Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› competitive-analysis
competitive-analysis
GitHub用于创建结构化竞品分析，生成竞品画像、功能对比矩阵、定价分析及战略建议。适用于竞品调研、功能对比、竞争格局构建及销售工具准备，辅助产品决策与战略规划。
Trigger Scenarios
分析竞争对手
创建竞争分析
比较竞品功能
构建竞争格局
追踪竞争定位
准备销售对抗卡输入
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill competitive-analysis -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "competitive-analysis",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/competitive-analysis.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "⭐"
}
},
"description": "Analyze competitors and create competitive landscape documentation with feature matrices, positioning maps, and strategic recommendations. Use when asked to analyze competitors, create competitive analysis, compare features with competitors, build a competitive landscape, track competitive positioning, or prepare sales battlecard inputs. Produces structured competitor profiles, feature comparison matrix, win\/loss analysis, and prioritised strategic recommendations. For a one-off teardown of a single rival use competitor-teardown; for a recurring market briefing use competitive-intelligence-monitor."
}
Competitive Analysis Skill
Create structured competitive analyses for product decision-making.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Your product or company (what you're comparing against)
- Competitors to analyze (or ask to identify the top 3-5)
- Analysis focus (full landscape / feature comparison / pricing / positioning / win-loss)
- Audience (product team / leadership / sales / board)
Process
- Gather competitor information from provided inputs and available context
- Build profiles for each competitor
- Create feature comparison matrix on dimensions that matter to the user's customers
- Analyze pricing and positioning
- Identify win/loss patterns and strategic implications
- Validate — Confirm all claims reference a specific source or are flagged as assumptions. Verify feature comparisons note quality differences, not just presence/absence.
Output Structure
1. Executive Summary
- Market Position: Where we stand relative to competitors
- Key Findings: Top 3-5 insights
- Strategic Implications: What this means for the roadmap
2. Competitor Profiles
For each competitor:
- Company Overview: Size, funding, market position
- Target Customer: Who they serve
- Value Proposition: Core positioning
- Strengths / Weaknesses: What they do well and where they fall short
- Recent Activity: Major updates, funding, announcements
3. Feature Comparison Matrix
| Feature | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Limited | ❌ None | ✅ Full |
Legend: ✅ Full (production-ready) · ⚠️ Limited/Beta · ❌ None
Include notes on quality and implementation differences where significant.
4. Pricing Comparison
| Plan | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free/Trial | [price] | [price] | [price] |
| Pro | [price] | [price] | [price] |
| Enterprise | [price] | [price] | [price] |
5. Market Positioning Map
Position competitors on two key dimensions relevant to the market:
- Y-Axis: [e.g., Enterprise vs. SMB]
- X-Axis: [e.g., Simple vs. Comprehensive]
Whitespace Opportunities: [Underserved segments]
6. Win/Loss Analysis
Why We Win:
- Better at: [specific capabilities]
- Customers who value: [what matters to them]
Why We Lose:
- When customers need: [specific requirements]
- Their advantage: [what tips the decision]
7. Strategic Recommendations
Immediate Actions (0-3 months):
- [Action] — [Rationale]
Medium-term (3-12 months):
- [Action] — [Rationale]
Anti-Patterns
- Do not present competitor feature claims as facts without citing a source or flagging them as assumptions — outdated or incorrect feature data misleads sales and product decisions
- Do not build a competitive analysis that only covers features — pricing, messaging, go-to-market motion, and who they hire for are equally strategic signals
- Do not treat all buyers as identical — the same product may win against Competitor A in the enterprise segment and lose in SMB; segment-specific win/loss matters
- Do not soften weaknesses and threats in the SWOT to avoid internal discomfort — an honest SWOT is only useful if the negatives are real
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source hygiene | Competitor claims stated as fact with no provenance; stale data presented as current | Major claims sourced, but assumptions unflagged and mixed in with verified facts | Every claim carries a source tag or explicit assumption flag; an assumption register tells the reader what to re-verify |
| Depth beyond the feature checklist | A feature matrix and nothing else | Features plus pricing, but no positioning, GTM motion, or recent-moves analysis | Features, pricing, positioning map, and win/loss all present — with quality-difference notes where checkmark parity would mislead |
| Segment-aware win/loss | One generic strengths/weaknesses list averaged across all buyers | Win/loss present but undifferentiated by segment or based on internal opinion, not customer evidence | Win/loss split by segment with customer-voiced reasons and deal counts; contradicting segments (win SMB, lose enterprise) shown side by side |
| Actionability of recommendations | Generic advice ("monitor competitors", "improve differentiation") | Directionally useful actions but untethered from the findings or missing timeframes | Specific actions with timeframe and rationale, each traceable to a numbered finding — including explicit non-actions |
Quality Checks
- All competitor claims cite a source or are flagged as assumptions
- Feature comparison notes quality differences, not just feature presence
- Strategic recommendations are specific actions, not generic advice
- Win/loss analysis reflects customer perspective, not internal assumptions
- Different customer segments are considered (not all buyers value the same things)
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:14
