competitive-analysis

name	competitive-analysis
description	Produce a Competitive Analysis Pack (alternatives map, landscape, battlecards, monitoring plan).

Competitive Analysis

Scope

Covers

• Mapping competitive alternatives (status quo, workarounds, analog/non-consumption, direct + indirect competitors)
• Building a competitor landscape grounded in customer decision criteria
• Turning analysis into actionable artifacts: positioning hypotheses, win themes, battlecards, and a monitoring plan

When to use

• “Do a competitive analysis / competitor landscape for our product.”
• “Why are we losing deals to ?”
• “What are the real alternatives if we didn’t exist?”
• “Help us differentiate and position vs competitors.”
• “Create sales battlecards and win/loss takeaways.”

When NOT to use

• You need market sizing / TAM/SAM/SOM as the primary output (different workflow).
• You don’t know the target customer, core use case, or the decision this analysis should support (use problem-definition first).
• You only need a quick list of competitors (no synthesis, no artifacts).
• You’re seeking confidential or non-public competitor information (do not attempt).
• You need to write positioning copy, messaging frameworks, or landing page text (use positioning-messaging after this skill provides differentiation hypotheses).
• You need to set or change your pricing model based on competitive data (use pricing-strategy; feed it the comparison matrix from this skill).
• You’re evaluating a specific technology vendor for adoption (use evaluating-new-technology).

Inputs

Minimum required

• Product + target customer segment + core use case (what job is being done)
• The decision to support (e.g., positioning, sales enablement, roadmap bets, pricing, market entry)
• 3–10 known competitors/alternatives (or “unknown—please map them”)
• Any available evidence (links, win/loss notes, call transcripts, customer quotes, pricing pages, reviews)
• Constraints: geography, ICP, price band, compliance/regulation (if relevant), time box

Missing-info strategy

• Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md.
• If answers aren’t available, proceed with explicit assumptions and label unknowns. Provide 2–3 plausible alternative scopes (narrow vs broad).

Outputs (deliverables)

Produce a Competitive Analysis Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if requested):

1. Context snapshot (decision, ICP, use case, constraints, time box)
2. Competitive alternatives map (direct/indirect/status quo/workarounds/analog)
3. Competitor landscape table (top 5–10) with evidence links + confidence
4. Customer decision criteria + comparison matrix (customer POV)
5. Differentiation & positioning hypotheses (why win, why lose, proof points)
6. Win themes + loss risks (objections, landmines, traps)
7. Battlecards (3–5 priority competitors)
8. Monitoring plan (signals, cadence, owners, update triggers)
9. Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always included)

Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md

Workflow (8 steps)

1) Intake + decision framing

• Inputs: User context; references/INTAKE.md.
• Actions: Confirm the decision, ICP, use case, geography, and time box. Define what “good” looks like (who will use this and for what).
• Outputs: Context snapshot.
• Checks: A stakeholder can answer: “What decision will this analysis change?”

2) Map competitive alternatives (not just logos)

• Inputs: Use case + customer job.
• Actions: List what customers do instead: status quo, internal build, manual workaround, analog tools, agencies/outsourcing, and direct/indirect competitors. Identify the “true competitor” for the deal.
• Outputs: Competitive alternatives map + short notes per alternative.
• Checks: At least 1–2 non-obvious alternatives appear (workarounds / analog / non-consumption).

3) Select the focus set + collect evidence (time-boxed)

• Inputs: Alternatives map; available sources.
• Actions: Pick 5–10 focus alternatives (by frequency/impact). Gather publicly available facts (positioning, features, pricing, distribution, target ICP) and internal learnings (win/loss, sales notes). Track confidence and unknowns.
• Outputs: Evidence log + initial landscape table.
• Checks: Each competitor row has at least 2 evidence points (link/quote/data) or is explicitly labeled “low confidence”.

4) Build the comparison from the customer’s perspective

• Inputs: Focus set + evidence.
• Actions: Define 6–10 customer decision criteria (JTBD outcomes, constraints, trust, time-to-value, switching cost, price, ecosystem fit). Compare alternatives on criteria and surface “why they win”.
• Outputs: Decision criteria list + comparison matrix.
• Checks: Criteria are framed as customer outcomes/risks (not internal feature checklists).

5) Derive differentiation + positioning hypotheses

• Inputs: Matrix + wins/losses.
• Actions: Write 2–3 positioning hypotheses: (a) who we’re for, (b) the value we deliver, (c) why we’re different vs the true alternative, (d) proof points, (e) tradeoffs/non-goals.
• Outputs: Differentiation & positioning section.
• Checks: Each hypothesis names the competitive alternative it’s positioning against.

6) Translate into win themes + battlecards

• Inputs: Positioning hypotheses + competitor notes.
• Actions: Create 3–5 win themes and 3–5 loss risks. Produce battlecards for priority competitors (how to win, landmines, objection handling, traps to avoid).
• Outputs: Win/loss section + battlecards.
• Checks: Battlecards contain do/don’t talk tracks and are usable in a live sales call.

7) Recommend actions (product, messaging, GTM)

• Inputs: Findings.
• Actions: Propose 5–10 actions: product bets, messaging changes, pricing/packaging, distribution, partnerships, and “stop doing” items. Tie each action to a win theme or loss risk.
• Outputs: Recommendations list with rationale and owners (if known).
• Checks: Each recommendation is specific enough to execute next week/month.

8) Monitoring + quality gate + finalize

• Inputs: Draft pack.
• Actions: Define monitoring signals, cadence, and update triggers. Run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score with references/RUBRIC.md. Add Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
• Outputs: Final Competitive Analysis Pack.
• Checks: Pack is shareable as-is; assumptions and confidence levels are explicit.

Quality gate (required)

• Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
• Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.

Examples

Example 1 (B2B SaaS): “We keep losing deals to Competitor X. Build a competitive alternatives map and a battlecard for X.”
Expected: alternatives map (incl. status quo), decision criteria, X battlecard, win themes/loss risks, and a monitoring plan.

Example 2 (Consumer subscription): “We’re repositioning for a new segment. Analyze alternatives and propose 2 positioning hypotheses.”
Expected: comparison matrix by customer criteria and two clear positioning options with proof points and tradeoffs.

Boundary example 1: “List every competitor in our industry worldwide.” Response: narrow scope (ICP, geography, category) and propose a focused set + monitoring plan; otherwise output becomes a low-signal directory of logos.

Boundary example 2: “Write our positioning statement and messaging framework based on how we differ from competitors.” Response: redirect to positioning-messaging. Offer to first run competitive analysis to produce differentiation hypotheses and proof points, then hand those off to the positioning/messaging skill.

Anti-patterns (common failure modes)

1. Logo wall without synthesis -- Listing 20+ competitors with surface-level feature comparisons but no analysis of why customers actually choose them. The value is in customer decision criteria and win/loss patterns, not in the length of the competitor list.
2. Feature-checklist framing -- Comparing competitors on internal feature names instead of customer outcomes and decision criteria. A customer does not choose based on “has SSO” but on “how quickly can I get my team onboarded securely.”
3. Ignoring the status quo -- Treating only named software products as competitors while ignoring that the biggest “competitor” is often the customer's existing spreadsheet, manual process, or decision to do nothing.
4. Stale snapshot bias -- Producing analysis as a one-time document with no monitoring plan or update triggers. Competitive landscapes shift; the pack must include signals to watch and a cadence for refresh.
5. Confidential data fishing -- Attempting to include proprietary pricing, internal roadmaps, or NDA-covered information about competitors. All evidence must be from publicly available or user-provided sources with confidence labels.