git:20260803.88cd167 to v1.0.0

---

name: competitive-analysis-process

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).