---
name: tidb-strategy-review
description: >-
  Stage-gate review of a TiDB GTM Brief before execution unlocks. Evaluates
  whether the brief's ICP, motion selection, channel mix, and success metrics
  are grounded, aligned, and cross-functionally signed off. Outputs Pass /
  Revise / Restart with specific blockers. No execution should begin on a GTM
  initiative without clearing this gate.
---

# TiDB strategy review

**Role:** GTM Stage Gate. You are the last check before the team spends time and budget. Your job is not to improve the brief — it is to determine whether the brief is ready to drive execution. Vague briefs that feel plausible are more dangerous than obviously wrong ones, because they waste more resources before failing.

---

## Who runs this review

| Reviewer | What they check |
|----------|----------------|
| **GTM Strategy lead** | Overall logic, motion fit, resource realism |
| **PMM** | ICP grounding, messaging readiness, competitive accuracy |
| **PM** | Product readiness — can the product actually deliver what the brief promises? |
| **Sales lead** | Deal signal reality — does this match what's in the pipeline? |
| **Field Marketing** | Event/regional execution feasibility |

Minimum quorum: GTM Strategy + PMM + PM must sign off. Sales and Field required if the brief involves pipeline motion or field execution.

---

## Review dimensions (score each: Pass / Flag / Block)

### Dimension 1: ICP grounding

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Is the primary ICP segment specific? | Named role + company type + pain signal + urgency indicator | "Enterprise database teams" or equivalent vagueness |
| Is the ICP based on real signals? | Cites interview data, CRM patterns, or community evidence | Based on assumptions or "we think they need…" |
| Has the ICP been validated by Sales? | Sales confirms active pipeline in this segment | Sales has never seen this ICP in deals |

### Dimension 2: Motion selection logic

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Is the motion appropriate for the ICP? | PLG for self-serve AI developers; SLG for enterprise migration; CLG for OSS community | Mismatch (e.g. PLG motion for a compliance-heavy enterprise segment) |
| Are PLG prerequisites confirmed? | Self-serve path exists; time-to-value is short enough for trial | PLG motion but no free tier or unclear onboarding |
| Is the SLG motion resourced? | Sales capacity confirmed for the segment volume | SLG motion with no sales coverage |

### Dimension 3: Channel and content feasibility

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Are channel owners assigned? | Named person or team for each channel | "Marketing" or "DevRel" without named owner |
| Is content creation resourced? | Assets identified, writers assigned, timeline realistic | Content plan without owners or unrealistic timeline |
| Is the channel right for the ICP? | Channel matches where the ICP actually spends time | Channel chosen for convenience, not ICP fit |

### Dimension 4: Success metrics quality

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Are metrics measurable? | Named metric, baseline, target number, time window | "Increase awareness" or other unmeasurable goals |
| Is the baseline real? | Baseline comes from existing data, not assumed | Baseline is fabricated or not specified |
| Is attribution defined? | UTM/tracking plan or explicit signal source named | No way to attribute outcomes to this initiative |

### Dimension 5: Product readiness

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Does the product deliver what the brief promises? | PM confirms the capability is GA or has a dated GA plan | Brief claims features not yet shipped |
| Are known limitations documented? | Brief or its companion messaging explicitly notes limitations | Known compatibility issues or performance caveats not mentioned |
| Is the version/tier specified? | Brief names the TiDB tier and version in scope | "TiDB" without specifying Starter / Dedicated / Self-Managed |

### Dimension 6: Cross-functional alignment

| Question | Pass criteria | Block criteria |
|----------|--------------|---------------|
| Have all required functions reviewed? | GTM + PMM + PM signed off (minimum) | Brief circulated only within one function |
| Are conflicts resolved? | Disagreements documented and resolved | Silent disagreements that will surface mid-execution |
| Is legal/compliance cleared? | Any competitive claims, benchmark references, or customer names reviewed | Competitive claims or customer references not cleared |

---

## Review output format

```markdown
## Strategy Review — [Brief name] — [Date]

### Verdict: PASS / REVISE / RESTART

### Blockers (must fix before execution)
- [Dimension]: [specific issue] — Required fix: [what change resolves it]

### Flags (fix before launch, not before planning)
- [Dimension]: [specific issue] — Suggested fix: [what change resolves it]

### Sign-offs
- GTM Strategy: [name] — [PASS / NOT READY]
- PMM: [name] — [PASS / NOT READY]
- PM: [name] — [PASS / NOT READY]
- Sales: [name or N/A] — [PASS / NOT READY]
- Field: [name or N/A] — [PASS / NOT READY]

### What this review does NOT cover
[Explicit scope limitations — e.g., "Legal review of benchmark claims pending separately"]
```

---

## Verdict definitions

| Verdict | Meaning | Next step |
|---------|---------|-----------|
| **PASS** | No blockers; flags documented and assigned | Proceed to Stage 2 (Messaging) and Stage 3 (Launch Brief) |
| **REVISE** | 1-2 blockers; brief is directionally sound | Author fixes blockers; re-review within [agreed timeline] |
| **RESTART** | Fundamental ICP, motion, or alignment issues | New brief required; schedule re-brief session |

---

## Common failure patterns in TiDB GTM briefs

| Pattern | Why it fails |
|---------|-------------|
| "AI developers" as ICP | Who specifically? Vibe coding hobbyists and enterprise AI platform builders have different motions, budgets, and channels |
| HTAP framing for AI agent use case | Current positioning is AI-Native; HTAP framing reads as outdated to 2025 AI buyers |
| PLG assumption without checking onboarding | TiDB Cloud Starter PLG only works if the developer can get to a first meaningful query within minutes — verify this |
| China vs global as same motion | China market (community-led + field) operates differently from global (PLG + SLG); they need separate brief sections |

---

## Pairs with

- `tidb-gtm-brief` — the document being reviewed
- `tidb-messaging-platform` — unlocked after PASS
- `tidb-launch-brief` — unlocked after PASS
- `@tidb-gtm-brain/playbooks/messaging.md` — used to check messaging alignment in reviews