competitor-mapper git:20260906.e7c44bdA

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/45412a6d49ce614a.

---
name: competitor-mapper
description: Maps the full competitive landscape — direct, indirect, substitute, and emerging competitors — with positioning gap analysis, review mining, and market_insights-calibrated saturation scoring. Feeds into idea-scoring, cac-modeler, pricing-and-wtp, and tam-sam-som-builder.
---

<!-- version: 0.3.0 | outputs: memory/ideas/<slug>/competitors.json -->

# Skill: competitor-mapper

## Purpose

Understand what the user is actually competing against — not just other apps, but also spreadsheets, habits, free alternatives, and human services. The goal is not an exhaustive list but a **strategic map**: who owns the space, where the gaps are, and whether this idea can occupy a position that incumbents can't easily copy.

## Input

- Idea slug
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/idea.md` (app concept, key features, differentiator, `business_model`)
- `memory/market_insights/<niche>-*-<YYYY>-<MM>.md` (trend analysis files — **use all available platform files for this niche**)

### Lane selection

`business_model` = `b2c` uses the App Store search methodology (Step 2) and app-store review mining. `prosumer`, `b2b-smb`, and `b2b2c` use the B2B search methodology (Step 2b) and review mining from G2, Capterra, Reddit, and Hacker News. The competitor categories, gap analysis, and saturation scoring apply to both lanes; the B2B factor definitions are in Step 5. Record the lane in the output.

### Using Market Insights

Trend analysis files are a primary research source for competitor mapping. Extract the following:

| Platform file | What to extract for competitor mapping |
|---|---|
| **Apps** (`<niche>-apps-*.md`) | Category rankings, new entrants, top apps by downloads/revenue, review complaint patterns, pricing models in use |
| **Reddit** (`<niche>-reddit-*.md`) | Apps and tools users mention by name (both praised and hated), non-software workarounds users describe, recurring complaints about existing solutions |
| **TikTok** (`<niche>-tiktok-*.md`) | Apps featured in viral content (free marketing = distribution advantage), creator-promoted tools, "alternatives to X" content trends |
| **Web Search** (`<niche>-web-search-*.md`) | Top-ranking apps for category keywords, "best X apps" list winners, SEO-dominant competitors |
| **B2B communities** (`<niche>-b2b-communities-*.md`) | Products named in G2/Capterra categories with review counts, tools operators say they switched from or to, pricing pages already captured, partner-directory listings, funded entrants |
| `monetization_evidence` (from any platform) | Which competitors are actively monetizing (proves the market supports revenue, identifies pricing benchmarks) |
| `trend_velocity` | Rising-fast markets attract new entrants quickly — flag that emerging threats will increase |

If no market_insights files exist, note this as a gap and rely on direct research only.

## Competitor Categories

| Category | Definition | Why it matters | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Direct** | Same solution, same audience | Head-to-head competition for the same users | Apps solving the exact same problem on the same platform |
| **Indirect** | Different solution, same problem | User might choose this instead, even though it works differently | A meditation app competing with a journaling app for "stress relief" |
| **Substitute** | Non-software solution the user currently employs | The real baseline — what happens if the user never installs any app | Spreadsheets, pen-and-paper, hiring a person, doing nothing, a WhatsApp group |
| **Emerging** | New entrants, beta products, or announced features from incumbents | Future competitive pressure — the landscape 6–12 months from now | YC-backed startups, Product Hunt launches, Apple/Google adding native features |

## Process

### Step 1 — Research Checklist by Category

#### Direct competitors (find 3–8)

Search these sources in order:

1. **App Store / Play Store category browse**: Search the primary category and 2–3 keyword variations. Record the top 10 results for each search.
2. **"Best X apps" articles**: Search Google for `best [category] apps 2026`. The top 3 listicle results typically capture the market leaders.
3. **Product Hunt**: Search the category. Sort by most upvoted. Focus on launches from the past 18 months (recent entrants).
4. **Market insights (Apps file)**: If `<niche>-apps-*.md` exists, extract any competitors named in the narrative.
5. **Market insights (Reddit file)**: If `<niche>-reddit-*.md` exists, extract apps users mention by name in discussions.
6. **AlternativeTo.net**: Search the closest existing app. Lists adjacent competitors you may have missed.

For each direct competitor, record:
- Name, platform(s), pricing model and price
- Estimated user base (from App Store ratings count × 50–100, or from market_insights narrative)
- App Store rating (stars + review count)
- Last updated date (stale = opportunity)
- Top 3 features
- Top 3 complaints (from review mining — see Step 3)

#### Indirect competitors (find 2–5)

Ask: "What else might someone use to solve the same underlying problem, even if the approach is completely different?"

Sources:
- Reddit threads where users describe their current workflow for this problem
- "How to [solve problem]" search results — the solutions that appear ARE the indirect competition
- Market insights narratives that describe alternative approaches to the same pain

#### Substitutes (find 2–4)

Ask: "What is the user doing RIGHT NOW, before they know this app exists?"

Common substitute categories:
- **Manual process**: Spreadsheet, notes app, pen-and-paper, calendar reminders
- **Human service**: Coach, therapist, accountant, personal trainer
- **Social workaround**: Group chat, Facebook group, Discord server
- **Inaction**: Doing nothing (this is the strongest competitor for low-urgency problems)

Record the estimated cost and friction of each substitute — this is the switching-cost baseline the app must beat.

#### Emerging threats (find 1–3)

Sources:
- Product Hunt launches in the past 6 months
- YC / startup accelerator demo day lists
- Apple WWDC / Google I/O feature announcements that could obviate the app
- If `trend_velocity` = "rising-fast" in market_insights, note that new entrants are likely

Flag any emerging competitor that has raised funding — they have resources to move fast.

### Step 2 — App Store Search Methodology

The App Store is the most important research surface for B2C apps. Use this systematic approach:

1. **Primary keyword search**: The most obvious term a user would search (e.g., "habit tracker").
2. **Problem keyword search**: The problem statement (e.g., "build better habits").
3. **Audience keyword search**: The target user + need (e.g., "ADHD planner").
4. **Adjacent keyword search**: Related but broader terms (e.g., "daily routine", "productivity").

For each search, record:
- Number of results that are clearly relevant (not spam/unrelated)
- Rating and review count of the top 3 results
- Whether the top result has > 50K ratings (signals an entrenched incumbent)
- Date of last update for top 5 results (stale apps = opportunity to displace)

### Step 2b — B2B Search Methodology (prosumer, b2b-smb, b2b2c)

Business buyers do not browse an app store. Use these surfaces in order and record the same fields as Step 2 (relevant results, ratings, review counts, dominance, freshness):

1. **G2 and Capterra category search**: the two closest categories plus an "alternatives to <closest product>" page. Record the top 10 by review count. A product with > 500 reviews is an entrenched incumbent; > 2,000 is dominant.
2. **Pricing pages** of the top 5: tiers, unit (per seat, per client, per workspace, flat), published or "contact sales", free tier or trial. Unpublished pricing is itself a positioning gap.
3. **Operator search queries**: `"<problem> tool" site:reddit.com`, `"<problem>" site:news.ycombinator.com`, `"<problem>" site:indiehackers.com`. The products people recommend to each other are the real short list.
4. **Partner and integration directories** relevant to the buyer's stack (n8n, Zapier, HubSpot, Shopify, MSP marketplaces): who is listed, who is missing.
5. **LinkedIn**: posts by the buyer persona mentioning tools by name; comment threads are unfiltered switching stories.
6. **Funding and launch signals**: Crunchbase or press for funded entrants in the past 18 months; Product Hunt launches.

For each competitor found, record who its buyer is (the risk owner, the service provider, the end user). A competitor selling to a different buyer than this idea is adjacent, not direct, even when the feature list overlaps.

### Step 3 — Review Mining for Positioning Gaps

Competitor reviews are the richest source of positioning gaps. Mine them systematically. In the B2C lane use App Store and Play Store reviews. In the B2B lane map the same tiers onto G2 and Capterra (1–2 star, 3 star, 5 star), plus Reddit and Hacker News threads for products with fewer than 50 reviews. B2B compliance and infrastructure products often have no public review corpus at all; when that happens say so in `review_mining_summary`, substitute pricing-page teardown and comparison content, and record it in `review_sources_used`.

#### 1-star reviews (frustration signals)

These reveal what users hate about existing solutions. Look for patterns:
- Bugs and reliability complaints (opportunity: "the one that actually works")
- Missing features that users expected (opportunity: build the feature they want)
- Pricing complaints (opportunity: better value or different model)
- Privacy/data concerns (opportunity: privacy-first positioning)
- UX complexity complaints (opportunity: simpler alternative)

#### 3-star reviews (unmet expectation signals)

These are often more valuable than 1-star reviews. 3-star reviewers liked the app enough to keep using it but something important is missing:
- "Great app BUT..." — the "but" is the positioning gap
- "Would be perfect IF..." — the "if" is the feature opportunity
- "Works for X but not for Y" — the "Y" is the underserved segment

#### 5-star reviews (what's defensible)

Read competitor 5-star reviews to understand what they do well. These strengths are hard to compete against directly — don't try. Instead, find the **orthogonal angle** that the incumbent's strength doesn't cover.

#### Mining process

For each direct competitor (top 3–5):
1. Read the 20 most recent 1-star reviews
2. Read the 20 most recent 3-star reviews
3. Read 10 recent 5-star reviews
4. Categorize complaints into themes (max 5 themes per competitor)
5. Identify the **most common complaint shared across 2+ competitors** — this is the strongest gap signal

### Step 4 — Positioning Gap Analysis

A positioning gap is a real user need that no current competitor serves well. Classify each gap:

| Gap type | Description | Defensibility |
|---|---|---|
| **Audience gap** | No competitor targets this specific user segment | Medium — easy to copy if proven |
| **Feature gap** | A commonly requested feature that no competitor has built | Low — incumbents can add it |
| **Experience gap** | Existing solutions work but the UX is painful | Medium — hard for bloated incumbents to simplify |
| **Price gap** | All competitors are expensive; a free or cheap alternative would win | Low — race to the bottom |
| **Philosophy gap** | Existing solutions have a fundamentally different worldview (e.g., "gamified" vs. "minimalist") | High — incumbents can't pivot their core identity |
| **Platform gap** | No good solution exists on a specific platform (e.g., iOS-only need, Apple Watch, visionOS) | Medium — temporary, but first-mover advantage is real |
| **Trust gap** | Users don't trust existing solutions (privacy, data ownership, ads) | High — trust is hard to build retroactively |

Prioritize **philosophy gaps** and **trust gaps** — these are the hardest for incumbents to copy and the most defensible for an indie developer.

### Step 5 — Market Saturation Scoring

Saturation reflects how crowded the space is and how difficult it will be to get noticed.

| Factor | Low (1 pt) | Medium (2 pts) | High (3 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Direct competitor count** | 0–2 relevant apps | 3–6 relevant apps | 7+ relevant apps |
| **Incumbent dominance** | No app has > 10K ratings | 1–2 apps have 10K–100K ratings | An app has > 100K ratings |
| **Funding in space** | No funded competitors | 1–2 funded startups | Multiple funded companies or a FAANG player |
| **App Store keyword saturation** | Primary keywords show few relevant results | Moderate results, some quality variance | Top results are all high-quality, well-maintained apps |
| **Content saturation** | Few "best X apps" articles exist | Some articles, moderate SEO competition | Many SEO-optimized listicles, hard to rank |

**B2B lane factor definitions** (same points, same totals):

| Factor | Low (1 pt) | Medium (2 pts) | High (3 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Direct competitor count** | 0–2 products sell this to this buyer | 3–6 | 7+ |
| **Incumbent dominance** | No product has > 100 G2/Capterra reviews | One has 100–500 reviews | One has > 500 reviews or a public customer count > 5,000 |
| **Funding in space** | No funded competitors | 1–2 seed/Series A | Multiple funded companies or a platform vendor (Microsoft, Salesforce, HubSpot) ships it natively |
| **Search and directory saturation** | Category keywords and partner directories have few relevant entries | Moderate, uneven quality | Category pages are full of maintained, reviewed products |
| **Content saturation** | Few comparison or "best X for Y" pages | Some vendor comparison content | Every incumbent publishes comparison pages and case studies for this buyer |

**Total score** (5–15 points):

| Total | Saturation level |
|---|---|
| 5–7 | **low** — Blue ocean. Few competitors, clear opportunity to establish position. |
| 8–11 | **medium** — Competitive but gaps exist. Success requires clear differentiation. |
| 12–15 | **high** — Red ocean. Dominated by well-funded or well-established players. Indie success requires a genuinely novel angle or underserved niche. |

## Output

Write to `memory/ideas/<slug>/competitors.json`:

```json
{
  "idea_slug": "",
  "mapped_at": "YYYY-MM-DD",
  "lane": "b2c | b2b",
  "direct_competitors": [
    {
      "name": "",
      "platform": "",
      "buyer": "",
      "estimated_users": "",
      "app_store_rating": null,
      "review_count": 0,
      "review_source": "app-store | play-store | g2 | capterra | none",
      "last_updated": "",
      "pricing": "",
      "pricing_model": "",
      "top_features": [],
      "top_complaints": [],
      "complaint_themes": [],
      "distribution_channels_observed": []
    }
  ],
  "indirect_competitors": [
    {
      "name": "",
      "approach": "",
      "why_users_choose_it": ""
    }
  ],
  "substitutes": [
    {
      "description": "",
      "cost": "",
      "friction_level": "low | medium | high",
      "switching_cost_to_app": ""
    }
  ],
  "emerging_threats": [
    {
      "name": "",
      "stage": "beta | launched | announced",
      "funded": false,
      "threat_level": "low | medium | high",
      "notes": ""
    }
  ],
  "review_mining_summary": {
    "most_common_complaint_across_competitors": "",
    "strongest_gap_signal": "",
    "competitors_mined": 0
  },
  "review_sources_used": [],
  "positioning_gaps": [
    {
      "gap_type": "audience | feature | experience | price | philosophy | platform | trust",
      "description": "",
      "defensibility": "low | medium | high",
      "evidence": ""
    }
  ],
  "saturation_score": {
    "direct_competitor_count": 0,
    "incumbent_dominance": 0,
    "funding_in_space": 0,
    "keyword_saturation": 0,
    "content_saturation": 0,
    "total": 0
  },
  "saturation_rationale": "",
  "market_saturation": "low | medium | high",
  "differentiation_opportunities": [],
  "market_insights_sources_used": [],
  "sources": [
    { "url": "https://", "title": "", "accessed": "YYYY-MM-DD", "used_for": "" }
  ]
}
```

`sources` must list every URL consulted (category pages, pricing pages, review pages, threads). idea-scoring counts them and the decision memo cites them.

## Notes

- The `most_common_complaint_across_competitors` from review mining is one of the highest-signal data points in the entire validation system. If the same complaint appears in 3+ competitor review sets, it's a validated pain point — the market is telling you what to build.
- `distribution_channels_observed` for each competitor helps downstream skills (distribution-analysis, cac-modeler) understand which channels actually work in this category.
- If market_insights show `trend_velocity` = "rising-fast", note in `emerging_threats` that the competitor landscape will shift quickly. Rising markets attract builders.
- Substitutes with `friction_level` = "low" are the hardest to displace — if doing nothing or using a spreadsheet is easy enough, the app must provide dramatically more value to justify the download.
- In the B2B lane the strongest substitute is often the buyer building it themselves (Zapier, a spreadsheet, an intern). Record the evidence for who pays despite being able to build; a comparable product with paying customers against the same objection is the best defence.
- Candidate-stage competition scores in idea-generation are capped at 60 until this skill runs; when presenting, state how far the researched score moved from the capped prior.