一键导入
competitive-analysis
Competitive landscape analysis: positioning, scorecards, moat assessment, market share trends
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Competitive landscape analysis: positioning, scorecards, moat assessment, market share trends
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Workspace and research management — dispatch analyses, monitor running agents, manage workspaces and threads.
Draw price lines, trendlines, zones, and event markers directly on a stock's price chart — reach for it whenever you'd otherwise describe a level, pattern, or event in prose. Renders live on MarketView and as a clickable preview card in any other chat.
Event tracker: earnings dates, economic releases, conferences, regulatory events
Financial model audit: structural checks, formula validation, integrity testing
Comparable company analysis: operating metrics, valuation multiples, peer benchmarking
DCF valuation: free cash flow projections, WACC, terminal value, sensitivity analysis
| name | competitive-analysis |
| description | Competitive landscape analysis: positioning, scorecards, moat assessment, market share trends |
| license | Derived from anthropics/financial-services-plugins (Apache-2.0). Modified for langalpha. |
When source files (Excel/CSV) are provided:
When the prompt specifies exact requirements, follow them verbatim:
Slide Titles & Section Names:
"Overview and Competitive Scope" slide — use EXACTLY that title, not a paraphrasewithin the "Segment Mix" section — use EXACTLY "Segment Mix" as the section headerChart vs Table:
embedded chart — create an actual PowerPoint chart object, NOT a tabledata labels must display — these go on chart elements (bars, slices, lines), not table cellsComplete Data Series:
Exact Values & Phrasing:
Revenue: $43.98B (+18% YoY) — display exactly that formatsurpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1 — use those exact ratios, not "7.6x Lyft"When in doubt: Re-read the prompt. If it specifies something explicitly, that's not a suggestion — it's a requirement.
This skill includes reference files in the references/ folder. Use them as follows:
references/schemas.md — Table templates for M&A transactions, scenario analysis, and slide structure. Reference when building financial tables or investment scenarios.references/frameworks.md — 2x2 matrix axis pairs by industry. Reference when choosing positioning visualization dimensions.When sources conflict, prioritize in this order:
Match professional presentation quality:
Spacing & Overflow Prevention:
Slide Titles:
Chart Formatting:
include_in_layout=True so legends don't overlap chart areaTypography (set explicitly, never use defaults):
Layout:
Color:
Tables:
Rating visuals:
Adapt structure and metrics to fit your industry — but maintain this level of polish.
| STRICT (Every Time) | FLEXIBLE (Case-by-Case) |
|---|---|
| Exact titles/sections when prompt specifies | Creative titles when prompt doesn't specify |
| Chart when prompt says chart; table when prompt says table | Visualization type when prompt doesn't specify |
| All data points/competitors listed in prompt | Number of competitors when prompt doesn't specify |
| Exact values/ratios when prompt specifies them | Rounding when prompt doesn't specify precision |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| Minimum spacing between elements | Which dimensions to compare |
| Chart legends inside layout | Number of competitors profiled |
| No overlapping text/elements | Visualization type (2x2, radar, tier) |
Before starting, confirm:
Do NOT create final output until outline is reviewed.
The 10-step Analysis Workflow below (Steps 0-9) is executed during Phase 2. Complete research and outlining before creating final slides or documents.
Before diving into analysis, identify 3-5 metrics that matter most for this industry:
| 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 |
For industries not listed, identify the 3-5 metrics that investors and operators use to benchmark performance.
Use these metrics consistently across all competitor comparisons.
CORRECT: "The embedded payments market is $80-100B in 2024, growing at 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)" WRONG: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
Map value flows. Approach varies by industry type:
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |
For multi-segment companies, add segment 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
Group competitors using the framework that fits:
| Visualization | Best For |
|---|---|
| 2x2 Matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/Spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier Diagram | Natural clustering/strategic groups |
| Value Chain Map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem Map | Platform markets |
Table 1 — 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% |
Table 2 — Qualitative:
| Category | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |
| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |
Competitive Moat Assessment: Evaluate each competitor's durable advantages using these categories:
| Moat Type | What to Assess |
|---|---|
| Network Effects | Strength of user/supplier flywheel; cross-side vs. same-side effects |
| Switching Costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |
| Scale Economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |
| Intangible Assets | Brand value, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
Rate each as Strong / Moderate / Weak with supporting evidence.
Required Synthesis Elements:
For investment contexts:
| Scenario | Probability | Key Driver |
|----------|-------------|------------|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |
Before finalizing, verify:
Prompt Fidelity:
Source File & Data Consistency:
Layout & Spacing:
Charts:
Typography:
Data & Sources:
Presentation Format: