+**Source.** [@richardrx · 2026-02-28](https://x.com/richardrx/status/2027721170569564521)