Files

T

Claude 572b8acf8c Add multi-platform export generator (single source of truth)

Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each
skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new
generator renders platform-ready exports from it.

- scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS
  registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT
  exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills),
  plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check.
- exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT.
- .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or
  web/skills.json drift from the source skills.
- README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command.
- CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px

2026-06-17 08:01:20 +00:00

3.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

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

Gather competitor information from provided inputs and available context
Build profiles for each competitor
Create feature comparison matrix on dimensions that matter to the user's customers
Analyze pricing and positioning
Identify win/loss patterns and strategic implications
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):

[Action] — [Rationale]

Medium-term (3-12 months):

[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)

3.7 KiB Raw Blame History