git:20260803.db14631 to git:20260803.88cd167
172 added, 2 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: competitive-research-snapshot
- argument-hint: "[company/product/segment, and the decision it supports]"
- 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.
+ 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.
---
+
+ # Competitive Research Snapshot
+
+ ## Purpose
+
+ Research a company's competitive landscape using a workflow, not a one-shot answer: **search plan →
+ competitor selection → just-enough delegated-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 delegated-research, and **the decision this delegated-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 delegated-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* → [`tam-sam-som-calculator`](../tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md);
+ you need deep intel on *one* company's strategy and executives →
+ [`company-research`](../company-delegated-research/SKILL.md) / [`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.
+
+ ## 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-research`](../company-delegated-research/SKILL.md), [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) — single-company deep dives
+ - Adapted from `market-intelligence/competitive-research-snapshot-prompt.md` in the
+ `https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts` repo.
+
+ ## 相关技能说明（2026-08-02）
+
+ 正文引用的以下技能**不在本技能库**（deanpeters 同库**可选参考**——为保持技能库克制未接入）：
+
+ - `tam-sam-som-calculator` —— 需要时按需接入（deanpeters 同库可选参考）
+ - `company-research` —— 需要时按需接入（deanpeters 同库可选参考）
+
+ **情况说明**：这些引用仅为参考方向（如「可用 X 做市场量化」），**不阻塞本技能独立使用**；实际需要时再按需接入对应技能。
+