competitors-analysis

Competitors Analysis

Build competitor intelligence that can be shared, re-run, and audited later. This

skill has two layers:

1. Repository evidence: clone or update the competitor code under the durable

competitors workspace, then cite facts from actual files and commits.

1. Landscape synthesis: summarize positioning, pricing, strengths, weaknesses,

gaps, and opportunities, but only after separating sourced facts from judgment.

This skill intentionally subsumes lightweight "competitor scan" workflows. A scan

is useful for the landscape table, but it is not enough for technical conclusions.

Entry Router

If the user's request is missing the product/market or target customer segment,

ask for that context before synthesizing positioning or opportunity claims. Known

competitors are optional; if absent, use Discover mode.

Use the user's wording to choose the path:

| User intent | Mode | What to do |

|---|---|---|

| "find competitors", "竞品有哪些", broad market query | Discover | Search GitHub and web sources, shortlist candidates, clone only relevant repositories |

| "add competitor <url>" | Ingest | Clone the repository, record remote + commit, then produce a first profile |

| "analyze competitor", "review this repo" | Profile | Update or clone locally, read code, write a cited technical profile |

| "compare", "landscape", "opportunities" | Landscape | Ensure each competitor has a profile, then synthesize gaps and opportunities |

| "latest code", "有没有更新" | Update | Pull/fetch existing competitors and report changed commits before analysis |

Durable Source Layout

Use a durable workspace, not /tmp. The default base is:

COMPETITORS_BASE="${COMPETITORS_BASE:-$HOME/workspace/competitors}"

Directory convention:

$COMPETITORS_BASE/
└── {product-slug}/
    ├── {owner-repo}/
    └── ...

Use owner-repo for GitHub repositories so forks and similarly named projects do

not collide. If the user's machine already has a product directory, use it as the

source of truth and do not re-clone elsewhere.

Preflight

Before analysis, establish these facts from commands, not memory:

repo="$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/{owner-repo}"
test -d "$repo/.git"
git -C "$repo" remote -v
git -C "$repo" fetch --all --prune
git -C "$repo" log -1 --format='%H%x09%cI%x09%s'

If the repository is missing, clone it first. Prefer SSH for GitHub when possible:

mkdir -p "$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}"
git clone --depth 1 <git-ssh-url> "$COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/{owner-repo}"

If SSH fails for a public repository, report the failure and retry with the

repository's HTTPS URL only when that keeps the work moving.

Discovery Workflow

Use gh search repos for GitHub repository discovery. Search multiple query

phrases; do not trust one keyword.

gh search repos "product keywords" \
  --limit 30 \
  --archived=false \
  --json fullName,url,description,stargazersCount,forksCount,openIssuesCount,language,pushedAt,updatedAt,defaultBranch

For each candidate, record:

| Field | Source |

|---|---|

| Repository name and URL | gh search repos / gh repo view |

| Description | GitHub API or README line citation after clone |

| Activity | pushedAt, latest commit, release notes if present |

| Stars/forks/issues | GitHub API with retrieval date |

| Why it is relevant | user's product scope + repository evidence |

Clone only candidates that are relevant to the user's product or analysis goal.

For broad markets, first present a shortlist with evidence and then analyze the

strongest set.

Repository Fact Gathering

Read files in this order and capture exact sources:

1. Project metadata: package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, or

equivalent.

1. README and docs: positioning, screenshots, installation, pricing links.
2. Entry points: main, bin, scripts, src/, app/, packages/.
3. Core implementation: renderer, parser, storage, export, sync, auth, API, or

domain-specific modules.

1. Tests and fixtures: they often reveal supported data structures and edge cases.
2. Releases/changelog: current direction and recent changes.

Use nl -ba <file> or an editor with line numbers before citing. Every technical

claim about implementation needs file:line evidence.

Report Structure

For a single competitor, use references/profile_template.md.

For a landscape summary, use this structure:

# {Product} Competitor Landscape

## Source Register
| Competitor | Local path | Remote | Commit | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Positioning
| Competitor | User segment | Primary promise | Source |
|---|---|---|---|

## Product And Technical Comparison
| Dimension | Competitor A | Source | Competitor B | Source | Our product | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Strengths
| Competitor | Strength | Evidence | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|

## Weaknesses And Gaps
| Competitor | Gap | Evidence | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|

## Opportunities
| Opportunity | Evidence base | Product implication | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|

## Risks And Assumptions
| Item | What is known | What still needs verification | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|

Evidence Rules

Required

| Claim type | Required evidence |

|---|---|

| Dependency/framework/version | Config file line citation |

| Feature support | README/docs line citation plus code citation when technical |

| Parser/export/storage behavior | Code line citation |

| Pricing/cloud-hosted claim | Official page citation with retrieval date |

| Popularity/activity | GitHub API/page citation with retrieval date |

| Opportunity judgment | Evidence rows it derives from plus explicit confidence |

Forbidden

Do not write unsupported technical claims. Avoid these patterns unless they appear

inside an explicit "bad example" block:

| Pattern | Why |

|---|---|

| "推测", "可能", "应该", "大概", "似乎" | Blurs evidence and judgment |

| "未公开", "未披露" | Pretends to know disclosure status |

| "architecture, inferred from UI" | Technical architecture must come from code |

| Unsourced numbers | Cannot be audited later |

When evidence is unavailable, write 待验证 and state the exact next check that

would verify it.

Output Quality Bar

Before finishing, run the checks in references/analysis_checklist.md:

• Local repository exists under $COMPETITORS_BASE/{product-slug}/.
• Remote URL and latest commit are recorded.
• Each technical claim has a file:line citation.
• Market facts have a source and retrieval date.
• Landscape judgments are separated from facts.
• The final answer names gaps, opportunities, and risks without pretending they

are code facts.

Script

Use scripts/update-competitors.sh as the starting point for durable competitor

repository management:

COMPETITORS_BASE="$HOME/workspace/competitors" \
PRODUCT_NAME="{product-slug}" \
./scripts/update-competitors.sh status

./scripts/update-competitors.sh discover "claude code viewer"
./scripts/update-competitors.sh clone-url https://github.com/org/repo
./scripts/update-competitors.sh pull

The script is a template. For a long-running product, copy it into that product's

own repo or operations directory and fill the persistent competitor list.

Relationship To Product Analysis

product-analysis may invoke this skill for compare mode. Keep this skill focused

on competitor discovery, repository evidence, and competitive synthesis. Do not

turn it into a general product audit orchestrator.