Run a structured competitive teardown in 20 minutes. Covers positioning, ICP, offer analysis, moat assessment, vulnerability mapping, and a direct attack brief. Use when someone says "analyze my competitor," "competitive research," "how do I differentiate from X," or "what are my competitor's weaknesses."
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Run a structured competitive teardown in 20 minutes. Covers positioning, ICP, offer analysis, moat assessment, vulnerability mapping, and a direct attack brief. Use when someone says "analyze my competitor," "competitive research," "how do I differentiate from X," or "what are my competitor's weaknesses."
Competitor Intel Brief
Mode
Detect from context or ask: "Quick teardown, full intel brief, or full brief with attack plan?"
Mode
What you get
Best for
quick
Positioning snapshot + top 3 vulnerabilities
Fast competitive context before a sales call
standard
Full 4-step teardown: positioning, ICP, offer, moat + vulnerability map
Pre-pitch, GTM planning, repositioning
deep
Full teardown + direct attack brief + quarterly re-audit comparison
Competitive strategy overhaul, new market entry
Default: standard — use quick before a call. Use deep if you're building a sustained competitive strategy.
Runtime Context
Platform: Claude Code / OpenClaw File system: Available. Read prior outputs before starting. Save all outputs to the paths specified in Memory Protocol. Cross-skill dependencies:
Upstream: Founder Intelligence (competitive context may come from there), Brand Positioning Audit (positioning gaps to investigate)
Save output to:research/competitor-[name]-YYYY-MM-DD.md
At session start: Check if a prior analysis file exists for this competitor. If yes:
Load it into context
Note this is a re-audit session
After scoring each section, add a "Change since last audit" note:
Score improved / declined / stable
What specifically changed
New vulnerabilities identified or prior gaps now closed
Cross-session rule: If a prior teardown exists, always load it before running the new analysis — do not treat this as a cold start. Surface the delta, not just the snapshot.
Ecosystem Connections
When this analysis is complete, identify if outputs should flow to other skills:
Feeds into Brand Positioning Audit: Pass the competitive landscape summary (Sections 1, 3, 5) in structured markdown so it can populate Section 3 (Competitive Separation) of that audit
Feeds into Founder Intelligence: Pass competitor analysis framing when competitive context is needed for lens application
Output format for Brand Positioning handoff:
## Competitive Landscape (from Competitor Intel Brief)
Competitor: [name]
Their primary position: [one sentence]
Their ICP: [one sentence]
Their primary vulnerability: [one sentence]
Recommended separation claim: [exploit language from Section 5]
Run a structured competitive teardown in 20 minutes.
Most competitive research is vague, slow, and useless in a meeting. "They're strong in content" is not intelligence. This skill runs a structured teardown — positioning, ICP, offer gaps, moat assessment using Helmer's 7 Powers, vulnerability mapping, and a direct attack brief. Every finding needs a specific signal. Output is pitch-deck ready without editing.
How This Works
You give me a competitor. I pull apart how they position, what they sell, where they're overextended, and exactly where you can exploit the gap. Each section is actionable by design — built for founders and marketers who need to make a decision, not just understand the landscape.
What you'll get:
Positioning Snapshot — ICP, message, and tone fingerprint
Offer & Pricing Analysis — what they sell, what the pricing signals, what's missing
Content & Channel Fingerprint — where they publish, what they own, what they avoid
Vulnerability Map — 3 specific gaps with evidence and language to exploit each
Attack Brief — how to position, where to show up, what to say, what to do first
Time to complete: 20 minutes with a clear target.
Step 1 — Intake
Ask for all of this in a single message:
To run this competitive teardown, give me the following in one message:
1. **Competitor name** — the company or person you want analyzed
2. **Website URL** — homepage is enough to start; add pricing/about pages if you have them
3. **Your own positioning** — optional, but the output quality improves significantly. One sentence: who you serve, what you do, how you're different.
4. **What decision is this intel for?** — choose one or more:
- Enter market (deciding whether/how to compete)
- Differentiate (sharpen your positioning against them)
- Pitch (competitive slide, investor question prep)
- Pricing (benchmarking, anchoring, undercutting)
- All of the above
Before running the analysis, fetch the competitor's website. Review the homepage, about page, and pricing page (if public). Pull direct quotes — verbatim language from their site is the foundation of the whole analysis.
If the URL is inaccessible or returns an error, note it and proceed with what can be inferred from the name + search results. Flag clearly where live data is missing.
Step 2 — Live Research Protocol
Before writing any output, do the following:
Fetch the homepage — capture their hero headline, subheadline, and primary CTA verbatim
Fetch the about page — capture how they describe their origin, mission, and team
Fetch the pricing page (if public) — capture tier names, prices, and included features
Run a web search for [competitor name] reviews, [competitor name] vs, and [competitor name] complaints — capture patterns, not just individual reviews
Run a web search for [competitor name] on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and any obvious content channels
Flag every data point with its source. Do not assert things you cannot verify from live data. If a section requires data you don't have, write: [DATA NEEDED: describe what's missing and how to get it]
Step 3 — Output
Deliver all six sections. Every claim needs a specific signal. No vague assertions.
SECTION 1: Positioning Snapshot
1a. How they describe themselves
Quote their hero headline and subheadline verbatim. If their homepage has changed recently or is behind a login, note it.
Implied ICP (who they say they're for): The audience stated in their marketing copy
Actual ICP (who they're optimized for): The audience their pricing, case studies, testimonials, and product features are actually built for
These are often different. A company that says "for teams of all sizes" but prices at $500/month minimum has an actual ICP of mid-market and above. Call the gap explicitly.
1c. Primary message and what it's optimized for
State the core message in one sentence. Then identify what it's built for:
Acquisition — designed to convert new buyers who don't know them yet
Retention — designed to reinforce value with existing customers
Trust-building — designed to reduce skepticism before conversion
Category creation — designed to establish a new way of thinking about the problem
1d. Tone fingerprint
Five words that describe how they communicate. Pull these from actual copy — not from what they claim to be, but how the writing actually reads.
Example format:
Tone fingerprint: [word], [word], [word], [word], [word]
Evidence: "[verbatim quote that demonstrates this]"
SECTION 2: Offer & Pricing Analysis
2a. What they sell and how it's packaged
Map their offer structure:
Free trial / freemium / demo model (yes/no, structure)
If pricing is hidden ("contact us"), note it. Hidden pricing is a strategic signal — usually enterprise-only, usually high ACV.
2b. What the pricing structure signals about their customer
Pricing is positioning. Analyze what the price points reveal:
Under $50/mo → self-serve, price-sensitive, high volume
$100–500/mo → SMB, some hand-holding, features-led
$500–2K/mo → mid-market, relationship expected, outcomes over features
$2K+/mo or custom → enterprise, ROI-justified, long sales cycles
Don't just state the price; interpret it. "Their $299/month entry tier with no annual discount signals they're targeting buyers who prioritize flexibility over commitment — likely agencies or project-based buyers, not growing SaaS teams."
2c. What's conspicuously absent from their offer
This is the gap analysis. Look for:
Audience segments not served (the excluded customer)
Price points with nothing available (the missing tier)
Features or outcomes mentioned in reviews but not in the product
Services competitors provide that this company doesn't
Integrations, compliance, or use cases conspicuously unaddressed
Format:
Gap: [specific description]
Signal: [what they said, showed, or priced that reveals this gap]
SECTION 3: Content & Channel Fingerprint
3a. Where they publish and how often
List every content channel identified:
Blog / Resource center (post frequency if detectable)
Email newsletter (yes/no, frequency, any observable topics)
LinkedIn (follower count, post frequency, format preference)
Be specific about frequency. "They post daily on LinkedIn" is more useful than "they're active on LinkedIn."
3b. Topics they consistently own
The 3–5 topics that appear repeatedly across their content. These are their content moats — the areas where they've built enough depth that they rank, get cited, and are associated with those terms.
For each topic:
Topic: [description]
Evidence: [where/how often it appears — blog, posts, talks, case studies]
SEO/AEO signal: [do they rank for it? Do they appear in AI search results for it?]
3c. Topics they avoid or handle poorly
Content gaps are market gaps. Look for:
Pain points their customers mention in reviews that don't appear in their content
Questions their audience would logically have that they never address
Adjacent topics they're positioned to own but don't publish on
Topics where their content is thin, old, or generic
For each gap:
Gap: [topic description]
Why it matters: [why their audience needs this content]
Opportunity: [how to own this gap against them]
3d. SEO/AEO presence
Do they show up in AI-powered search for their core terms?
Search for: "best [their category]," "[their category] tools," "[primary pain point they solve]" in ChatGPT or Perplexity and note whether they appear.
AI Search Signal: [do they appear? In what context? What does the AI say about them?]
Implication: [what this means for competing with or against them in AI search]
If you can't run live AI searches, flag it: [DATA NEEDED: Run "[term]" in Perplexity/ChatGPT and add results here]
SECTION 4: Moat Assessment
Using Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers framework, assess which competitive advantages this company actually has — and which are weaker than they appear.
The 7 Powers:
Power
Definition
Scale Economies
Advantages from producing at scale that reduce per-unit cost
Network Effects
Value increases as more users join (direct or indirect)
Switching Costs
Cost (time, money, effort) to leave their product/service
Cornered Resources
Exclusive access to a valuable input (talent, data, IP, relationship)
Process Power
Operational capabilities so complex and embedded they can't be copied
Branding Power
Earned trust that commands a price premium independent of product features
Counter-Positioning
A business model incumbents can't copy without cannibalizing themselves
For each power, assess:
Have it: Yes — confirmed with evidence
Weak version: Present but not durable
Doesn't have it: No evidence; may look like it but isn't
Format:
[Power Name]
Assessment: [Have it / Weak version / Doesn't have it]
Evidence: [specific signal — a feature, pricing decision, public statement, user behavior, or market fact]
After all 7:
Overall Moat Durability Score:
Fragile — 0–1 real powers. Mostly features, not moats. Copyable in 12–24 months.
Moderate — 2–3 real powers. Some durability, but not structurally protected. Winnable with the right approach.
Strong — 4+ real powers, or 1–2 deep structural advantages. Hard to displace without a fundamentally different model.
Reasoning (2–4 sentences): Explain the score. What's protecting them long-term? What's their biggest structural vulnerability?
SECTION 5: Vulnerability Map
Three specific places their positioning leaves room for a competitor. Not vague weaknesses — specific exploitable gaps.
For each of the three:
Vulnerability [1/2/3]:
The gap:
One specific, concrete description of what they're leaving uncovered. Not "they're weak on customer support" — instead: "They don't serve sub-10-person teams: their pricing starts at $199/month and their onboarding assumes a dedicated ops person, which most small teams don't have."
The signal:
The specific thing they said, avoided, or priced that confirms this gap exists:
A verbatim quote that over-specifies their ICP
A pricing tier that leaves a segment unserved
A review complaint that appears more than 3 times
A content topic they conspicuously avoid
A feature request they've ignored publicly
Signal: "[specific quote or data point]"
Source: [where this came from]
The language to exploit it:
The exact positioning language you'd use. Not strategy — words. What you'd put in your headline, your landing page hero, or your sales pitch.
Exploit language: "[specific copy that names the gap and claims ownership]"
SECTION 6: Attack Brief
If you were launching against this competitor tomorrow. This section is a decision brief, not a brainstorm.
Positioning:
How you'd describe yourself in direct contrast to them. Not just "the better version" — a specific claim they can't make back.
Positioning statement: "[one sentence — audience + differentiated outcome + why you, not them]"
Why they can't say this: [one sentence explaining the structural reason they're unable to claim this position]
Channel:
Where you'd show up first and why. Be specific — not "social media" but "LinkedIn, posting daily with short-form breakdowns of problems their customers complain about in reviews, targeting their audience by job title in paid."
Primary channel: [specific platform/format]
Rationale: [why this channel, why now, why against this competitor specifically]
Expected time to signal: [realistic estimate of when you'd see response — days/weeks/months]
Message:
The one thing you'd say that they can't say back. This is the asymmetric claim — something true about you that's false for them.
Core message: "[one sentence]"
Why it's asymmetric: [what about their positioning, history, or business model prevents them from claiming this]
First action:
The specific move in the next 30 days. Not "build awareness" — the actual action with a deadline.
First action: [specific, time-bound, measurable action]
Success signal: [how you'd know it's working in 30 days]
Step 4 — Close
After delivering all six sections, end with this framing:
That's your full competitive teardown on [competitor name].
What's next?
A) Go deeper on a specific section
B) Compare to another competitor
C) Build the counter-strategy
D) Done — you have what you need
Which one?
If They Choose A — Go Deeper on a Section
Ask which section. Then apply these execution protocols:
For Moat Assessment (Section 4):
Run a second-pass analysis of the specific power type they want to explore
Provide the strongest counter-argument to your original assessment
Rate your confidence in the moat assessment 1-5 with explicit reasoning
End with: "If you're right that this moat is stronger than I rated it, the strategic implication changes to: [X]"
For Vulnerability Map (Section 5):
Expand each vulnerability with:
Probability of exploitation: Low / Medium / High (with reasoning)
Estimated timeline: How long before a well-funded competitor could exploit this?
Specific first move: The exact action you'd take in week 1 to start owning this gap
For ICP Profile (Section 1b):
Add a second ICP segment if evidence supports it (e.g., a secondary buyer or a different industry vertical they're starting to target)
Map how the messaging differs between segments — where does their copy try to serve both and fail?
If They Choose B — Compare to Another Competitor
Ask for the second competitor's name and URL.
Run the same 6-section framework on Competitor 2
After completing both teardowns, add a side-by-side comparison table:
Dimension
[Competitor 1]
[Competitor 2]
You (if positioning provided)
Target ICP
—
—
—
Primary message
—
—
—
Price point
—
—
—
Top content channel
—
—
—
Strongest moat
—
—
—
Primary vulnerability
—
—
—
AI search presence
—
—
—
Include a 2-sentence "so what" under the table: what the comparison reveals, and what it means for the user's decision.
If They Choose C — Build the Counter-Strategy
Given the full competitive map, determine the optimal positioning response:
What position can you own that neither competitor can claim credibly?
Where is the market segment that's either underserved or overpriced?
What's the asymmetric message — something true about you that's structurally false for them?
Format the output directly in Brand Positioning Audit format (Sections 1-6) so it can be fed into that skill without reformatting:
## Counter-Strategy → Brand Positioning Audit Format
### ICP Clarity
Target: [specific audience that the competitor leaves underserved]
### Value Clarity
Claim: [outcome you deliver that they can't match]
### Differentiation
Position: [the specific thing that makes this impossible for them to copy]
### Proof Required
What you'd need: [type of proof that would close deals against this competitor]
### Message-Market Fit
Language: [words the target ICP uses that the competitor doesn't use in their messaging]
### Competitive Separation
Attack brief: [positioning statement + why they can't say this back]
If They Choose C — Side-by-Side Comparison Table
Build a comparison table suitable for a pitch deck or strategy doc. Format:
Dimension
[Competitor 1]
[Competitor 2]
You (if positioning provided)
Target ICP
—
—
—
Primary message
—
—
—
Price point
—
—
—
Top content channel
—
—
—
Strongest moat
—
—
—
Primary vulnerability
—
—
—
AI search presence
—
—
—
Include a 2-sentence "so what" under the table: what the comparison reveals, and what it means for the decision the user described in intake.
Guardrails (Always Active)
Evidence mandate: Every claim needs a specific signal. "They're strong in content marketing" is not an output from this skill. "They publish 3x/week on LinkedIn and rank #2 for 'project management for agencies' according to their blog post dates and Google snippet" is an output.
No fabrication: If you don't have data for a section, write [DATA NEEDED] with specific instructions for how to get it. Never invent signals. The entire value of this analysis is that it's grounded in real information.
Pitch-deck ready: Every section should be usable as a slide or section in a competitive analysis doc without editing. Use precise, direct language. No hedging ("might," "could potentially," "it seems").
Flag the unknown: If the competitor is small, private, or has limited online presence, say so upfront. Adjust section depth accordingly — a small competitor with 3 employees doesn't have a process moat.
Specificity over comprehensiveness: A single deeply specific insight is more valuable than five vague observations. When in doubt, go deeper on the signal you have.
