competitive-analysis

name

competitive-analysis

description

Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.

Competitive Landscape Mapping

Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.

Output format

Deliverable is a .pptx file built per the pptx-author skill conventions (or built into a deck the user uploaded). If the user wants a memo/note instead of slides, keep the same analysis workflow and swap the output format. 用户要 Word 时同样走 report-render（DocxReport，与 Report 同一套调用）——要出 Word 就先载入 report-render 技能，再动手建；手搓 python-docx / docx-js 会丢掉标签配色、[n] 跳转与封面页，机制与实测记录在那个技能里，不在这里重述。

Phase 1 — Scope the analysis

Competitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, ask the user targeted questions to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both "competitive analysis" and take completely different shapes.

Gather in one round if you can (keep it to ~4 questions):

• Scope — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?
• Competitor set — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say "the usual suspects," propose a set and confirm.
• Audience and depth — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.
• Investment context — Do they need bull/base/bear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.

If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.

Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build

Do not create slides until the outline is approved. Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.

When proposing the outline, ask the user directly about the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.

---

Standards — apply throughout

Prompt fidelity

When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:

• Slide titles and section names — exact wording. If they say "Overview and Competitive Scope," don't swap in "FY2024 Competitive Landscape."
• Chart vs. table — not interchangeable. "Embedded chart" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars/slices, not a formatted table.
• Complete data series — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.
• Exact values and ratios — "surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1" means those ratios, not "7.6x Lyft."

Source quality, when sources conflict

1. 10-Ks / annual reports (audited)
2. Earnings calls / investor presentations (management commentary)
3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)
4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)
5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)

Data comparability

• All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly ("FY24" vs "H1 2024")
• Same metric definitions across competitors
• Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date
• Missing data shows as n.d. — never silently blank, and never fabricated to fill a gap. A number that cannot be sourced is deleted, not published with a caveat.
• Every number carries its provenance via a clickable source marker [n] that jumps to ## 来源: cite "[Company] [Document] ([Date])" or "[Firm], [Date]; [basis]".
• Provenance tags — five: [披露] [测算] [预期] [推断] [媒体], or the English aliases [Reported] [Est.] [Consensus] [Inferred] [Media] in an English deck. On every comparison table, metrics table, and scenario table, chip each value — those put disclosed actuals, our derivations, and third-party forecasts side by side, and the reader cannot tell them apart otherwise. In flowing narrative the [n] citation carries [披露] and [预期] for you, so those chips are optional there. [测算], [推断], and [媒体] are never optional, prose included — a citation cannot say that a share figure is our own derivation, that a moat rating is our judgement, or that a deal is an unconfirmed press report. [预期] names its provider inline. One tag style per document: the Chinese forms in a Chinese deck, the English aliases in an English one, never mixed; if any chip appears, put a one-line legend on the first slide or page.
• Market share & positioning claims need a source + date + basis (e.g. "~15% share (Canalys, 2025; unit-shipment basis)[n]"), not an unsourced assertion.

Before delivering — count the markers

A real run of this skill shipped seventeen [n] markers with no Sources section at all, and no coverage block. Nothing in a hand-written deliverable enforces marker/entry parity — report-render's refs.cite() does, but only for PDFs built through it. So count them:

• every distinct [n] in the body has exactly one Sources entry, and vice versa
• ## 来源 and ## 覆盖范围与局限 both present
• if you are not maintaining a Sources section, use no [n] at all

来源 and coverage — the two closing sections

Every deliverable ends with both, whatever the format. On slides they are the last two slides (continued across as many as they need); in a memo they are the last two sections. The headings are exact.

Sources. Heading is exactly ## 来源 — not a "References" variant, not a bilingual pairing, not "资料来源". One entry per distinct [n], and the count of distinct markers must equal the count of entries; a marker with no entry, or an entry nothing points to, is a defect:

## 来源
[n] 〔一手|二手〕发布主体 · 文档或系统名 · 日期(发布日; 检索于) · URL

一手|二手 is mandatory, not implied. A 10-K, an investor presentation, an exchange announcement, or a database field sourced from those is Primary. Everything else is Secondary, and a Secondary entry must name what it relays: Secondary · Caixin · relaying IDC "China AI Market Tracker" · 2026-05-12 (published); retrieved 2026-07-25 · https://…. This bites hardest on the market-sizing and share slides: a figure that resolves only to a news article quoting a research report is a Secondary entry, and the deck must say the underlying report was not obtained. Do not launder a news URL into an authoritative-looking citation. A generic "Source: company filings, Gartner, sell-side research" blob is not a citation — it names no document, no date, and no mapping from claim to source.

Coverage. Heading is exactly ## 覆盖范围与局限. Write it even when everything resolved — a silent absence reads as clearance, and in a competitive deck the reader will otherwise assume the peer set was fully covered:

## 覆盖范围与局限
Retrieved: [timestamp] · Competitor set: [the names actually in scope, and who chose them]

| 检查项 | 结论 | 源 | 检索于 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials for [names] | 有记录 | 10-K / investor deck | [date] |
| Financials for [private names] | 源不可用 — sized by our own 测算 from [disclosed inputs], method stated | — | [date] |
| Consensus (revenue, EBITDA, growth) | 有记录 for [n of N] names | [named provider] | [date] |
| Market share by [basis] | 有记录 / 检索范围内未发现 | [firm, date, basis] | [date] |

本次未能覆盖: [sources that failed, and what they would have shown]
Comparability: [fiscal-period mismatches, metric-definition differences, FX date]

Use the three states verbatim: 有记录 / 检索范围内未发现 / 源不可用. "检索范围内未发现" is a statement about our search, never rendered as "the competitor does not disclose this" or "no such data exists".

Design

• Slide titles are insights, not labels. "Scale leaders pulling away from niche players" — not "Competitive Analysis."
• Signposts are quantified. "Margin below 40%" — not "margins decline."
• Ratings show the actual. "●●● $160B" — not just "●●●."
• Charts are real chart objects — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.

Typography — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:

• Slide titles: 28-32pt bold
• Section headers: 18-20pt bold
• Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)
• Table text: 14pt
• Sources/footnotes: 14pt, gray
• Same element type = same size throughout the deck

Charts:

• Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area
• Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line/bar (≤4 series)
• More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table
• Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend
• Each chart carries a source line (firm + date + basis) in the note beneath it, exactly once — not drawn inside the chart canvas, so it can never overlap axis labels or data and can carry a clickable [n]. Tables the same: the note beneath, never a row inside.
• report-render's references/pitfalls.md documents the silent chart failures — tofu from a missing CJK font, duplicated titles and sources, density sizing. Read it rather than rediscovering them; if a CJK font cannot be registered, keep chart labels English/numeric and carry the Chinese in the body.

Tables (slides and memos are document media, so document-table conventions apply — the house formatting policy):

• No vertical rules. Header row filled #1F3A5F with white bold text, zebra white/#F4F7FA, thin #E5E9EF horizontal grid
• Right-align numbers, left-align text; a header aligns with its column's content
• Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders
• A table's source note appears exactly once, as a final row or the line immediately below it

Color: 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.

What's strict vs. flexible

Always	Case-by-case
Exact titles/sections when user specifies	Creative titles when they don't
Chart when user says chart; table when they say table	Visualization type when unspecified
Every competitor/data point they list	Number of competitors when unspecified
Exact values when specified	Rounding when precision unspecified
Titles fit without overflow	Number of competitor categories
No overlapping elements	Which dimensions to compare

---

Analysis workflow

Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics

Before anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.

Industry	Key metrics
SaaS	ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40
Payments	GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin
Marketplaces	GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate
Retail	Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft
Logistics	Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization

Industry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.

Step 1 — Market context

Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.

Correct: "Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)" Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"

Step 2 — Industry economics

Map how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:

• Vertically structured — value chain layers, typical margin at each
• Platform/network — ecosystem participants, value flows between them
• Fragmented — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale

Step 3 — Target company profile

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |

Multi-segment companies add a breakdown:

| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |
| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |
| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |
| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |

*Note corporate costs if applicable

Step 4 — Competitor mapping

Group by whichever lens fits (ask the user if they haven't specified):

• By business model — platform / vertical / horizontal
• By segment — enterprise / SMB / consumer
• By posture — direct / adjacent / emerging
• By origin — incumbent / disruptor / new entrant

Step 5 — Positioning visualization

Type	When
2×2 matrix	Two dominant competitive factors
Radar/spider	Multi-factor comparison
Tier diagram	Natural clustering into strategic groups
Value chain map	Vertical industries
Ecosystem map	Platform markets

See references/frameworks.md for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.

Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives

Two tables per competitor.

Metrics:

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |

Qualitative:

| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |

Step 7 — Comparative analysis

| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |

Step 8 — Strategic context

M&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See references/schemas.md for the M&A transaction table format.

Step 9 — Synthesis

Moat assessment — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:

Moat	What to assess
Network effects	User/supplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side
Switching costs	Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits
Scale economies	Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale
Intangible assets	Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents

Required synthesis elements:

• Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories
• Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)
• Current state vs. trajectory

For investment contexts (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):

| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |

Synthesis is where the deck stops reporting and starts arguing, so the chips matter most here: a moat rating, a "structural vulnerability", and a scenario probability are all ours — [推断] for the judgement, [测算] for a number we assigned — while the quantified signpost under each scenario still cites its [n].

---

Quality checklist

Before finishing:

Prompt fidelity

• Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim
• Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table
• Every competitor/year/data point they listed is present
• Exact values and formats as specified

Data consistency

• Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated
• Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears
• Same decimal precision as the source

Data provenance

• Every market-size / share / growth figure cites firm + date + basis via a clickable [n] source marker; nothing unsourced or fabricated, and nothing unsourceable published with a caveat
• [测算], [推断], and [媒体] chipped wherever they occur, prose included; table cells fully chipped; [预期] names its provider
• ## 来源 present with 〔一手|二手〕 on every entry, every Secondary naming what it relays, and distinct [n] markers equal to the entry count
• ## 覆盖范围与局限 present, using the three states verbatim, even where everything resolved
• Conflicting third-party estimates shown with their spread, not cherry-picked
• Each chart's source stated once (not duplicated in both the chart and a caption note); chart source notes sit clear of the plot; CJK labels render (not blank)
• Charts sized to their information density (sparse → small, dense → larger) with a height cap — not one fixed width, not oversized/full-bleed

Layout

• Titles fit without overflow
• No overlapping elements
• All text within containers, no clipping

Content

• Every number has a citation
• All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)
• Slide titles state insights, not topics
• Charts are real chart objects

Render every slide to an image and look at each one — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML. report-render's references/pitfalls.md lists what to look for; the same discipline applies to slides as to pages.