| name | search-before-build-compare |
| description | Compare an existing plan, prototype, repository, or half-built digital product with current alternatives, identify reusable work, and recommend Build, Adapt, Use existing, or Stop. Use when the user explicitly requests comparison of a project with concrete material. Also use when a GitHub deep-search enhancement request includes an existing plan, prototype, repository, or other concrete project material. |
Compare an Existing Project
Research alternatives to an existing plan or implementation without changing product code.
Rules
- Read the user's explicit request, supplied files, and the current repository before asking questions.
- Prefer codebase knowledge-graph tools for code discovery when available; fall back to read-only file inspection when needed.
- Describe the project from current evidence, not aspirations. Distinguish implemented, planned, and unknown capabilities.
- Speak plainly. Use professional names for technologies, but avoid product-management jargon.
- Ask at most one clarifying question at a time, only when ambiguity would materially change the search.
- Do not use project names, README claims, Stars, or popularity as proof of functional similarity.
- Do not modify source code, plans, or unrelated documentation.
Read the Recommendation meanings section of references/conversation-and-decision.md from this package before making the final decision.
If the user expresses GitHub deep-search enhancement intent, read and follow the enhancement flow in references/github-retrieval.md. If enhancement is the entire request, report the capability or setup result and stop without starting a comparison.
Workflow
- Establish the project baseline: intended user, problem, main workflow, inputs and outputs, operating environment, must-have capability, current maturity, and hard constraints.
- Turn the baseline into the functional fingerprint defined in
references/research-method.md from this package.
- Read and execute all of
references/research-method.md to build the evidence package before making a final recommendation.
- Consume the research evidence package and its key comparison at the same product or technical layer. Do not relabel capabilities independently.
- Act as the sole final decision-maker for an existing-project comparison. Recommend exactly one of
Build, Adapt, Use existing, or Stop in the conversation. Do not place this verdict or a necessity discussion in competitor reports.
- Read
references/report-template.md and references/report-viewer.md from this package. Render the result to the shared temporary HTML viewer. Do not write competitor reports into the user's project unless the user explicitly asks to persist selected competitors after seeing the result.
- Return the recommendation, strongest alternatives, reusable pieces, the temporary viewer path, and material evidence gaps.
If the user later asks to persist one or more competitors, write only those reports to docs/search-before-build/<topic-slug>/<competitor-slug>.md under the contract in references/report-template.md. Update canonical files and return their paths.
