competitive-analysis-process · diff
git:20260803.db14631 to git:20260803.88cd167
195 added, 2 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: competitive-analysis-process
- argument-hint: "[competitor set or market, and the decision this analysis supports]"
- description: "Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card.
+ description: >-
+ Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to
+ strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card.
---
+
+ # Competitive Analysis Process
+
+ ## Purpose
+
+ Orchestrate rigorous, repeatable competitive analysis across **six analytical steps**, producing four
+ actionable output types (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning counter-moves, threat
+ assessments). This is the umbrella: each step names its purpose, its frameworks, and the skill that
+ does the work — the way `discovery-process` orchestrates the discovery skills. Run all six for a
+ strategy cycle; run one when a specific question walks in the door. The steps build on each other, but
+ the sequence bends to the decision.
+
+ ## Input
+
+ **Works best with:** the market or competitor set in scope, and **the decision this analysis
+ supports** — a roadmap bet, a positioning refresh, a market entry, deal defense. The decision
+ determines which steps get depth and which get a pass.
+ **Also useful:** any existing intelligence — a prior landscape scan, snapshots, battle cards, or
+ `company-intel` output — so steps consume rather than repeat it.
+
+ Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
+ appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it; don't re-ask.
+
+ **Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The workflow opens by asking what decision is on the table
+ and what you already know, then recommends which steps to run and in what order.
+
+ **Example invocation:** `Run the competitive analysis process on the mid-market payroll space —
+ decision: whether we defend down-market or push up. We have last quarter's landscape scan.`
+
+ ## Key Concepts
+
+ - **Six steps, four outputs.** The steps are analytical lenses; the outputs (battle cards, comparison
+ matrices, positioning moves, threat assessments) are what sales, execs, and roadmap owners actually
+ consume. A step that doesn't feed an output is a detour.
+ - **Steps delegate; this skill orchestrates.** Each step below names the skill that does the work.
+ This file holds the sequence, the frameworks, and the decision points — not the delegated-research mechanics.
+ - **Evidence discipline throughout.** Every step honors the
+ [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) protocol
+ (Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, real URLs, confidence stacking), drawing signals from the
+ channels in [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md).
+ - **Named frameworks, cited.** Each step stands on published strategy work — Porter's Five Forces,
+ the Kano model, Jobs-to-be-Done, the Business Model Canvas, Ries & Trout positioning, Hamel &
+ Prahalad strategic intent. The frameworks are defined where used; agents shouldn't assume prior
+ knowledge.
+ - **Present ≠ future.** Steps 1-5 read where competitors *are*; Step 6 reads where they're *going* —
+ and it's the step most teams skip, which is why they're perpetually surprised.
+
+ ## Application
+
+ **Step 0 — Scope.** Confirm the decision, the competitor set (or run
+ [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) to find it), and which steps matter.
+ Offer the six steps as a numbered menu; recommend a subset when the decision doesn't need all six.
+
+ ### Step 1: Overview of the Competitive Landscape
+
+ *Who's in the game, where, and how they operate — market saturation, fragmentation, disruptive entrants.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Porter's Five Forces (industry structure); strategic group mapping (clustering
+ competitors by GTM model, innovation pattern, or regional depth); market fragmentation indexing.
+ - **Run:** [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) — segments, player map,
+ dynamics, whitespace with the dead-zone test.
+ - **Decision point:** which 2-4 players deserve depth? Everything downstream narrows to them.
+
+ ### Step 2: Comparisons at the Product Level
+
+ *Beyond feature lists: value delivery, architecture, interoperability, lifecycle maturity.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Kano model (which features delight vs. merely satisfy); Geoffrey Moore's Whole
+ Product model (core product vs. the ring of services and integrations deals actually hinge on);
+ JTBD-based capability maps (compare by customer job, not by feature name).
+ - **Run:** [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) on the
+ selected players — its comparison matrix is this step's artifact.
+ - **Watch for:** feature parity theater. A capability map by job-to-be-done exposes what a feature
+ checklist hides: two "identical" features serving different jobs badly.
+
+ ### Step 3: Ability to Fulfill Customer Needs
+
+ *How well they serve real customers — outcomes, support quality, ecosystem benefits — not tech specs.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Outcome-Driven Innovation (score against customer-defined outcomes); Value
+ Proposition Canvas (their promise vs. the jobs/pains/gains that matter).
+ - **Run:** [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) across the sources your
+ buyer reads — need themes, quoted verbatims, competitor weak points, and switching triggers, each
+ with a source-bias note.
+ - **Watch for:** vendor-authored "reviews" and case studies. Independent complaint clusters are the
+ signal; curated success stories are marketing.
+
+ ### Step 4: Compilation of Business Information
+
+ *The financial, organizational, and market baseline: structure, revenue streams, growth levers, channels.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Business Model Canvas (how the whole machine fits together); revenue stream
+ breakdown; sales channel profiling (direct vs. OEM vs. VAR vs. platform).
+ - **Run:** [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) per deep-dive competitor — its eleven-section
+ output (financials, offers, org signals) is this step's artifact; FININT sources per
+ `intelligence-collection-disciplines` do the heavy lifting.
+ - **Watch for:** press-release accounting. Filings and earnings calls outrank announcements —
+ companies lie less where lying is a felony.
+
+ ### Step 5: Perception and Relative Positioning
+
+ *How buyers perceive you versus them — in promise, emotion, and mental association, not capability.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Ries & Trout positioning theory (the battle is for the buyer's mind); perceptual
+ mapping (price vs. value-perception plots; find the uncontested space); Blue Ocean strategy canvas.
+ - **Run:** contrast their *stated* positioning (Step 2 snapshots) against *customer language* (Step 3
+ review mining); draft or revise with [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md).
+ - **Watch for:** the promise-delivery gap — where a competitor's marketing writes checks their reviews
+ say they don't cash. That gap is a positioning counter-move waiting to be claimed.
+
+ ### Step 6: Competitors' Strategic Direction
+
+ *Where they're going, not where they are — the step that lets you preempt instead of react.*
+
+ - **Frameworks:** Hamel & Prahalad's strategic intent (read the ambition behind the moves); the
+ Innovation Ambition Matrix (core/adjacent/transformational mix of their bets).
+ - **Run:** the forward-looking disciplines in
+ [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) — TECHINT
+ (patent clusters, trademark filings, preprints), HUMINT (hiring surges, leadership moves), FININT
+ (earnings language, M&A themes), MASINT (supply chain, facility buildout) — fused via the
+ confidence-stacking rule. [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) keeps
+ this step running on a cadence after the initial pass.
+ - **Watch for:** single-signal panic. One patent is exploration; a cluster plus a hiring surge plus a
+ subdomain cert is a committed bet. Stack before you brief.
+
+ ### Step 7: Produce the Outputs
+
+ Close by building what the audience consumes — offer as a numbered menu:
+
+ 1. **Battle cards** for the field — [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md)
+ 2. **Executive comparison matrix** — from Step 2's snapshot
+ 3. **Positioning counter-moves** — from Step 5's gap analysis
+ 4. **Threat assessment brief** — Step 6's fused signals, with confidence levels and recommended responses
+
+ Then set the maintenance cadence: [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) on
+ the schedule the artifact mapping in `intelligence-collection-disciplines` prescribes (weekly SIGINT
+ layer for cards, quarterly deep passes for direction).
+
+ A copy/paste engagement tracker for all seven steps lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
+
+ ## Examples
+
+ **Scoping to the decision (fictional):** the decision is deal defense against one rival in enterprise
+ deals. The right subset is Steps 2, 3, and 5 on that one competitor, straight into a battle card —
+ Steps 1, 4, and 6 add days, not win-rate. The orchestrator's value is *permission to skip*: "Based on
+ your decision, I recommend Steps 2→3→5 only. Run the full six?
+ 1. Yes, deal defense scope (2, 3, 5 → battle card)
+ 2. Add Step 6 — they've been acquiring lately and I want the direction read
+ 3. Full six-step pass
+ 4. Something else"
+
+ **Step 6 catching what Steps 1-5 missed:** the present-state read shows a competitor stable and
+ mid-pack. The direction pass finds a patent cluster in a new classification, four platform-engineer
+ postings, and an earnings call where the CFO declined to break out R&D — three disciplines, one story:
+ a platform pivot in progress. The threat assessment brief re-ranks them from "monitor" to "act," a
+ quarter before their announcement would have forced a reactive scramble.
+
+ See [`examples/sample.md`](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked engagement (fictional
+ FSM-software market) showing the orchestration decisions — scoping menu, recorded skips, and
+ step-to-step compounding — with links into the delegated skills' own worked artifacts.
+ [`examples/sample-industrial.md`](examples/sample-industrial.md) shows the umbrella bending —
+ steps merged, one run out of order, cadence slowed — with each call's reasoning stated.
+
+ ## Common Pitfalls
+
+ - **Running all six on autopilot.** The steps are a menu, not a mandate. Scope to the decision or the
+ analysis ships after the decision got made without it.
+ - **Skipping Step 6.** Present-state analysis ages the moment it ships; direction analysis is what
+ buys you a quarter of lead time. Teams that skip it are perpetually surprised on product-launch day.
+ - **Framework name-dropping.** Citing Five Forces without rating the forces, or Kano without
+ classifying a single feature. A framework earns its mention by producing a judgment.
+ - **Analysis without outputs.** Six beautiful steps and no battle card, no matrix, no brief. Step 7
+ isn't optional — delegated-research is only done when it names the artifact it changes.
+ - **One-time heroics.** A grand annual analysis that's stale by month three. The process ends by
+ installing the watch cadence, or it didn't end — it just stopped.
+
+ ## References
+
+ - [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 1
+ - [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 2
+ - [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 3
+ - [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 4
+ - [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md) (Component) — Step 5
+ - [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 6 cadence + maintenance
+ - [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 7 output
+ - [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — signal channels throughout
+ - [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — evidence discipline throughout
+ - External frameworks: Porter, *How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy* (HBR, 1979); Kano, attractive
+ quality theory; Moore, *Crossing the Chasm* (Whole Product); Ulwick, Outcome-Driven Innovation;
+ Osterwalder & Pigneur, *Business Model Generation*; Ries & Trout, *Positioning*; Hamel & Prahalad,
+ *Competing for the Future* (HBR, 1994); Nagji & Tuff, *Managing Your Innovation Portfolio* (HBR, 2012)
+ - Adapted from Dean Peters' Competitive Analysis Playbook (Productside).