v1.0.3 to v1.1.1
32 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: competitive-research-snapshot
description: >-
Research a competitive landscape with cited snapshots, a comparison matrix, and so-what
implications. Use when a product decision needs competitive grounding, not a market
report.
slug: competitive-research-snapshot
- version: 1.0.3
+ version: 1.1.1
displayName: competitive-research-snapshot
---
# Competitive Research Snapshot
## Purpose
Research a company's competitive landscape using a workflow, not a one-shot answer: **search plan →
competitor selection → just-enough research → fact/inference labels → real URL citations → next-step
options.** The output is a decision-support snapshot, not a market report — and because its schema is
stable, downstream skills (battle cards, delta monitors) can consume it and diff it. Because it
proceeds on labeled assumptions when questions go unanswered, it can run as an agent task or on a
schedule; re-run it and diff against the prior snapshot.
## Input
**Works best with:** the company, product, or segment to research, and **the decision this research
should support** (positioning, roadmap bet, deal support, board prep) — the decision determines what
"just enough" means.
**Also useful:** known competitors (or explicit permission to identify them), and any prior snapshot
or `market-landscape-scan` output in session — the skill builds on evidence already gathered rather
than re-researching 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 against the question budget;
don't re-ask.
**Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The skill opens with at most 3 questions (subject,
decision, competitors) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.
**Example invocation:** `competitive research snapshot on our expense-automation product — decision:
which roadmap bet wins Q1. Competitors: [Competitor A], [Competitor B]; find a third if one matters.`
## Key Concepts
- **Governing protocol:** honors the [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md)
contract in full — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just
Enough Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
- **Discipline mix:** OSINT (press, reviews, analyst coverage) + FININT (filings, earnings language)
+ SIGINT (pricing pages, site changes) — see
[`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md).
- **Decision-support snapshot, not market report.** Every section earns its place by serving the
decision named in Scope. Research value is decision support, not page count.
- **Snapshot as baseline.** The schema is a contract with future runs: `competitive-intel-watch`
diffs the world against this document. Section order never changes.
- **Three or four competitors, not eight.** Depth on the players who matter beats coverage of players
who don't. Use provided competitors; if none, identify the top 3 (4 only if clearly needed), each
with name, why relevant, source URL, and confidence.
- **Do-not-invent list (this domain's fabrication risks):** competitors, features, pricing, market
share, customer wins, roadmap items, product claims.
- **When NOT to use:** you need market *sizing* → run a TAM/SAM/SOM pass;
you need deep intel on *one* company's strategy and executives →
[`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md);
the facts are already gathered → go straight to the battle card.
## Application
1. **Credit inline context**, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
1. What company/product/segment?
2. What decision should this support?
3. Known competitors, or should I identify them?
If unanswered, proceed with labeled assumptions.
2. **Show the 3-bullet search plan** — what you'll search, source types, how facts will be separated
from inference. Continue unless revised.
3. **Select competitors** — provided ones, or top 3 identified (4 only if clearly needed). For each:
name; why relevant; source URL; confidence.
4. **Research in Just Enough Mode** with mixed sources: company sites, product/pricing pages,
customer stories, press releases, investor materials, credible news, analyst/review sites.
5. **Emit the schema below exactly** — it is a stable schema for diffing runs over time.
### Output schema (do not reorder)
~~~markdown
# Competitive Research Snapshot
## 1. Scope
**Company/product:** | **Category:** | **Decision supported:** | **Competitors analyzed:**
## 2. Competitor Snapshots
For each competitor, max 5 bullets:
### Competitor: [Name]
- **Positioning:**
- **Relevant capability:**
- **Likely strength:**
- **Likely weakness:**
- **Key source URL:**
## 3. Quick Comparison
| Dimension | Company | Comp 1 | Comp 2 | Comp 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target customer | | | | |
| Core use case | | | | |
| Main strength | | | | |
| Main weakness | | | | |
| Evidence quality | | | | |
## 4. So What?
- **3** product strategy implications
- **2** competitive risks
- **2** product opportunities
- **3** assumptions to validate
Each bullet: label, confidence, source URL where relevant.
~~~
A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
### Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)
1. Competitive battle card ([`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md))
2. Executive comparison matrix
3. Product risks/opportunities for the next 2 quarters
4. Discovery questions to validate the assumptions
Accept `1`, `2`, `3`, `4`, `1 and 2`, `Verbose Mode`, or a custom path.
## Examples
**A competitor snapshot with honest labels (fictional):**
> ### Competitor: Ledgerline
> - **Positioning:** "finance automation for mid-market CFOs" — **Fact** ([homepage, Jul 2026](https://example.com))
> - **Relevant capability:** approval-chain builder shipped in May — **Fact** ([release notes](https://example.com/changelog))
> - **Likely strength:** ERP integrations; 40+ listed, reviewers confirm the top 5 work well — **Fact** ([G2 reviews](https://example.com/reviews))
> - **Likely weakness:** implementation time; complaint cluster across 11 reviews since March — **Inference** (review mining; no benchmark data)
> - **Key source URL:** [pricing page](https://example.com/pricing)
**The "Evidence quality" row doing its job:** the comparison matrix rates Comp 3's column *low* —
every claim traces to their own marketing. The So What section then refuses to list Comp 3 as a
primary risk: "insufficient independent evidence — **Assumption to validate** via customer
references." That row exists so weak columns can't masquerade as strong ones.
See [`examples/sample.md`](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked snapshot (fictional
FSM-software market) that consumes the `market-landscape-scan` example and becomes the baseline the
`competitive-intel-watch` example diffs against. [`examples/sample-industrial.md`](examples/sample-industrial.md)
shows the same schema on an industrial evidence diet — filings, registries, and honest
absence-of-evidence.
## Common Pitfalls
- **The market-report trap.** Twenty pages on industry trends nobody asked for. If a section doesn't
serve the decision in Scope, it's padding — Just Enough Mode is the contract.
- **Marketing-page credulity.** A competitor's claimed capabilities recorded as facts. Their site is
a Fact about *what they claim*; whether it works is review-site territory or an Inference, labeled.
- **Coverage over depth.** Eight competitors with two facts each. Select three that matter and go
deep — the comparison matrix should be full, not wide.
- **Unlabeled So What.** Implications stated with borrowed confidence. The label and confidence on
each So What bullet is what makes it usable in a roadmap argument.
- **Regenerating instead of diffing.** Re-running this skill weekly and re-reading the whole output
is theater — that's what [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) is for.
+
+ ## When Things Go Wrong (Failure Exits)
+
+ - **Sources unreachable or paywalled (pricing pages, review sites, filings):** Name which sources failed in the Scope section and downgrade the affected Evidence quality cells; claims that now rest on vendor-only pages become **Assumption to validate**, not Inference. Never backfill missing evidence from memory.
+ - **Cannot identify 3 sourced competitors:** Emit the snapshot with fewer competitors and say so in Scope — padding with unsourced names violates the do-not-invent list. Better an honest 2-competitor matrix than a wide one with fabricated rows.
+ - **Conflicting facts across sources** (e.g., pricing differs between site and reviews): Keep both, label each with its source, and flag the conflict in the So What section rather than picking the convenient one.
+ - **Run-to-run variation:** Detail level and angle can differ between runs; the schema and section order never change. Diff runs with `competitive-intel-watch` instead of re-reading whole outputs and treating wording drift as a signal.
+
+ ## FAQ (Wrong → Right)
+
+ | Wrong | Right |
+ |-------|-------|
+ | Recording a competitor's claimed capability as a fact | Their page is a Fact about *what they claim*; whether it works needs review sites or stays labeled Inference |
+ | Asking for "a market report" | This is a decision-support snapshot: name the decision up front; sections that don't serve it get cut |
+ | Adding an 8th competitor "for completeness" | Depth on 3-4 who matter beats coverage of the rest |
+ | Re-running weekly and re-reading everything | That's what `competitive-intel-watch` is for — this skill sets the baseline |
+ | Treating an Assumption-heavy output as unreliable garbage | Assumptions are the skill telling you where evidence ended; validate them via the Final Step's discovery questions |
+
+ ## 中文速览（Quick Guide）
+
+ **这个技能做什么**：以工作流方式研究竞争格局——先出搜索计划，选 3–4 家关键对手，做"刚好够用"的调查，每条结论带 Fact/Inference/Assumption 标签与真实来源 URL，产出一份可长期 diff 的决策支持快照（非市场报告）。
+
+ **何时用**：产品决策需要竞争依据时（定位、路线图押注、赢单支持、董事会准备），而非要一份市场规模报告。
+
+ **核心步骤**：
+ 1. 记入随调用给的上下文，只追问未答的至多 3 问（对象、决策、竞品）；
+ 2. 出 3 条要点搜索计划，无异议即继续；
+ 3. 按给定名单或自选 top 3 竞品，混合来源做 Just Enough 调查；
+ 4. 严格按稳定 schema 输出（范围/竞品速写/对比矩阵/So What），末尾给 4 个下一步选项。
+
+ **国内可达性边界**：依赖对竞品官网、定价页、评测站（如 G2 类）、新闻与财报等外网源的实时访问；某源不可达或付费墙挡住时，在 Scope 一节点名失败来源并降级该处 Evidence quality，受影响断言改标 Assumption to validate；可改用公开中文渠道（官网中文页、公开新闻、上市/挂牌公司公开披露）补充，并以来源标注置信度——不从记忆回填证据。
## References
- [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — the governing protocol
- [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — discipline sources and signal chains
- [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — upstream: surfaces which players deserve this snapshot
- [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — downstream: diffs future runs against this baseline
- [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — downstream: turns the snapshot into a field-action card
- [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) — single-company deep dive
- Adapted from `market-intelligence/competitive-research-snapshot-prompt.md` in the
`https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts` repo.