stg-analyzing-competition

name	stg-analyzing-competition
description	Maps competitive landscape, identifies positioning gaps, and assesses competitor response capability for red-team input. Use when researching competition during BUILD phase 1 or feeding destruction phase. Use when this capability is needed.
metadata	{"author":"BellaBe"}

Competitive Analysis

Map competitive landscape, identify positioning gaps, and assess competitor response capability. All competitive claims carry tier labels. Output feeds hypothesis evidence across the register.

Procedure

Step 1: Build Competitive Frame [K-grounded]

Grounded in: problem candidates, segment candidates.

Define competitive frame from problem + segment intersection. Competition is framed by what problems you solve for whom, not by technology similarity.

Produce: competitive frame definition (problem domain x target segment = competitive arena).

Gate: frame_defined: bool -- competitive frame states problem and segment, not just technology category.

• Pass: Step 2.
• Fail: If problem/segment not yet defined, use governor's problem space as initial frame. Note that competitive frame may need revision after hypothesis construction.

Step 2: Identify Direct Competitors [S]

WebSearch for companies solving the same problem for the same segment.

Search strategies:

• "[Problem] software"
• "[Problem] solution for [segment]"
• "Alternative to [known competitor]"
• G2/Capterra category pages
• Product Hunt searches
• Crunchbase industry filters

Data sources: G2, Capterra, Product Hunt, Crunchbase, company websites.

For each competitor:

• Positioning (headline/tagline from website)
• Target segment (from marketing copy)
• Pricing model (from pricing page)
• Key differentiators (from feature pages)

All claims cite source URL. Label T1 (directly observable on website).

Produce: direct competitor profiles.

Gate: direct_competitors_identified: bool -- at least 3 direct competitors identified with source URLs, or documented that fewer exist with evidence of search exhaustion.

• Pass: Step 3.
• Fail: Widen search. Try adjacent categories, broader problem framing. If genuinely no direct competitors, document: "No direct competitors found -- this is either a new category or the search missed them."

Step 3: Identify Indirect Competitors [R]

Classify alternatives into types:

Type	Example	Evidence Source
Manual process	Spreadsheets, email, paper	Forum posts, job descriptions
Adjacent product	Feature in larger platform	Product feature pages
Service provider	Consultants, agencies	Service marketplace listings
DIY solution	Internal tools, scripts	GitHub repos, forum posts
Status quo	Do nothing	Inferred from lack of solution adoption

For each: how used, why inadequate. Label T1 for existence, T2 for inadequacy assessment.

Produce: indirect competitor map with all 5 types evaluated (even if "not applicable" for some).

Gate: indirect_competitors_mapped: bool -- all 5 types evaluated.

• Pass: Step 4.
• Fail: The most common "competitor" is doing nothing or using spreadsheets. Always evaluate status quo and DIY alternatives. If these are missing, add them.

Step 4: Build Positioning Matrix [K-grounded]

Grounded in: direct competitor profiles, problem candidates.

For each direct competitor, map:

• Which problems they address
• Which segments they target
• Price range
• Key strength
• Key weakness

Identify gaps:

• Problems unaddressed by any competitor
• Segments underserved by existing solutions
• Price points uncovered (premium or value end)

Produce: positioning matrix with gap analysis. Label T1 for observable facts, T2 for gap identification.

Gate: matrix_built: bool -- at least 1 gap identified, or documented "no gaps found -- market is saturated" as a finding.

• Pass: Step 5.
• Fail: If no gaps visible, the market may genuinely be saturated. This is a finding, not a failure. Report it.

Step 5: Assess Competitor Response Capability (Red-Team Input) [K-grounded]

Grounded in: top 2-3 direct competitors from Step 2.

For each:

• Resource level: Funding raised, team size (from Crunchbase, LinkedIn). Label T1.
• Product velocity: Feature release frequency (from changelogs, Product Hunt, release notes). Label T1.
• Strategic focus: Inferred from hiring patterns (LinkedIn jobs), blog posts, conference talks. Label T2.

This feeds the strategist's destruction phase red-team mechanism: "You are the incumbent. A startup launched with this VP targeting your customers. What do you do in 90 days?"

Produce: competitor response profiles. Label T2 (inferred from public signals).

Gate: response_capability_assessed: bool -- at least 2 competitors profiled with resource level, product velocity, and strategic focus.

• Pass: Done.
• Fail: If competitor data is thin, note: "Competitor response assessment is low-confidence (T2-T3). Red-team should assume capable response."

Quality Criteria

• Minimum 3 direct competitors identified (or documented that fewer exist with evidence)
• All 5 indirect competitor types evaluated (even if "not applicable" for some)
• Every competitor claim cites a specific source with URL
• Positioning matrix identifies at least 1 gap (or documents "no gaps found -- market is saturated" as a finding)
• Competitor response profiles include resource level, product velocity, and strategic focus
• Tier labels on every claim (T1 for observable facts, T2 for inferred strategy)

Failure Modes

Mode	Signal	Recovery
Fabricated competitors	Competitor names that return no results on WebSearch	Remove. Only include verifiable competitors
Straw man competitors	All competitors described as weak, slow, or poorly positioned	Re-evaluate with adversarial frame: "What would a smart investor see as the incumbent advantage?" Report competitor strengths honestly
Missing the real competition	Competitor list is only direct SaaS competitors; status quo and manual processes ignored	The most common "competitor" is doing nothing or using spreadsheets. Always evaluate status quo and DIY alternatives

Boundaries

In scope: Direct competitor identification, indirect competitor mapping (5 types), positioning matrix with gap analysis, competitor response capability assessment, source citation, tier labeling.

Out of scope: Market sizing (stg-sizing-markets), segment definition (stg-segmenting-customers), problem scoring (stg-scoring-problems), pricing design (stg-designing-pricing).

---

Source: BellaBe/strategy-os — distributed by TomeVault.