eterdis-wardley-map — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited eterdis-wardley-map (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Before starting, look for a company-context.md file. Read it if available — pay particular attention to: products/services, technology stack, key suppliers/partners, competitive landscape, and any previous Wardley Map section.
If you find context, draft an initial value chain and evolution positions before asking the first question. Present your read to the user and ask them to correct it. Starting from a draft surfaces more interesting disagreements than starting from a blank page.
If no context is available, ask:
Additional documents that add most value: technology architecture diagrams, supplier/vendor lists, product roadmap, competitive analysis.
Imagine you're a general in 1800 planning a battle, but you have no map of the terrain. You know your troops, you know the enemy exists, but you don't know where the hills are, where the rivers run, or which roads lead where. You'd call that insane. And yet that's how most businesses do strategy — they plan without a map of the landscape they're operating in.
A Wardley Map fixes that. It's a map of your business landscape with two axes:
Vertical axis — the value chain. What does the user need? What components do you need to serve that need? What do those components depend on? It's a chain from user need at the top down to the foundational stuff at the bottom.
Horizontal axis — evolution. Everything moves from left to right over time. New things start as novel experiments (like electricity in 1880), become custom-built solutions (like early factory power systems), then become products you can buy (like generators), and eventually become commodities or utilities nobody thinks about (like plugging into the grid). This movement is not optional. It happens to every component, every technology, every practice. The only question is how fast.
The strategic insight comes from the combination: knowing what you need AND where each piece is heading. Because a component that's becoming a commodity demands a completely different strategy than one that's still novel. Treating them the same is how companies burn money and lose advantages simultaneously.
Time guidance: The first map takes 45+ minutes. Don't rush it — the value is in the debate about where things sit, not the final positions. Like a good argument, the process matters more than the conclusion. Reviews take 15-20 minutes.
Diagnostic mode — Building the full map from scratch. This is where you start if you've never mapped this landscape before, or if the business has changed substantially. Go through all sections below.
Review mode — You have an existing map (check company-context.md for a previous Wardley Map section). The question is: what's moved? Skip to the Movement section, update positions, then reassess strategic plays.
Alert triggers — Set tripwires for future reassessment. Skip to the Alert Triggers section to define conditions that should prompt a review.
Everything starts here. Not from your product. Not from your technology. From what the user actually needs.
This sounds obvious, but most companies anchor their thinking on what they've built rather than what someone needs. That's like a restaurant designing the menu around what the chef already knows how to cook, regardless of whether anyone wants to eat it.
Ask:
Write the user need at the top of the map. Everything else exists to serve it.
Now work downward. To deliver that user need, what components are required? And what do those components depend on?
Think of it like making coffee. The user need is "hot caffeinated drink in the morning." That requires: coffee (the drink), which requires brewing equipment, which requires ground coffee, which requires coffee beans, which requires a supply chain, which requires transport infrastructure. Each layer depends on the one below it.
Ask, working down from the user need:
Build the chain as a table:
| Component | Depends on | Visibility to user |
|---|---|---|
| [User need] | — | Direct |
| [Component A] | [User need] | High / Medium / Low / Invisible |
| [Component B] | [Component A] | ... |
| ... | ... | ... |
The "visibility to user" column matters because components the user never sees tend to get treated as unimportant — right up until they break.
This is the heart of Wardley Mapping. For each component, you need to place it on the evolution curve. Here's the spectrum, in plain language:
The analogy: This is fire when humans first discovered it. Nobody really understands it yet. It's exciting, unpredictable, and might burn you.
The analogy: This is a hand-tailored suit. We know what a suit is, but each one is made specifically for the situation.
The analogy: This is a suit off the rack. Fits well enough, available everywhere, comes with a warranty.
The analogy: This is electricity. You don't think about it. You just expect it to work. You'd only notice it if it stopped.
Now place each component. Add an "Evolution" column to your table:
| Component | Depends on | Evolution stage | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Component A] | ... | Custom-built | High / Medium / Low |
| [Component B] | ... | Product | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
The "Confidence" column matters. If you're unsure where something sits, say so. The debate about placement is where the insight lives.
For each placement, ask:
Here's where the map becomes dynamic. Everything moves to the right over time — from novel to commodity. The question is: what's moving fastest, and what are you not noticing?
Ask:
Update the evolution positions on the map. Note any components that moved a full stage or more — those are the ones that change your strategy.
This is where the map earns its keep. Based on the positions and movements, there are specific strategic plays to consider:
Look at your map for components you're building or maintaining in-house that sit at Product or Commodity stage. Every hour of engineering or management time spent on these is an hour stolen from things that actually differentiate you.
If a competitor's advantage depends on a component that's evolving toward commodity, you can accelerate that evolution. Open-source it. Fund alternatives. Make the market. Their castle is built on sand that's washing away — you can speed up the tide.
Genesis and early Custom-built components are where the next wave of competitive advantage lives. But only if you invest before they become products everyone can buy.
Any investment in a component that's rapidly moving toward commodity is money on fire. You're gold-plating something that's about to become a utility. The map makes this visible.
When a component commoditises, it enables new things above it in the value chain. Cheap cloud compute enabled SaaS. Cheap SaaS enabled workflow automation. Cheap automation enables... what? The next Genesis components often emerge on top of newly commoditised ones.
For each play, be specific: name the component, name the action, estimate the impact.
Every organisation has inertia — places where it resists the natural evolution of components. This is the strategic equivalent of insisting on using a horse and buggy because "we've always been a horse-and-buggy company."
Inertia shows up as:
Ask:
Set tripwires for future reassessment. These are "when X happens, revisit Y" statements:
Format: WHEN [observable event] THEN reassess [strategic decision]
Examples:
Ask the user to define 3-5 alert triggers based on the map. These go into company-context.md for future review sessions.
Present the final map as a structured table. Since we're working in text, not on a whiteboard, the table IS the map:
| Component | Depends on | Evolution | Movement | Strategic action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [User need] | — | n/a | — | — |
| [Component A] | [User need] | Custom-built -> Product | Moving right | Stop building, start buying |
| [Component B] | [Component A] | Genesis | Emerging | Experiment, invest early |
| [Component C] | [User need] | Commodity | Stable | Use utility, minimise spend |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
The "Movement" column is what makes this a living document rather than a static snapshot. Mark components as: Stable, Moving right (specify speed if known), Emerging (new to the map), or Declining (being replaced).
After completing the map, update the Wardley Map section in company-context.md with:
If no Wardley Map section exists in company-context.md, create one.
Reflect the map back. Name the three most important findings — not all of them, the three that change decisions.
Typically these are:
Don't soften the findings. The whole point of mapping is to see the terrain clearly. A map that makes you comfortable is a map that's lying to you.
Strategy Map (eterdis-strategy-map): Evolution changes what resources matter. A resource tied to a commoditising component is a depreciating asset. A resource tied to an emerging component is an appreciating one. Run the strategy map after the Wardley Map to check whether your resource-to-results chain accounts for where components are heading.
Environmental Radar (eterdis-environmental-radar): External forces (technology shifts, regulation, market changes) are what drive component evolution. The environmental radar spots the forces; the Wardley Map shows which of your components those forces will move.
VRIO Analysis (eterdis-vrio): Competitive advantages erode as components commoditise. If your VRIO advantage depends on a component that's moving to commodity, that advantage has an expiration date. The Wardley Map tells you when it expires.
First Principles Strategy (eterdis-first-principles): First principles identifies the theoretical maximum; the Wardley Map shows which components are conventional constraints (things you're treating as custom that should be commodity) versus genuine physical constraints. They're complementary lenses on the same question: what's actually possible?
Wardley Mapping as applied here follows the methodology created by Simon Wardley, adapted for conversational strategy work through 20 years of Eterdis consulting practice. For a facilitated mapping session with your leadership team — or to build a living map that connects to your broader strategic framework — visit eterdis.com or book a conversation at eterdis.com/contact.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.