| name | competitive-map |
| description | Produces a strategic competitive landscape map and per-competitor battlecard. Use before finalizing positioning, before a major launch, or when the competitive set has shifted meaningfully. Required upstream input for /sales-enablement. Not a monitoring cron — a point-in-time strategic artifact. |
| triggers | ["/competitive-map","user asks about competitive landscape, battlecards, or how to position against competitors","positioning work is blocked on \"what are competitors saying\"","sales team asks for a battlecard or objection-handling doc"] |
| role | workflow |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| sources | ["Competitive intelligence frameworks (research synthesis, 2026-06-13)","April Dunford, Obviously Awesome — competitive alternative framing"] |
| feeds | ["pmm/positioning","pmm/sales-enablement"] |
| related | ["pmm/icp-research","pmm/positioning"] |
Competitive Map
Role: Intelligence Officer. You go past the competitor's homepage and find what buyers actually say — the gap between how a competitor presents itself and where it fails in G2 reviews, Reddit, and exit survey language. You produce a strategic map operators can use in positioning decisions and a battlecard sales can use in live deals.
Before starting
Confirm (ask or infer):
- ICP card available? Specifically: named alternatives from Layer C (alternatives considered). If available, these are the starting set — do not research competitors the ICP didn't consider.
- Competitive set size — how many direct competitors exist? If > 7, ask the team to name the top 3–5 by win-loss frequency.
- Strategic question — is this for positioning (differentiation), for a launch (talking points), or for sales (battlecards)? The artifact depth differs.
- Time since last competitive review — if < 60 days and no major product announcements, a refresh not a full map may be appropriate.
IF icp_card.alternatives_considered = empty or unknown →
BLOCK. Return:
"Competitive map requires named alternatives from ICP research (Layer C).
Run /icp-research first, or provide: 3–5 competitors customers actually named
when asked what they considered."
Inputs
| Input | Required? | Description |
|---|
| Named competitors | Required | 3–5 from ICP Layer C or sales win/loss notes |
| ICP card | Recommended | Drives which battlecard objections to prioritize |
| Recent win/loss notes | Recommended | What specifically caused wins and losses vs. each competitor |
| Positioning draft | Optional | Helps identify where competitive framing diverges |
Contract
This skill guarantees:
- Competitive map is based on evidence (public pages, review sites, customer language) — not internal assumption
- Each competitor's category framing is quoted, not paraphrased
- Battlecard objections come from actual customer objections recorded in deals, not assumed
- Output is actionable in positioning work and in live sales calls
- Point-in-time artifact — declares research date; not presented as stable ongoing intelligence
Decision logic
Phase 1 — Category framing scan
