| name | prd-v02-competitive-landscape-mapping |
| description | Map the competitive landscape before positioning your product for PRD v0.2 Market Definition. Triggers on completing v0.1 Spark, analyzing competitors, researching market, or requests like "competitive analysis", "who else solves this", "market landscape", "what alternatives exist", "competitor research", "feature comparison". Outputs CFD- entries for competitive intelligence and BR- entries for positioning rules.
|
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","WebSearch","WebFetch"] |
Competitive Landscape Mapping
Understand market reality before defining your position.
Workflow Position
v0.1 Spark (Problem + Value) → Competitive Landscape Mapping → Product Type Classification
(what hurts) (who else solves it) (how we compete)
Consumes
This skill requires prior work from v0.1:
- **CFD-* entries (problem statements, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what users need/want
- **CFD-* entries (value hypotheses, from User Value Articulation) — Desired outcomes users are seeking
- PRD.md Why section — Problem framing and market signals
This skill assumes v0.1 Spark is complete (both problem and value).
Produces
This skill creates/updates:
- CFD-* entries (competitive intelligence) — Analysis of direct competitors, adjacent solutions, workarounds
- BR-* entries (positioning rules) — Constraints derived from landscape analysis
- Landscape map artifact — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, 1% better hypothesis
All CFD competitive intelligence entries should include:
confidence: 2-3/5 (based on evidence tier from public sources + user validation)- Evidence source (G2 reviews, pricing pages, user interviews, etc.)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate gap with 5+ target users"
Example competitive intelligence entry:
CFD-042: Competitive Intelligence — Competitor Landscape Analysis
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: 2026-02-01
Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 3-customer-interviews)
Competitors Analyzed: 4 direct + 2 adjacent
Primary Gap: All competitors require enterprise licensing; SMB segment underserved
Feature Matrix: [Link to matrix]
1% Hypothesis: "SMB sales teams can get 80% of [Competitor A] features for 40% of price"
Evidence:
- CFD-001: 3 SMB teams paying $500/mo but using only 5 of 20 features
- CFD-015: Value hypothesis shows $12,500/year need for core 5 features only
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5+ SMB prospects willing to pay $200/mo"
Workflow Overview
- Document current behavior → What users do TODAY (before competitor search)
- Discover alternatives → Direct, adjacent, workarounds, "do nothing"
- Analyze gaps → Industry/geography gaps, underserved segments
- Compare features → Build comparison matrix
- Form hypothesis → 1% better hypothesis with evidence
Core Output Template
| Element | Definition | Evidence |
|---|
| Current Behavior | How users solve this today | Observed workflow |
| Direct Competitors | Products solving same problem | Revenue/funding proof |
| Adjacent Solutions | Products solving related problems | User overlap |
| Workarounds | DIY solutions (spreadsheets, manual) | Forum/reddit mentions |
| Feature Matrix | Side-by-side capability comparison | Product documentation |
| Gap Analysis | Where competition is weak | Reviews, complaints |
| 1% Hypothesis | How we win | Evidence-anchored |
See assets/landscape.md for copy-paste template.
Step 1: Document Current Behavior
Before searching competitors, document what target users do TODAY.
Capture Format
Current Behavior: [What they do]
Tools Used: [Existing tools, if any]
Time Investment: [Hours/week on workaround]
Pain Points: [From v0.1 CFD-IDs]
Why First?
- Prevents solution bias from competitor features
- Reveals workarounds competitors might miss
- Establishes true baseline for improvement claims
Step 2: Competitor Discovery
Discovery Categories
| Category | Definition | Search Strategy |
|---|
| Direct | Same problem, same segment | "[problem] software" |
| Adjacent | Related problem, potential pivot | "[related workflow] tool" |
| Workarounds | DIY solutions | Reddit: "how I [task]" |
| Do Nothing | Accept status quo | Why hasn't this been solved? |
Minimum Discovery Checklist
Create CFD Entry Per Competitor
CFD-###: Competitor — [Name]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Source: [Website, G2, Crunchbase]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Overview: [1-2 sentences]
Target Segment: [Who they serve]
Pricing: [Model and range]
Revenue/Funding: [If available]
Key Differentiator: [Their claim]
Weakness Signals: [Reviews, complaints]
Step 3: Gap Analysis
Industry/Geography Gap Table
| Industry | Competitors Serving | Gap Level |
|---|
| [Industry 1] | X of Y | None / Small / Large |
| [Industry 2] | X of Y | None / Small / Large |
Segment Gap Table
| Segment | Served By | Underserved Signal |
|---|
| Enterprise | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| Mid-Market | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| SMB | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| Prosumer | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
Underserved Signals
- Tier 1: Users paying but complaining (G2 reviews)
- Tier 2: Users building workarounds (Reddit, forums)
- Tier 3: Users asking for solutions (community posts)
- Tier 4: No apparent demand (caution)
Step 4: Feature Comparison Matrix
Build side-by-side comparison:
| Feature | Us (Planned) | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap |
|---|
| [Feature 1] | ✅/❌/🔄 | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | [Our advantage] |
| [Feature 2] | ✅/❌/🔄 | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | [Our advantage] |
Legend: ✅ = Has | ❌ = Missing | 🔄 = Planned
Matrix Requirements
Step 5: 1% Better Hypothesis
Template
We can be 1% better than [Competitor X] by [specific improvement] for [specific segment].
Evidence:
- [CFD-ID]: [Supporting evidence]
- [CFD-ID]: [Supporting evidence]
Why This Matters:
- [Segment] cares about this because [reason]
- Current solutions fail at this because [reason]
Risk:
- [What could invalidate this hypothesis]
Hypothesis Quality Check
Quality Gates
Pass Checklist
Testability Check
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Signal | Fix |
|---|
| Competitor-first thinking | Started with competitor features | Document current behavior first |
| False uniqueness | "No competitors" claim | Include workarounds and adjacent |
| Feature bloat | Matrix has 20+ features | Focus on differentiators |
| Vague gaps | "Better UX" without evidence | Add specific user complaint |
| 10x claims | "10x better than X" | Start with 1% provable claim |
| Ignored workarounds | Only listed software competitors | Include spreadsheets, manual |
CFD/BR Output Format
CFD Entry (Competitive Intelligence)
CFD-###: Competitive Intelligence — [Market/Segment]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Competitors Analyzed: [Count]
Primary Gap: [Description]
Evidence Tier: [1-5]
Feature Matrix: [Link or inline]
1% Hypothesis: [Statement]
BR Entry (Positioning Rule)
BR-###: Positioning Rule — [Title]
Type: Business Rule
Source: CFD-###
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Rule: [Specific constraint derived from landscape]
Rationale: [Why this matters]
Applies To: [Scope]
Bundled Resources
references/research-prompts.md — Deep research templates for competitor discovery and gap analysis.references/examples.md — Good/bad competitive analysis examples.assets/landscape.md — Copy-paste template for landscape mapping.assets/feature-matrix.md — Feature comparison matrix template.
Handoff
Competitive landscape complete when quality gates pass. Landscape map informs:
- Product Type Classification (next skill) — What type are we? Clone, Slice, etc.
- v0.3 Pricing — Competitive pricing anchors
- v0.3 Moat — Where competitors are weak
Next: Product Type Classification (How should we compete based on landscape?)
