mohitagw15856
05b6d799f0
Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Plaintext
102 lines
4.2 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
description: "Analyze competitors and create competitive landscape documentation with feature matrices, positioning maps, and strategic recommendations. Use when asked to analyze competitors, create competitive analysis, compare features with competitors, build a competitive landscape, track competitive positioning, or prepare sales battlecard inputs. Produces structured competitor profiles, feature comparison matrix, win/loss analysis, and prioritised strategic recommendations."
|
|
globs:
|
|
alwaysApply: false
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Competitive Analysis Skill
|
|
|
|
Create structured competitive analyses for product decision-making.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **Your product or company** (what you're comparing against)
|
|
- **Competitors to analyze** (or ask to identify the top 3-5)
|
|
- **Analysis focus** (full landscape / feature comparison / pricing / positioning / win-loss)
|
|
- **Audience** (product team / leadership / sales / board)
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
|
|
1. Gather competitor information from provided inputs and available context
|
|
2. Build profiles for each competitor
|
|
3. Create feature comparison matrix on dimensions that matter to the user's customers
|
|
4. Analyze pricing and positioning
|
|
5. Identify win/loss patterns and strategic implications
|
|
6. **Validate** — Confirm all claims reference a specific source or are flagged as assumptions. Verify feature comparisons note quality differences, not just presence/absence.
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 1. Executive Summary
|
|
- **Market Position**: Where we stand relative to competitors
|
|
- **Key Findings**: Top 3-5 insights
|
|
- **Strategic Implications**: What this means for the roadmap
|
|
|
|
### 2. Competitor Profiles
|
|
|
|
For each competitor:
|
|
- **Company Overview**: Size, funding, market position
|
|
- **Target Customer**: Who they serve
|
|
- **Value Proposition**: Core positioning
|
|
- **Strengths / Weaknesses**: What they do well and where they fall short
|
|
- **Recent Activity**: Major updates, funding, announcements
|
|
|
|
### 3. Feature Comparison Matrix
|
|
|
|
| Feature | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|
|
|---------|-----|--------------|--------------|--------------|
|
|
| [Feature] | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Limited | ❌ None | ✅ Full |
|
|
|
|
Legend: ✅ Full (production-ready) · ⚠️ Limited/Beta · ❌ None
|
|
|
|
Include notes on quality and implementation differences where significant.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Pricing Comparison
|
|
|
|
| Plan | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|
|
|------|-----|--------------|--------------|
|
|
| Free/Trial | [price] | [price] | [price] |
|
|
| Pro | [price] | [price] | [price] |
|
|
| Enterprise | [price] | [price] | [price] |
|
|
|
|
### 5. Market Positioning Map
|
|
|
|
Position competitors on two key dimensions relevant to the market:
|
|
- Y-Axis: [e.g., Enterprise vs. SMB]
|
|
- X-Axis: [e.g., Simple vs. Comprehensive]
|
|
|
|
**Whitespace Opportunities**: [Underserved segments]
|
|
|
|
### 6. Win/Loss Analysis
|
|
|
|
**Why We Win:**
|
|
- Better at: [specific capabilities]
|
|
- Customers who value: [what matters to them]
|
|
|
|
**Why We Lose:**
|
|
- When customers need: [specific requirements]
|
|
- Their advantage: [what tips the decision]
|
|
|
|
### 7. Strategic Recommendations
|
|
|
|
**Immediate Actions (0-3 months):**
|
|
1. [Action] — [Rationale]
|
|
|
|
**Medium-term (3-12 months):**
|
|
1. [Action] — [Rationale]
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not present competitor feature claims as facts without citing a source or flagging them as assumptions — outdated or incorrect feature data misleads sales and product decisions
|
|
- [ ] Do not build a competitive analysis that only covers features — pricing, messaging, go-to-market motion, and who they hire for are equally strategic signals
|
|
- [ ] Do not treat all buyers as identical — the same product may win against Competitor A in the enterprise segment and lose in SMB; segment-specific win/loss matters
|
|
- [ ] Do not soften weaknesses and threats in the SWOT to avoid internal discomfort — an honest SWOT is only useful if the negatives are real
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All competitor claims cite a source or are flagged as assumptions
|
|
- [ ] Feature comparison notes quality differences, not just feature presence
|
|
- [ ] Strategic recommendations are specific actions, not generic advice
|
|
- [ ] Win/loss analysis reflects customer perspective, not internal assumptions
|
|
- [ ] Different customer segments are considered (not all buyers value the same things)
|