skills/competitor-analyst/SKILL.md
Use this skill when analyzing competitors, building competitive positioning, creating feature comparison matrices, or applying strategic frameworks like SWOT or Porter's Five Forces. Trigger phrases: 'analyze our competitors', 'competitive analysis for', 'how do we compare to', 'create a feature matrix', 'SWOT analysis of'. Not for sizing the total market (use market-researcher), writing pitch decks (use pitch-deck-writer), or pricing strategy modeling.
npx skillsauth add nickcrew/claude-cortex competitor-analystInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
This skill provides structured frameworks for competitive intelligence—from gathering information on competitors through applying analytical frameworks (SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, positioning maps, feature matrices) to synthesizing insights into strategic recommendations. Good competitive analysis reveals where to attack, where to defend, and how to position your product to win.
| Framework | Use Case | Output | |-----------|----------|--------| | SWOT Analysis | Internal + external audit per competitor | 2×2 matrix | | Porter's Five Forces | Industry-level threat assessment | Force ratings + strategy | | Feature Matrix | Product comparison for sales/product | Comparison table | | Positioning Map | Visual differentiation | 2×2 or 2-axis plot | | Battle Card | Sales competitive enablement | 1-page quick reference | | Win/Loss Analysis | Understanding why deals are won or lost | Pattern report | | Competitive monitoring | Ongoing intel tracking | Change log |
Before researching, clarify:
Competitor tiers: | Tier | Description | Example | |------|-------------|---------| | Tier 1 (Primary) | Direct, head-to-head competition for same buyer | Feature-for-feature match | | Tier 2 (Secondary) | Adjacent solutions solving same problem differently | Different approach/category | | Tier 3 (Indirect) | Status quo / manual alternatives | Spreadsheets, custom-built tools |
Never rely on competitor websites alone—they only show strengths.
Primary sources (no login required):
Review sites (customer voice — most valuable):
Social signals:
Paid research (optional):
Information to collect per competitor:
Company overview: Founded, HQ, employees, funding, estimated revenue
Target customer: Segment, ICP, use case
Product: Core features, differentiators, recent launches
Pricing: Model (per seat, usage, flat), tiers, pricing page public?
Go-to-market: Sales motion (PLG, inside sales, enterprise sales), channels
Positioning: Tagline, key messages, what they claim to do best
Weaknesses: Negative reviews, common complaints, gaps
Recent moves: Last 3 major announcements or product launches
Conduct a SWOT for each major competitor and for your own company.
Template:
Competitor: [Name]
Date: [Quarter/Year]
STRENGTHS (internal, positive)
- What do they do better than anyone?
- Why do customers choose them?
- What resources/assets give them an advantage?
WEAKNESSES (internal, negative)
- Where do customers complain the most? (G2, Capterra)
- What features are they missing?
- What business model or technical constraints limit them?
OPPORTUNITIES (external, positive)
- What market trends benefit them?
- What adjacent markets could they expand into?
- What partnerships could amplify them?
THREATS (external, negative)
- What could disrupt their current advantage?
- New entrants, regulatory changes, technology shifts?
- How could you attack them?
Apply at the industry level to understand structural attractiveness and competitive intensity.
Force 1: Threat of New Entrants (How easy is it to enter this market?)
Force 2: Bargaining Power of Buyers (How much leverage do customers have?)
Force 3: Bargaining Power of Suppliers (How dependent are you on key vendors?)
Force 4: Threat of Substitutes (Can buyers solve the problem a completely different way?)
Force 5: Rivalry Among Existing Competitors (How intense is competition?)
Strategic implications by force rating:
If buyers have high power → compete on switching costs, contracts, integrations
If new entrants threat is high → build moats (network effects, data, brand, distribution)
If rivalry is intense → differentiate aggressively; avoid head-to-head on price
Used by product teams to spot gaps and by sales teams to win deals.
Matrix template: | Feature | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | |---------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Core features | | | | | | Feature 1 | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ No | | Feature 2 | ✅ Full | ❌ No | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | | Differentiating features | | | | | | Your key differentiator | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | | Integrations | | | | | | Salesforce | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | | Slack | ✅ | ⚠️ Beta | ✅ | ❌ | | Commercial | | | | | | Pricing (per seat/mo) | $15 | $20 | $12 | $18 | | Free plan | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | | Enterprise tier | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | | SOC 2 Type II | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
Legend: ✅ Full support | ⚠️ Partial/Beta | ❌ Not available
A 2-axis map reveals whitespace and where you're differentiated.
Process:
Interpretation:
A battle card is a 1-page cheat sheet for sales reps facing a specific competitor.
Battle card structure:
COMPETITOR: [Name]
When you encounter them: [Trigger signals — what they say, what buyer says]
WHY WE WIN
- [Differentiator 1 in customer language]
- [Differentiator 2 in customer language]
- [Differentiator 3 in customer language]
THEIR STRENGTHS (acknowledge honestly)
- [Strength 1] — our response: "That's true, and..."
- [Strength 2] — our response: ...
LANDMINES (questions to ask that expose competitor weaknesses)
- "How does [Competitor] handle [scenario where they're weak]?"
- "What happens when your team grows past [their scaling limit]?"
- "Have you tried to export your data? How long did that take?"
TRAPS (what they'll say about us — and our counter)
- They say: "You're more expensive." Counter: "Our LTV:CAC data from customers shows..."
- They say: "You're a startup." Counter: "[Customer logos] trusted us with mission-critical work"
PROOF POINTS
- Win against this competitor: [Customer name/industry] chose us because [reason]
- G2 rating: Ours [X.X] vs theirs [Y.Y]
Context: New project management tool targeting engineering + product teams. Analyzing Jira, Linear, and Asana.
Research sources used: G2 reviews (50 per competitor), pricing pages, job postings, Twitter, Reddit r/projectmanagement.
Summary findings:
| Dimension | Jira | Linear | Asana | |-----------|------|--------|-------| | Target user | Enterprise engineering | Engineering-forward teams | Any team (marketing, ops, eng) | | Core strength | Deep customization, Atlassian ecosystem | Speed, developer UX, GitHub integration | Workflow automation, breadth | | Pricing | $8.15/user/mo (Standard) | $8/user/mo | $13.49/user/mo | | Key weakness (from reviews) | "Too complex for smaller teams", "setup takes months" | "Not suitable for non-eng teams", "limited reporting" | "Expensive at scale", "too many features = complexity" | | Recent move | AI features in Jira (2024) | Launched Cycles (sprint-like) | Acquired Asana AI assistant |
Positioning gap identified: No tool strongly serves mixed teams (engineering + product) with fast UX AND non-developer accessibility. Jira is too heavy; Linear is too dev-focused; Asana is too generic.
Recommended positioning: "The project management tool for product teams that ship software — fast like Linear, accessible like Asana."
| Feature | Our Tool | Jira | Linear | Asana | |---------|----------|------|--------|-------| | GitHub integration (2-way) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ 1-way | | AI standup summary | ✅ | ⚠️ Beta | ❌ | ⚠️ Limited | | Non-eng team support | ✅ | ⚠️ | ❌ | ✅ | | Sprint planning | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ | | Setup time | < 30 min | Days–weeks | < 1 hour | 1–2 hours | | Free plan | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | | Pricing (team) | $12/user | $8.15/user | $8/user | $13.49/user | | SOC 2 Type II | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | Mobile app | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | Advanced reporting | ⚠️ | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ |
Analysis: Our key differentiators are AI-native standup summaries and mixed-team support. Our gap: advanced reporting needs investment before pursuing enterprise deals.
development
Product vision, roadmap development, and go-to-market execution with structured prioritization frameworks. Use when evaluating features, planning product direction, or assessing market fit.
development
Complete operational workflow for implementer agents (Codex, Gemini, etc.) making code changes and writing tests. Drives all work through atomic commits — each loop operates on the smallest complete, reviewable change. Defines the Code Change Loop, Test Writing Loop, Lint Gate, and Issue Filing process with circuit breakers, severity levels, and escalation rules. Requires `cortex git commit` for all commits. Includes bundled provider-aware review scripts that keep same-model shell-outs as the last resort, plus a fresh-context Codex fallback for code review and test audit. Use this skill when starting any implementation task.
development
Use this skill when writing product requirements documents, prioritizing features, creating user stories, defining acceptance criteria, or setting product metrics. Trigger phrases: 'write a PRD for', 'prioritize this feature backlog', 'write user stories for', 'help me define acceptance criteria', 'what metrics should we track for'. Not for writing code, designing UI mockups, or conducting user research interviews.
tools
Automates browser interactions for web testing, form filling, screenshots, and data extraction. Use when the user needs to navigate websites, interact with web pages, fill forms, take screenshots, test web applications, or extract information from web pages.