| name | compare |
| description | Side-by-side comparison of 2+ competing projects with stage-fair scoring. Supports mixing remote URLs and local paths. Produces a comparison matrix with ranked recommendation.
|
Research-Forge — Compare
Compare competing projects head-to-head across all analysis dimensions, judged stage-fairly.
Command: /research-forge:compare
Usage:
/research-forge:compare <target1> <target2> [target3...] [--lang zh|en]
Targets can be any mix of URLs, local directory paths, or local file paths.
Comparison Workflow:
1. Parallel Scan
- Run a scan (equivalent to
/research-forge:scan) on each target in parallel using sub-agents.
- Collect metadata, metrics, stage classification, and first impressions for all projects.
- Adapt data collection strategy per target type (remote vs. local).
2. Comparison Matrix
Build a side-by-side table covering:
| Dimension | Project A | Project B | Project C |
|---|
| Target Type | Remote/Local | Remote/Local | Remote/Local |
| Lifecycle Stage | S0-S3 | S0-S3 | S0-S3 |
| Stars / Files | | | |
| Contributors | | | |
| Last Commit | | | |
| License | | | |
| Language | | | |
| Business & Market | | | |
| Problem Validity (1-5) | | | |
| Why Now (1-5) | | | |
| PMF Evidence (1-5) | | | |
| Unit Economics (1-5) | | | |
| Market Ceiling (1-5) | | | |
| Growth Engine (1-5) | | | |
| Technical & Architecture | | | |
| Architecture Quality (1-5) | | | |
| Engineering Culture (1-5) | | | |
| Scalability (1-5) | | | |
| Security Posture (1-5) | | | |
| Documentation (1-5) | | | |
| Maintainability & Tech Debt (1-5) | | | |
| Moat & Strategy | | | |
| Moat Strength (1-5) | | | |
| Founder-Market Fit (1-5) | | | |
| Org Capability (1-5) | | | |
| Second Curve Readiness (1-5) | | | |
| Overall Score (stage-weighted) | | | |
Mark any sub-dimension that is Context (×0) for a project's stage as ctx — it is shown for information but excluded from that project's Overall Score.
3. Stage-Fairness Rule
- Same stage → Overall Scores are directly comparable; rank by score.
- Different stages → raw Overall Scores are NOT directly comparable (each is weighted against different criteria). Compare each project against its own stage's One Question, then frame the recommendation as a maturity-vs-potential trade-off: "A is the safer, proven choice; B has the higher ceiling but is pre-PMF" — never as a naive score ranking.
4. Key Differentiators
For each project, identify:
- Unique Strength: What does this project do better than all others?
- Critical Weakness: What is the biggest gap vs. competitors?
- Best For: What use case or user profile is this project ideal for?
5. Verdict
- Rank projects from most to least recommended (respecting the stage-fairness rule).
- Provide context-dependent recommendation: "If you need X, choose A. If you need Y, choose B."
- Note each project's top Kill Criterion — the signal most likely to change its ranking.
