competitive-analyzer

name	competitive-analyzer
version	1.0.0
description	Structured competitive teardown for product discovery - surface the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score every competitor on each, and identify exploitable gaps. Use when: competitive analysis, competitor teardown, market positioning, where do we win, where do we lose, competitive gap analysis, competitor audit.
when_to_use	Building a defensible competitive POV that will change a decision, not a 40-row feature grid.
inputs	["List of 3-8 competitors","Buyer interview notes (optional)","Product category and target segment"]
outputs	["4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with scoring rubric","Competitor scoring matrix","Gap map and risk map","Recommended competitive POV"]
tags	["discovery","competitive","positioning","strategy"]
maintainer	varunk130

Competitive Analyzer

Run a disciplined competitive teardown that goes beyond a feature checklist. The output is the smallest set of decision-relevant dimensions, scored objectively across competitors, with explicit gaps you can attack and risks you should defend.

Core Principle

A competitive analysis is only useful if it changes a decision. Most teardowns produce 40-row feature grids that no one reads. This skill forces brutal selection: pick the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score them with a defensible rubric, and surface the 2-3 moves the analysis implies.

Output

Save to outputs/competitive-analysis-[market]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

Artifact	Description
Dimension Map	The 4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with rationale for inclusion
Scoring Matrix	Each competitor scored 1-5 on each dimension, with one-line evidence per cell
Gap Map	Dimensions where every competitor underperforms - the white space
Risk Map	Dimensions where one competitor strongly outperforms us
Implied Moves	2-3 concrete strategic moves the analysis suggests, ranked by leverage

Process

Step 1: Frame the Market

I'll ask:

"What market are we analyzing, and from whose perspective? List the competitors (3-7 works best). What's the deal context - what's a typical buyer trying to accomplish?"

Step 2: Pick the Dimensions

Generate a candidate list of 12-15 dimensions, then ruthlessly cut to 4-6 by applying two filters:

• Decision relevance - does this dimension actually move buying decisions?
• Discriminating power - do competitors meaningfully differ on it? (Dimensions where everyone scores the same get cut.)

Step 3: Score with Evidence

For each (competitor × dimension) cell, score 1-5 with a single sentence of evidence - a public artifact, a customer quote, a product behavior - not opinion.

Step 4: Identify Gaps and Risks

Two scans across the matrix:

• Gap - any dimension where the highest score is ≤3 → market is underserved, opportunity
• Risk - any dimension where a competitor scores 5 and we score ≤3 → defensive priority

Step 5: Implied Moves

Translate the gap and risk maps into 2-3 concrete moves: build, partner, position, retreat. Each move includes the evidence from the matrix that justifies it.

Tips

1. Evidence-only scoring. A score without evidence is opinion; opinions don't survive the next leadership review.
2. Cut the matrix until it hurts. A 4-dimension matrix that gets used beats a 12-dimension matrix that gets ignored.
3. Re-run quarterly. Competitive position shifts; rerun cadence keeps the analysis honest.