analyze

name	analyze
description	Collects market sizing, trend, and competitor data from the web and tags every claim with an evidence tier (primary > peer-reviewed/analyst > secondary press > anecdotal). Runs after `goal` has fixed the scope. Triggers on "시장 규모 알아봐", "경쟁사 조사", "이 시장 트렌드는?".

Analyze — Evidence-Tiered Market & Competitor Research

Every number in a GTM deck traces back to a source someone can re-check. This skill collects that evidence and tags it before anything gets synthesized into a comparison or a plan.

Evidence Tiers (apply to every claim)

Tier	Source type	Example
1 — Primary	Company filings, official pricing pages, product docs, direct founder/exec statements, government stats	10-K, official pricing page, census data
2 — Analyst/peer-reviewed	Gartner/Forrester/CB Insights reports, academic studies, credentialed industry analysts	published market-sizing report
3 — Secondary press	Reputable tech/business journalism citing sources	TechCrunch, Reuters covering a funding round
4 — Anecdotal	Reddit/forum posts, unverified blog claims, single-user reviews, LinkedIn posts	"I heard their churn is high"

A claim with no tier assigned is not usable. Tier 4 claims may be noted as signal but must never anchor a number in the final deliverable.

Process

1. Read research/SCOPE.md (from goal). If missing, stop and invoke goal first — do not guess the scope.
2. Market sizing. Search for TAM/SAM/SOM figures, growth rate, and adjacent-market comparisons. Prefer Tier 1–2 sources; cross-check any single Tier 3 number against a second independent source before using it.
3. Trend scan. Identify 3–5 structural trends (regulatory, technology, buyer-behavior shifts) shaping the category over the stated horizon.
4. Per-competitor collection (for each name in the seed list + any new ones discovered): positioning/tagline, pricing (public tier or estimated), target segment, key features, funding/scale signal, recent moves (launches, pivots, layoffs), and 1–2 direct customer quotes/reviews if available.
5. Gap flagging. For any data point you could not find at Tier 1–3, write "UNVERIFIED — tier 4 or absent" rather than silently omitting it or guessing a number.

Write findings to research/FINDINGS.md:

---
scope_ref: research/SCOPE.md
created: {ISO-8601}
---

# Market & Competitor Findings

## Market Sizing
- TAM: {figure} — [Tier N, source, date](url)
- SAM: {figure} — [Tier N, source, date](url)
- Growth rate: {figure} — [Tier N, source, date](url)

## Trends
1. {trend} — [Tier N, source](url)
2. ...

## Competitors

### {Competitor name}
- Positioning: {...} — [Tier N](url)
- Pricing: {...} — [Tier N](url)
- Target segment: {...} — [Tier N](url)
- Key features: {...}
- Scale/funding signal: {...} — [Tier N](url)
- Recent moves: {...} — [Tier N](url)
- Customer signal: {quote or theme} — [Tier N](url)

(repeat per competitor)

## Unverified / Gaps
- {data point} — searched but not found at Tier 1–3; noted anecdotally only

Anti-Rationalization

• "This number sounds about right" is not a citation. Find the source or mark it unverified.
• A single press mention repeated across three articles citing each other is still one source, not three.
• Don't silently drop a competitor because data is thin — record the gap.

Evidence

Findings are complete when every market-sizing figure and every competitor field has a tier + source link, or is explicitly flagged unverified.

Red Flags

• Numbers with no tier or link.
• Tier 4 sources (forum posts, anecdotes) used as the sole basis for a market-sizing figure.
• A competitor section with all fields empty (thin research, not absence of data) — flag for a second search pass instead of writing "unknown."