بنقرة واحدة
competitive-analysis
Analyze competing products, tools, or approaches and produce a structured comparison report
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Analyze competing products, tools, or approaches and produce a structured comparison report
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | competitive-analysis |
| description | Analyze competing products, tools, or approaches and produce a structured comparison report |
Use this skill when tasked with comparing competing products, tools, services, vendors, or approaches. This is for evaluating external options against each other and against organizational needs — not for comparing internal code implementations (use the analyst/comparative-analysis skill for weighted scoring of internal options).
Common scenarios:
# Competitive Analysis: [Category]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Analyst:** [agent name]
**Decision Context:** [What decision does this analysis support?]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: how many options evaluated, which stands out, why]
## Options Evaluated
| # | Option | Category | Version/Date | Source |
|---|--------|----------|--------------|--------|
| 1 | [name] | [type] | [version] | [where info came from] |
## Comparison Matrix
| Criterion | [Option A] | [Option B] | [Option C] |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| [criterion 1] | [value] | [value] | [value] |
| [criterion 2] | [value] | [value] | [value] |
## Individual Assessments
### [Option A]
**Strengths:**
- [Strength 1 — with specific evidence]
- [Strength 2]
**Weaknesses:**
- [Weakness 1 — with specific evidence]
- [Weakness 2]
**Best Fit For:** [scenario where this option wins]
### [Option B]
...
## Recommendation
**Recommended option:** [name]
**Rationale:** [3-5 sentences explaining why, referencing specific criteria]
**Caveats:** [conditions under which this recommendation would change]
## Sources
| # | Source | Type | Reliability | Notes |
|---|--------|------|-------------|-------|
| 1 | [name/path] | [doc/spec/article] | [High/Medium/Low] | [brief note] |
# Read the task to extract what needs comparing
TASK_ID="$1"
bash /home/shared/scripts/task.sh get "$TASK_ID" | jq -r '.description'
Document these before proceeding:
TOPIC="$2" # e.g., "terraform" or "ci-cd-tools"
# Search workspace for any existing research, docs, or references
rg -l -i "$TOPIC" ~/workspace/ /home/shared/ 2>/dev/null | head -30
# Search for comparison docs that may already exist
find ~/workspace/ /home/shared/ -name '*.md' -o -name '*.txt' -o -name '*.csv' \
| xargs grep -li "compar\|versus\|vs\.\|alternative" 2>/dev/null
# Check for any data files with product/tool information
find /home/shared/ -name '*.json' -o -name '*.csv' -o -name '*.yaml' \
| xargs grep -li "$TOPIC" 2>/dev/null
# Read any input files specified in the task
INPUT_DIR="/home/shared/inputs"
if [ -d "$INPUT_DIR" ]; then
find "$INPUT_DIR" -type f | while read f; do
echo "=== $f ==="
head -50 "$f"
echo ""
done
fi
For each option, create a structured fact file:
OPTION="option-a"
mkdir -p /tmp/competitive-analysis
cat > "/tmp/competitive-analysis/${OPTION}.md" <<'EOF'
# Option: [Name]
## Basic Facts
- **Full name:**
- **Category:**
- **Version/Release date:**
- **Vendor/Maintainer:**
- **Pricing model:**
- **License:**
## Capabilities
- [capability 1]
- [capability 2]
## Limitations
- [limitation 1]
- [limitation 2]
## Evidence
- Source: [path/reference] — [what it says]
EOF
Criteria must be specific and measurable. Avoid vague criteria like "ease of use."
cat > /tmp/competitive-analysis/criteria.md <<'EOF'
| # | Criterion | Definition | Measurement | Weight |
|---|-----------|-----------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | [name] | [what exactly this means] | [how to measure/assess] | [H/M/L] |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |
| 4 | | | | |
| 5 | | | | |
EOF
Good criteria examples:
Bad criteria examples:
# Create a CSV comparison matrix for structured analysis
MATRIX_FILE="/tmp/competitive-analysis/matrix.csv"
# Build header row from options
echo "criterion,weight,option_a,option_b,option_c" > "$MATRIX_FILE"
# Add rows for each criterion
# Use specific values: numbers, yes/no, or short factual descriptions
cat >> "$MATRIX_FILE" <<'EOF'
SSO Support,H,SAML+OIDC,SAML only,No
Annual Cost (50 users),H,$12000,$8500,$15000
API Rate Limit,M,10000/hr,5000/hr,Unlimited
Setup Time (estimated),M,2 weeks,1 week,3 weeks
Active Community Size,L,15000 GitHub stars,2000,45000
EOF
Render the matrix as a readable table:
# Pretty-print the CSV matrix
column -t -s',' "$MATRIX_FILE"
For each option, extract strengths and weaknesses from the gathered facts:
# Generate structured assessment per option
python3 <<'PYEOF'
import csv
with open("/tmp/competitive-analysis/matrix.csv") as f:
reader = csv.DictReader(f)
rows = list(reader)
options = [k for k in rows[0].keys() if k not in ("criterion", "weight")]
for opt in options:
print(f"\n## {opt}")
strengths = []
weaknesses = []
for row in rows:
val = row[opt]
criterion = row["criterion"]
weight = row["weight"]
# Collect all values for this criterion to compare
all_vals = [row[o] for o in options]
# Flag as strength if this appears to be the best value
# Flag as weakness if this appears to be the worst value
print(f" {criterion} ({weight}): {val}")
PYEOF
The recommendation must:
REPORT_FILE="/home/shared/competitive-analysis-$(date +%Y%m%d)-${TOPIC}.md"
cat > "$REPORT_FILE" <<'REPORT'
# Competitive Analysis: [Category]
**Date:** $(date +%Y-%m-%d)
**Analyst:** $(hostname)
**Decision Context:** [What decision this supports]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences summarizing the analysis and top-level finding]
## Options Evaluated
| # | Option | Category | Version/Date | Source |
|---|--------|----------|--------------|--------|
| 1 | [name] | [type] | [version] | [source] |
| 2 | [name] | [type] | [version] | [source] |
| 3 | [name] | [type] | [version] | [source] |
## Evaluation Criteria
| # | Criterion | Definition | Weight |
|---|-----------|-----------|--------|
| 1 | [name] | [what it means] | [H/M/L] |
| 2 | [name] | [what it means] | [H/M/L] |
## Comparison Matrix
| Criterion | Weight | [Option A] | [Option B] | [Option C] |
|-----------|--------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| [name] | H | [value] | [value] | [value] |
| [name] | M | [value] | [value] | [value] |
## Individual Assessments
### [Option A]
**Strengths:**
- [Strength with evidence from matrix]
**Weaknesses:**
- [Weakness with evidence from matrix]
**Best Fit For:** [specific scenario]
### [Option B]
...
### [Option C]
...
## Recommendation
**Recommended option:** [name]
**Rationale:** [Why this option, citing specific criteria values from the matrix. Reference at least 3 data points.]
**What you give up:** [Specific advantages of non-recommended options that are sacrificed]
**Conditions that would change this recommendation:**
- If [condition], then [alternative option] would be preferred
- If [constraint changes], reconsider [option]
## Sources
| # | Source | Type | Reliability | Notes |
|---|--------|------|-------------|-------|
| 1 | [path/ref] | [type] | [H/M/L] | [note] |
REPORT
echo "Report written to: $REPORT_FILE"
bash /home/shared/scripts/artifact.sh register \
--name "competitive-analysis-${TOPIC}" \
--type "analysis" \
--path "$REPORT_FILE" \
--description "Competitive analysis of ${TOPIC} options"
# Notify requesting agent
bash /home/shared/scripts/send-mail.sh \
--to "$REQUESTING_AGENT" \
--subject "Competitive analysis complete: ${TOPIC}" \
--body "Report available at: $REPORT_FILE"
Discover team members, delegate tasks, and track progress to completion
Prepare structured meeting agendas and pre-reads from task board, artifacts, and team context
Classify, prioritize, and route incoming incidents based on severity, category, and affected components
Classify incoming requests and route to the appropriate specialist agent
How to communicate with other agents on the system. Use when you need to ask questions, share information, or coordinate.
Compare options against weighted criteria with scored matrix, sensitivity analysis, and quantified recommendation