| name | swot-analysis |
| argument-hint | [company and scope, and the decision it supports] |
| description | Build an evidence-cited SWOT of one company — yours or a competitor's — from public sources, ending with the S-O/W-T crossings. Use for strategy reviews, board prep, or competitor depth. |
| intent | An evidence-cited SWOT from the public record: strengths and weaknesses from documented capability and customer voice, opportunities and threats from market and macro signals — every entry labeled and sourced, closing with the S-O attack and W-T exposure crossings that most SWOTs skip. |
| type | workflow |
| theme | market-intelligence |
| best_for | ["Strategy reviews and board prep that need a defensible read on one company's position","Competitor depth after a snapshot has identified who matters","Partnership or acquisition evaluation grounded in evidence, not impressions"] |
| scenarios | ["SWOT our biggest competitor before the strategy offsite — from public evidence","We're evaluating a partnership with [company]; what does the public record say about their position?"] |
| estimated_time | 20-35 min per run |
SWOT Analysis (Evidence-Cited)
Purpose
Build an evidence-cited SWOT of one company — yours or a competitor's — from the public record:
use or gather evidence → four labeled quadrants → crossings → next-step options. Strengths and
weaknesses come from documented capability and customer voice; opportunities and threats from market,
competitor, and macro signals. Every entry carries a source and a label, and the analysis ends with
the S-O and W-T crossings — because a SWOT without "so what" is a parking lot with four sections.
Input
Works best with: the company to analyze, the scope (whole company or one product line/market),
and the decision this SWOT should support.
Also useful: the perspective — theirs, or yours competing with them — and any research already in
session (a competitive-research-snapshot, VoC themes, a
landscape scan, company-intel output): the SWOT then synthesizes
instead of re-searching.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (company + scope,
decision, perspective) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.
Example invocation: Evidence-cited SWOT on [Competitor A]'s mid-market product line, from our perspective — supports the Q3 positioning refresh. Last month's snapshot is attached.
Key Concepts
- Governing protocol: honors the
autonomous-investigation
contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
Mode (max 5 ranked entries per quadrant), stable schema, 4-option Final Step. Disciplines: OSINT +
FININT + HUMINT per intelligence-collection-disciplines.
- Quadrant discipline. S and W are internal and current; O and T are external. The most
common SWOT error is an "opportunity" that requires the company to act — that's a strategy, not an
opportunity. Flag it when you catch it; catching it is half the teaching.
- Claimed vs. evidenced advantage. Strengths sourced from the company's own marketing are
claims; strengths corroborated by customer voice, filings, or independent coverage are evidence.
Customer voice weighs heaviest on weaknesses — buyers document weaknesses vendors won't.
