# NodeBench AI — King Mode Analysis

**King Mode criteria** (from CLAUDE.md):
1. **Wedge**: one buyer + one pain + one job-to-be-done
2. **Narrative**: 3 sentences that remain stable for 90 days
3. **Delegation**: outcomes owned by others, not tasks assigned
4. **Governance**: decision rights + quality gates + cadence
5. **Proof**: metrics/case studies/demos that remove the need to argue

---

## Current State Analysis

### 1. Wedge — TOO BROAD

**Current positioning:**
- Target: "Developers using AI agents" (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf users)
- Pain: "Agents ship bugs"
- JTBD: "Make agents catch bugs"

**Problems:**
- "Developers using AI agents" is not a wedge — it's a market
- No single pain dominates the messaging
- The comparative benchmark (26 blind spots prevented) is strong but who specifically cares?

**King Mode gap:** No clear ICP. Is it:
- Solo founders shipping fast who can't afford production fires?
- Teams with AI-coding policies who need governance?
- Regulated industries (healthcare, finance) where AI code needs audit trails?

### 2. Narrative — FEATURE STATEMENT, NOT TRANSFORMATION

**Current tagline:**
> "Make AI agents catch the bugs they normally ship."

**Problems:**
- This is a feature, not a narrative
- Describes what the tool does, not what the user becomes
- No emotional hook or transformation arc

**King Mode narrative should answer:**
- What does the user become after using this?
- Why does this matter beyond "fewer bugs"?
- What's the 90-day story?

### 3. Delegation — BACKWARDS FRAMING

**Current framing:**
> "One command gives your agent structured research, risk assessment, 3-layer testing..."

**Problems:**
- The MCP does work FOR the agent, not for the user
- King Mode: "outcomes owned by others, not tasks assigned"
- Current: "your agent catches bugs" → should be "you delegate with confidence"

**The shift:**
- Current: Agent-centric ("your agent gets tools")
- King Mode: User-centric ("you get governance over what your agent does")

### 4. Governance — DEFENSIVE, NOT EMPOWERING

**Current framing:**
> "Deploys blocked by gate violations: 4"

**Problems:**
- "Blocked" sounds like friction, not safety
- Gates are framed as obstacles, not decision rights
- Missing: When can the agent act autonomously vs when does it need approval?

**King Mode governance:**
- Decision rights: "Agent can auto-fix tests. Agent must ask before touching auth."
- Quality gates: "These 52 rules run before any deploy. Here's the pass/fail."
- Cadence: "Every session ends with a flywheel run. Every week ends with an eval batch."

### 5. Proof — STRONG BUT ANONYMOUS

**Current proof:**
- Comparative benchmark table is excellent (13 issues, 26 blind spots, etc.)
- But: no case studies, no named users, no "who else uses this"

**King Mode proof:**
- Named users: "Company X uses NodeBench to..."
- Case studies: "How Y reduced AI-caused incidents by Z%"
- Demos: "Watch an agent fix a real bug with/without NodeBench"

---

## Proposed Changes

### 1. Wedge — Pick ONE Buyer

**Recommendation: Solo technical founders / small teams shipping fast**

Why:
- They feel the pain of production fires acutely (no QA team, no safety net)
- They're adopting AI coding tools aggressively (early adopters)
- They have decision authority (no procurement cycle)
- They talk to each other (word-of-mouth channel)

**Revised wedge:**
> Solo founders shipping with AI who can't afford their first production fire.

**Pain:** "I'm moving fast with AI but I don't trust what it ships."
**JTBD:** "Ship AI-written code with confidence."

### 2. Narrative — 3 Sentences for 90 Days

**Proposed narrative:**
> You're shipping with AI but you don't trust what it writes. NodeBench gives you the governance layer so every AI change is verified, traceable, and compoundable. By day 30, you're delegating to agents with the same confidence you'd have reviewing a senior engineer's PR.

**Why this works:**
- Sentence 1: Names the current state (distrust)
- Sentence 2: Names the transformation (governance layer)
- Sentence 3: Names the destination (confident delegation)

### 3. Delegation — User-Centric Reframe

**Current README opening:**
> "Make AI agents catch the bugs they normally ship."

**Proposed opening:**
> "Your agent works for you. NodeBench makes sure it does what you asked."

**Supporting copy:**
> Every AI-written change goes through a verification pipeline you control. Research before coding. Risk assessment before action. 3-layer testing before deploy. Knowledge that compounds across sessions. You delegate the work. NodeBench governs the outcome.

### 4. Governance — Decision Rights, Not Blocks

**Add a "Governance Model" section to README:**

```markdown
## Governance Model — What Your Agent Can and Can't Do

NodeBench enforces decision rights so you know exactly what your agent does autonomously vs what requires your approval.

### Autonomous (agent acts without asking)
- Run tests and fix failing assertions
- Refactor within existing patterns
- Add logging and observability
- Update documentation

### Requires confirmation (agent asks before acting)
- Changes to auth, security, or permissions
- Database migrations
- API contract changes
- Deleting code or files

### Quality gates (enforced before any deploy)
- Static analysis passes (tsc, lint)
- Unit tests pass
- Integration tests pass
- No unresolved gaps in verification cycle
- Knowledge banked for future sessions
```

### 5. Proof — Add Case Studies

**Add to README:**

```markdown
## Who Uses This

- **[Your name/company]** — "NodeBench caught 3 bugs in my last AI-assisted deploy that would have taken down the API. The knowledge compounding alone has saved me hours of re-investigation." — [Your Name], Founder

- **[Case study placeholder]** — "We went from 'I hope this works' to 'I can see exactly what changed and why' in 2 weeks."

### Comparative Benchmark (9 real production prompts)

| Metric | Bare Agent | With NodeBench |
|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Issues detected before deploy | 0 | **13** |
| Blind spots shipped | **26** | **0** |
| Knowledge entries for future sessions | 0 | **9** |
```

---

## Implementation Priority

| Change | Effort | Impact | Priority |
|--------|--------|--------|----------|
| Revise README opening | Low | High | 1 |
| Add governance model section | Medium | High | 2 |
| Rewrite narrative (3 sentences) | Low | High | 3 |
| Add case studies | Medium | Medium | 4 |
| Sharpen wedge in all copy | Medium | High | 5 |

---

## The King Mode Test

After these changes, does NodeBench pass the King Mode criteria?

| Criteria | Before | After |
|----------|--------|-------|
| **Wedge** | "Developers using AI" (broad) | "Solo founders shipping with AI" (specific) |
| **Narrative** | Feature statement | 3-sentence transformation arc |
| **Delegation** | Agent-centric | User-centric ("you delegate, we govern") |
| **Governance** | Defensive ("blocks") | Empowering ("decision rights") |
| **Proof** | Anonymous benchmark | Named users + benchmark |

**Verdict:** These changes would shift NodeBench from "tool for agents" to "governance layer for humans who delegate to agents." That's the King Mode orientation.
