| name | cdiff - Competitive Differentiation |
| description | Find what makes something uniquely valuable versus alternatives. Maps competitors, compares features, identifies unique capabilities and weaknesses, assesses defensibility, and outputs positioning. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Competitive Differentiation
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: Identify Competitors and Alternatives
List everything the subject competes with, including indirect alternatives.
SUBJECT: [what we're analyzing]
MARKET/CONTEXT: [where it operates]
DIRECT COMPETITORS:
1. [competitor] — Similarity: [HIGH/MED] — Description: [brief]
2. [competitor] — Similarity: [HIGH/MED] — Description: [brief]
INDIRECT ALTERNATIVES:
1. [alternative] — How it substitutes: [explanation]
2. [alternative] — How it substitutes: [explanation]
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE: [what happens if users don't adopt anything]
Step 2: Map Feature Comparison
Create a structured comparison across key dimensions.
FEATURE COMPARISON:
| Dimension | Subject | [Comp 1] | [Comp 2] | [Comp 3] |
|-----------|---------|----------|----------|----------|
| [dim 1] | [rating] | [rating] | [rating] | [rating] |
| [dim 2] | [rating] | [rating] | [rating] | [rating] |
...
Rating scale: ●●● = strong, ●● = adequate, ● = weak, ○ = absent
DIMENSIONS CHOSEN BECAUSE: [why these dimensions matter]
Step 3: Identify Unique Capabilities
What can the subject do that no competitor can match?
UNIQUE CAPABILITIES:
1. [capability] — Why unique: [explanation] — User value: [what it enables]
2. [capability] — Why unique: [explanation] — User value: [what it enables]
NEAR-UNIQUE (strongest but not sole):
1. [capability] — Closest competitor: [who] — Gap size: [how far ahead]
TABLE STAKES (must-have, no differentiation):
- [capability]: all competitors offer this
Step 4: Identify Unique Weaknesses
Honest assessment of where the subject falls short.
UNIQUE WEAKNESSES:
1. [weakness] — Competitors that excel here: [who] — Impact: [how much it matters]
2. [weakness] — Competitors that excel here: [who] — Impact: [how much it matters]
CRITICAL WEAKNESSES (could be disqualifying):
- [weakness]: Users who care about this will choose [competitor] instead
ACCEPTABLE WEAKNESSES (trade-off of the chosen approach):
- [weakness]: Acceptable because [rationale]
Step 5: Determine Defensibility
Assess how sustainable the differentiation is.
DEFENSIBILITY ANALYSIS:
| Advantage | Defensibility | Time Horizon | Threat |
|-----------|--------------|-------------|--------|
| [advantage 1] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [months/years] | [what could erode it] |
| [advantage 2] | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [months/years] | [what could erode it] |
MOAT SOURCES:
- Network effects: [Y/N — detail]
- Switching costs: [Y/N — detail]
- Proprietary advantage: [Y/N — detail]
- Brand/trust: [Y/N — detail]
- Speed of iteration: [Y/N — detail]
VULNERABILITY: [the most likely way differentiation erodes]
Step 6: Output Positioning
POSITIONING STATEMENT:
[Subject] is the best choice for [target users] who need [key need]
because [unique advantage] — unlike [competitors] which [their limitation].
ELEVATOR PITCH (one sentence):
[concise value proposition]
WHEN TO CHOOSE [SUBJECT]: [specific scenarios]
WHEN TO CHOOSE COMPETITOR: [honest assessment of when alternatives win]
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION:
- Double down on: [strength to amplify]
- Shore up: [weakness to address]
- Ignore: [dimension not worth competing on]
Integration
Use with:
/cba -> Cost-benefit analysis of strengthening differentiation/usnd -> Discover user needs that differentiation should target/roip -> Prioritize which differentiators to invest in
