competitor-teardown

Competitor Teardown Skill

This skill produces a complete competitive analysis document — structured for use in strategy decks, investor materials, sales enablement, or product planning sessions.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

• Your product (name + one-line description)
• Competitors to analyse (list 2–5 names; if not provided, ask)
• Analysis depth (quick overview / detailed teardown)
• Primary use case for this analysis (e.g. sales enablement, investor deck, internal strategy, product planning)

Deeper Materials

• references/intel-sourcing-guide.md — where competitive facts come from (four source tiers), which source to use per teardown section, the [verified]/[reported]/[assumed] confidence labels, and the ethics line. Apply its labelling to every substantive claim in the output.
• templates/teardown-skeleton.md — a fill-in teardown with the confidence labels and a verification queue built in. Offer it when the user wants to gather the intel themselves.

Output Structure

1. Competitive Landscape Overview

One paragraph summarising the market dynamic: who the key players are, how the market is segmented, and where the white space sits. Keep this under 150 words — it's the exec summary.

2. Positioning Map

Describe a 2x2 positioning map in text form (since you can't render images):

• Define the two axes relevant to this market (e.g. "Ease of Use vs. Depth of Features" or "Price vs. Enterprise Readiness")
• Place each competitor in one quadrant with a one-sentence rationale
• Place the user's product and highlight the strategic implication

3. Feature Comparison Table

| Feature / Capability | [Your Product] | [Competitor A] | [Competitor B] | [Competitor C] |

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

| [Feature] | ✅ / ❌ / 🟡 Partial | | | |

Use ✅ (has it), ❌ (doesn't have it), 🟡 (partial/limited). Add a "Strategic Notes" column for features where the difference is a significant selling point or risk.

Include 10–15 rows. If user hasn't provided feature details, note which cells need to be verified.

4. Messaging Analysis

For each competitor, analyse their public-facing messaging (website headline, tagline, primary value prop):

[Competitor Name]

• Their primary claim: [what they say they do]
• Target audience signal: [who they seem to be targeting based on language/imagery]
• Emotional hook: [fear / aspiration / authority / speed / simplicity]
• Gap or weakness in their messaging: [what they don't address that your product could own]

5. SWOT Summary

Produce a clean SWOT for the user's product in the context of this competitive landscape:

• Strengths: [2–3 genuine differentiators]
• Weaknesses: [2–3 honest gaps or vulnerabilities]
• Opportunities: [2–3 market gaps or competitor weaknesses to exploit]
• Threats: [2–3 competitor moves or market shifts to watch]

6. Strategic Recommendations

3–5 actionable recommendations based on the analysis. Frame each as: "Given [observation], [your product] should [action] to [outcome]."

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |

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

| Map meaningfulness | Axes are generic (price × quality) | Market-specific axes but positions unjustified | Axes capture the real buying tension in this market and every placement is defensible |

| Comparative depth | Feature table is checkmarks | Features compared with some notes | Differentiators carry strategic notes explaining why the gap matters and to whom |

| SWOT honesty | Weaknesses/threats softened to niceties | Honest but unprioritized | Weaknesses and threats stated plainly, ranked by how much they should worry you |

| Recommendation specificity | Generic strategy advice | Actionable but unlinked to findings | Each recommendation follows "given [observation], do [action] to [outcome]" and traces to the analysis |

Quality Checks

• [ ] Axes on positioning map are meaningful and specific to this market
• [ ] Feature table includes strategic notes on key differentiators
• [ ] Messaging analysis covers all named competitors
• [ ] SWOT is honest — Weaknesses and Threats should not be softened
• [ ] Recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic strategy advice

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not mark feature presence as equivalent across competitors without noting quality differences — both products may have "reporting" while one's is meaningfully better
• [ ] Do not position the user's product in the most favourable quadrant without justification — a self-serving positioning map that ignores real competitive pressure provides no strategic value
• [ ] Do not soften Weaknesses or Threats in the SWOT — a SWOT that only celebrates strengths is a marketing document, not a strategy tool
• [ ] Do not include unverifiable claims about competitor capabilities without flagging them as assumptions — presenting rumours as facts damages analytical credibility

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Do a competitor analysis of [Product] vs [Competitor A] and [Competitor B]"
• "Tear down [Competitor]'s positioning"
• "Give me a competitive landscape for [market]"
• "Build a SWOT for our product against [competitor]"