| name | competitive-report-structure |
| description | >- Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards. Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations, and team alignment trigger questions. |
Competitive Report Structure
Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report.
The report must answer three questions for the client: who do we compete with,
how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space? Every section
earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't.
When to Activate
- All competitor profile cards from benchmark-methodology are complete and ready to assemble.
- Need to present competitive findings to a founder, leadership team, or board.
- The report must drive decisions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is) — not just document the landscape.
- Preparing a client deliverable that must be auditable and defensible.
Client positioning brief (establish first)
Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It
supplies:
- Strategic tension — the paired axes (e.g., memorability × hireability)
that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve
back to this tension.
- Brand balance — the intended proportional mix of the client's strategic
emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft).
Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that
would shift it.
- Differentiator — the framing principle for the executive summary and
white-space section.
- Target quadrant — where the client intends to sit in the tension map;
confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central
empirical question.
Framing principle
The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and
recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance.
Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it
explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm
intent."
Report sections
1. Executive summary
3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain
language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its
target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only
this and knows what to do. No methodology here.
2. Market landscape & category framing
Define the category and map it. Use a multi-axis map — at minimum a 2×2
(e.g., brand-led <-> capability-led × boutique <-> enterprise-scale), and
ideally the client's tension plot from benchmark-methodology as the
headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should
make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or
empty) it is.
3. Competitor tiers
Organize the set into Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational (from
competitive-platform-analysis). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's
in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before
the detail.
4. Benchmarking matrix
The full competitors × dimensions table — the quantitative spine. Rows =
competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note:
dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include
the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a heatmap
(color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do not
add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias
controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails.
5. Deep dives
3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards).
Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension
(high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but
forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each
deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should
avoid.
6. White-space & threats
The strategic heart. Two parts:
- White-space: the position the client can own that rivals don't — argued
from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant
(from the positioning brief) is genuinely open.
- Threats: who/what pressures the client — a rival closing the gap,
substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or
category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity
reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers).
7. Strategic recommendations
Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates,
and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership,
brand sharpening). Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the
positioning brief and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact ×
effort.
8. Sources / methodology appendix
The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per
competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the
report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline
through.
How to present data
- 2×2 / positioning maps — for landscape and the tension plot. Lead with
these; they carry the argument faster than prose.
- Heatmap matrix — for the competitors × dimensions comparison (section 4).
- Profile cards — the source unit feeding deep dives (section 5).
- Quadrant callouts — name who sits in each quadrant explicitly, especially
the client's target one.
- Keep tables scannable; push raw evidence and links to the appendix.
Decision framework (the report must resolve these)
- Who do we compete with? — Name the Direct tier specifically; that's the
real fight.
- How do we compete? — State the client's differentiator in one sentence,
grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns).
- Where are our differentiators defensible? — Identify the
dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that
are table-stakes.
Trigger questions for the team alignment session
End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis:
- Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in?
- Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and
what's the counter?
- Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis
shift?
- Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to
deliberately concede?
- What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness without costing
hireability / credibility?
Anti-Patterns
- Leading with methodology. The executive summary opens with the most important finding, not an explanation of how the benchmark was run. Methodology belongs in the appendix.
- Presenting scores without the tension plot. The 2×2 tension map is the headline artefact. A table of numbers without the map buries the strategic insight.
- Omitting the decision framework. The report must resolve the three questions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is). Leaving these unanswered turns the report into a literature review.
- Starting before all profile cards are complete. Benchmark-methodology must finish before assembly begins. Partial data produces gaps that undermine the heatmap and white-space analysis.
- Adding a blended total column to the matrix. Explicitly excluded — it creates a false composite that obscures the asymmetry the client needs to act on.
Related Skills
benchmark-methodology — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles.competitive-platform-analysis — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3.brand-discovery — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.
Activation Triggers
Final step in the three-skill competitive pipeline.
