competitors-analysis

name	competitors-analysis
description	Discover, clone, update, and analyze competitor repositories with evidence-based competitive intelligence. Use when tracking competitors, reviewing competitor source code, adding a competitor repository, comparing product capabilities, building a competitor landscape, checking whether competitor code changed, or when the user says "竞品分析", "竞品", "competitor scan", "latest competitor code", "analyze competitor", or "compare with X". Repository-backed findings must come from local cloned code with file:line citations; market-landscape claims must cite their source and volatility.
context	fork
agent	general-purpose
argument-hint	[product-name] [competitor-url-or-search-query]

Competitors Analysis

Build competitor intelligence that can be shared, re-run, and audited later. This skill has two layers:

1. Repository evidence: clone or update the competitor code under the durable competitors workspace, then cite facts from actual files and commits.
2. Landscape synthesis: summarize positioning, pricing, strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and opportunities, but only after separating sourced facts from judgment.

This skill intentionally subsumes lightweight "competitor scan" workflows. A scan is useful for the landscape table, but it is not enough for technical conclusions.

Entry Router

If the user's request is missing the product/market or target customer segment, ask for that context before synthesizing positioning or opportunity claims. Known competitors are optional; if absent, use Discover mode.

Use the user's wording to choose the path:

User intent	Mode	What to do
"find competitors", "竞品有哪些", broad market query	Discover	Search GitHub and web sources, shortlist candidates, clone only relevant repositories
"add competitor "	Ingest	Clone the repository, record remote + commit, then produce a first profile
"analyze competitor", "review this repo"	Profile	Update or clone locally, read code, write a cited technical profile
"compare", "landscape", "opportunities"	Landscape	Ensure each competitor has a profile, then synthesize gaps and opportunities
"latest code", "有没有更新"	Update	Pull/fetch existing competitors and report changed commits before analysis

Durable Source Layout

Use a durable workspace, not /tmp. The default base is:

COMPETITORS_BASE="${COMPETITORS_BASE:-$HOME/workspace/competitors}"

Directory convention:

$COMPETITORS_BASE/
└── {product-slug}/
    ├── {owner-repo}/
    └── ...

Use owner-repo for GitHub repositories so forks and similarly named projects do not collide. If the user's machine already has a product directory, use it as the source of truth and do not re-clone elsewhere.

Preflight

Before analysis, establish these facts from commands, not memory:

repo="$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/{owner-repo}"
test -d "$repo/.git"
git -C "$repo" remote -v
git -C "$repo" fetch --all --prune
git -C "$repo" log -1 --format='%H%x09%cI%x09%s'

If the repository is missing, clone it first. Prefer SSH for GitHub when possible:

mkdir -p "$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}"
git clone --depth 1 <git-ssh-url> "$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/{owner-repo}"

If SSH fails for a public repository, report the failure and retry with the repository's HTTPS URL only when that keeps the work moving.

Discovery Workflow

Use gh search repos for GitHub repository discovery. Search multiple query phrases; do not trust one keyword.

gh search repos "product keywords" \
  --limit 30 \
  --archived=false \
  --json fullName,url,description,stargazersCount,forksCount,openIssuesCount,language,pushedAt,updatedAt,defaultBranch

For each candidate, record:

Field	Source
Repository name and URL	gh search repos / gh repo view
Description	GitHub API or README line citation after clone
Activity	pushedAt, latest commit, release notes if present
Stars/forks/issues	GitHub API with retrieval date
Why it is relevant	user's product scope + repository evidence

Clone only candidates that are relevant to the user's product or analysis goal. For broad markets, first present a shortlist with evidence and then analyze the strongest set.

Repository Fact Gathering

Read files in this order and capture exact sources:

1. Project metadata: package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, or equivalent.
2. README and docs: positioning, screenshots, installation, pricing links.
3. Entry points: main, bin, scripts, src/, app/, packages/.
4. Core implementation: renderer, parser, storage, export, sync, auth, API, or domain-specific modules.
5. Tests and fixtures: they often reveal supported data structures and edge cases.
6. Releases/changelog: current direction and recent changes.

Use nl -ba <file> or an editor with line numbers before citing. Every technical claim about implementation needs file:line evidence.

Report Structure

For a single competitor, use references/profile_template.md.

For a landscape summary, use this structure:

# {Product} Competitor Landscape

## Source Register
| Competitor | Local path | Remote | Commit | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Positioning
| Competitor | User segment | Primary promise | Source |
|---|---|---|---|

## Product And Technical Comparison
| Dimension | Competitor A | Source | Competitor B | Source | Our product | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Strengths
| Competitor | Strength | Evidence | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|

## Weaknesses And Gaps
| Competitor | Gap | Evidence | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|

## Opportunities
| Opportunity | Evidence base | Product implication | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|

## Risks And Assumptions
| Item | What is known | What still needs verification | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|

Evidence Rules

Required

Claim type	Required evidence
Dependency/framework/version	Config file line citation
Feature support	README/docs line citation plus code citation when technical
Parser/export/storage behavior	Code line citation
Pricing/cloud-hosted claim	Official page citation with retrieval date
Popularity/activity	GitHub API/page citation with retrieval date
Opportunity judgment	Evidence rows it derives from plus explicit confidence

Forbidden

Do not write unsupported technical claims. Avoid these patterns unless they appear inside an explicit "bad example" block:

Pattern	Why
"推测", "可能", "应该", "大概", "似乎"	Blurs evidence and judgment
"未公开", "未披露"	Pretends to know disclosure status
"architecture, inferred from UI"	Technical architecture must come from code
Unsourced numbers	Cannot be audited later

When evidence is unavailable, write 待验证 and state the exact next check that would verify it.

Output Quality Bar

Before finishing, run the checks in references/analysis_checklist.md:

• Local repository exists under $COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/.
• Remote URL and latest commit are recorded.
• Each technical claim has a file:line citation.
• Market facts have a source and retrieval date.
• Landscape judgments are separated from facts.
• The final answer names gaps, opportunities, and risks without pretending they are code facts.

Script

Use scripts/update-competitors.sh as the starting point for durable competitor repository management:

COMPETITORS_BASE="$HOME/workspace/competitors" \
PRODUCT_NAME="{product-slug}" \
./scripts/update-competitors.sh status

./scripts/update-competitors.sh discover "claude code viewer"
./scripts/update-competitors.sh clone-url https://github.com/org/repo
./scripts/update-competitors.sh pull

The script is a template. For a long-running product, copy it into that product's own repo or operations directory and fill the persistent competitor list.

Relationship To Product Analysis

product-analysis may invoke this skill for compare mode. Keep this skill focused on competitor discovery, repository evidence, and competitive synthesis. Do not turn it into a general product audit orchestrator.