map-competitive-landscape

name	map-competitive-landscape
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "map the competitive landscape," "who are our real competitors," "find white space in this market," or needs competitors grouped by actual strategic logic rather than by surface product category.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
metadata	{"version":"0.4.0","owner":"market-intelligence practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"structured-aggregation","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"}

Map Competitive Landscape

When to use

CI and product strategy practitioners grouping competitors by strategic logic — cost structure, segment, channel, model — not surface product labels.

What this skill does not do

• Does not forecast responses — route to /market-intelligence:forecast-competitive-response.
• Does not test positioning — route to /market-intelligence:test-positioning.
• Does not invent market share data — tag figures [verify] or omit.

Preconditions

Input	If missing
Market definition (practice profile or user)	Ask; do not assume category from product name alone
Named competitors or candidate set	Ask user to name players; flag [review] if list may be incomplete
Practice profile	Proceed from user input; label assumptions

Provisional mode

Thin competitor list: output groups with explicit UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: unknown — competitor set incomplete flag; do not present white space as validated.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (structured-aggregation):
  • High: MECE groups, mobility barriers rated with evidence, white space hypothesis stated with structural rationale.
  • Medium: Groups solid, some barrier ratings [review], under-the-radar scan attempted.
  • Low: Incomplete competitor set or category-only grouping — scaffold only.
• Failure modes:
  • Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces groups and threats; does not recommend which position to take.
  • Client confidentiality: Competitor intelligence sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header per plugin CLAUDE.md.
  • Accountability gap: White space labeled attractive vs. structurally unattractive — strategist validates.
  • Analytical Rigor: Groups MECE by strategic logic; mobility barriers falsifiable.
  • Incentive Gaming: N/A for this shape.
• Escalation triggers: User insists on category-only grouping — explain failure mode, proceed only if acknowledged.

Assumption audit

Before grouping, audit assumptions that would invalidate the map:

Assumption	Status	If wrong, what breaks
Market boundary definition	[confirmed / user-stated / assumed]	Wrong competitors included or excluded
Competitor set completeness	[complete / partial / unknown]	White space is artefact of missing players
Mobility barrier ratings	[evidence-backed / judgment / unknown]	False sense of defensibility
Share or size figures used	[sourced / omitted / verify]	Attractive segments mis-sized

List audited assumptions in the output header when any row is assumed or unknown.

Red flags

Non-negotiable — do not deliver High confidence without passing every check:

• MUST NOT group by product category labels alone when strategic logic (cost structure, segment, channel, model) is available — category grouping causes false white-space signals.
• Do not proceed to white-space recommendations if the competitor set is incomplete — incomplete sets tend to cause phantom gaps.
• Hard stop: presenting market size or share without [verify] or a named source — invented share data causes bad entry bets.
• MUST NOT rate mobility barriers "high" from inertia alone — inertia is not a structural barrier and causes overconfidence in moats.

Outside-view step

After step 4 (white space), compare the proposed map to a reference class of markets with similar structure (number of strategic groups, typical barrier height, consolidation pattern):

1. Name the reference class (e.g. "B2B SaaS workflow tools, 3–5 strategic groups, winner-take-most in enterprise").
2. State whether this market's group count and barrier pattern matches or diverges — divergence needs explicit rationale.
3. If white space looks attractive vs. the reference class, ask: did peers also see this gap and fail to capture it? Absence of entrants may mean structural unattractiveness, not opportunity.

Always sanity-check white space against peer-market reference classes because unseen gaps in one map often reflect missing competitors rather than genuine opportunity — incomplete scans tend to cause false white-space calls.

Workflow

Before step 1: Read and apply ../../references/trust-conventions.md — source-tagging, [verify] on model-only numbers, load-bearing assumptions at top, numbers provenance, confidence labeling, and board-ready gate.

1. Read the practice profile — ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/org-profile.md and ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md — for market definition and known competitor set.
2. Group competitors into strategic groups by cost structure, target segment, channel, business model — not product category labels.
3. Identify mobility barriers between groups — capital, channel, brand, regulatory; rate realistically (inertia ≠ high barrier).
4. Identify white space — ask: unoccupied because unseen or structurally unattractive? State which explanation is more likely.
5. Flag under-the-radar competitor — adjacent group player with low mobility barrier into your space.
6. Completeness check before output: every named competitor placed; market figures source-tagged.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
STRATEGIC GROUP: [name — defined by cost structure/segment/channel/model]
  Members: [...]

[repeat per group]

MOBILITY BARRIERS:
[Group A] → [Group B]: [barrier, realistic rating: high/medium/low]

WHITE SPACE: [position] — Unoccupied because: [nobody's spotted it / structurally
  unattractive — explain which]

UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: [player, group, low-barrier path into your space, even if not
  currently visible as a competitor]

Worked example

Input: Workflow automation market. User names Incumbent A (enterprise suite), Challenger B (mid-market SaaS), Adjacent C (RPA vendor expanding).

Expected output (excerpt):

CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
STRATEGIC GROUP: Enterprise integrated suite
  Members: Incumbent A

STRATEGIC GROUP: Mid-market point solution
  Members: Challenger B

MOBILITY BARRIERS:
Mid-market → Enterprise: high (implementation services, brand trust)

WHITE SPACE: Vertical-specific compliance workflows — Unoccupied because: structurally unattractive (small TAM per vertical) [verify]

UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: Adjacent C — RPA/automation group — low-barrier path via workflow module launch into mid-market [review]

Quality checks before delivering

• Groups defined by strategic logic, not category labels only
• Every named competitor placed in a group
• White space includes structural attractiveness assessment
• Under-the-radar threat explicitly named or gap flagged
• Market figures source-tagged or omitted

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: forecast-competitive-response, test-positioning, or map-incentives on key players.