1kalin/afrexai-competitive-intel/SKILL.md
Complete competitive intelligence system — market mapping, product teardowns, pricing intel, win/loss analysis, battlecards, and strategic monitoring. Goes far beyond SEO to cover the full business landscape.
npx skillsauth add openclaw/skills afrexai-competitive-intelInstall 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.
A complete system for understanding, tracking, and outmaneuvering competitors. Covers market mapping, product analysis, pricing intelligence, sales battlecards, win/loss analysis, and ongoing monitoring.
Classify every competitor into one of four tiers:
| Tier | Definition | Example | Monitoring Frequency | |------|-----------|---------|---------------------| | Direct | Same product, same buyer | Your closest rivals | Weekly | | Adjacent | Different product, overlapping buyer | Platform expanding into your space | Bi-weekly | | Indirect | Different solution to same problem | Spreadsheets replacing your SaaS | Monthly | | Emerging | Early-stage, same vision | YC startups in your category | Monthly |
Search these sources systematically:
market_map:
category: "[Your Category]"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
total_addressable_market: "$XB"
competitors:
- name: "Competitor A"
tier: "direct"
website: "https://..."
founded: 2019
funding: "$50M Series B"
estimated_revenue: "$10-20M ARR"
employee_count: 150
employee_trend: "growing" # growing | stable | shrinking
hq: "San Francisco, CA"
key_customers: ["Customer 1", "Customer 2"]
primary_market: "mid-market" # smb | mid-market | enterprise
positioning: "All-in-one platform for X"
strengths: ["Feature A", "Strong brand"]
weaknesses: ["Expensive", "Slow support"]
threat_level: "high" # low | medium | high | critical
notes: ""
For each direct competitor, build a feature comparison:
feature_matrix:
last_updated: "YYYY-MM-DD"
categories:
- name: "Core Features"
features:
- name: "Feature X"
us: "full" # none | partial | full | superior
competitor_a: "full"
competitor_b: "partial"
weight: 5 # 1-5 importance to buyer
notes: "We have deeper customization"
- name: "Feature Y"
us: "none"
competitor_a: "full"
competitor_b: "full"
weight: 3
notes: "On our roadmap for Q3"
- name: "Integrations"
features:
- name: "Salesforce"
us: "full"
competitor_a: "partial"
weight: 4
For each major competitor, conduct a structured teardown:
## [Competitor Name] Product Teardown
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Analyst:** [name]
### First Impressions (0-5 min)
- Homepage messaging: What problem do they lead with?
- Sign-up friction: How many steps? What info required?
- Time to value: How fast can you DO something?
- Design quality: Modern, dated, cluttered, clean?
### Onboarding (5-30 min)
- Guided tour? Checklist? Video? Nothing?
- Sample data provided? Sandbox mode?
- How quickly did you feel competent?
- What confused you?
### Core Workflow
- Complete their primary use case end-to-end
- Note: steps required, clicks per task, speed, error handling
- Screenshot key screens
### Differentiators
- What can they do that we can't? (be honest)
- What's their "magic moment"?
- What do their happiest customers praise? (check G2 reviews)
### Weaknesses
- Where did you get stuck?
- What felt missing or half-baked?
- What do their angriest customers complain about? (check G2 1-2 star reviews)
### Pricing vs Value
- What plan would a typical customer need?
- Price per user/month at that tier?
- Any hidden costs (implementation, support, integrations)?
- Free trial? Freemium? Money-back guarantee?
### Technical Assessment
- Stack: (check Wappalyzer, BuiltWith, job postings)
- API: Public? REST/GraphQL? Rate limits? Docs quality?
- Mobile: Native app? Responsive web? PWA?
- Performance: Page load speed, UI responsiveness
- Uptime: Status page? Historical incidents?
Score each competitor's product (0-10 per dimension):
| Dimension | What to Evaluate | Weight | |-----------|-----------------|--------| | Ease of Setup | Time to first value, onboarding friction | 15% | | Core UX | Primary workflow efficiency, intuitiveness | 25% | | Feature Depth | Covers edge cases, power user needs | 20% | | Reliability | Uptime, bugs encountered, error handling | 15% | | Integrations | Ecosystem breadth, API quality | 10% | | Support | Response time, quality, self-serve resources | 10% | | Mobile | Native quality, feature parity | 5% |
Total = weighted sum. Compare across competitors.
pricing_intel:
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
competitors:
- name: "Us"
model: "per-seat" # per-seat | usage | flat | hybrid | freemium
entry_price: "$29/user/mo"
mid_price: "$79/user/mo"
enterprise_price: "Custom"
free_tier: true
free_limits: "5 users, 1000 records"
annual_discount: "20%"
contract_required: false
implementation_fee: "$0"
hidden_costs: []
- name: "Competitor A"
model: "per-seat"
entry_price: "$49/user/mo"
mid_price: "$99/user/mo"
enterprise_price: "Custom ($150+/user)"
free_tier: false
annual_discount: "15%"
contract_required: true # annual minimum
implementation_fee: "$5,000"
hidden_costs: ["API access on enterprise only", "SSO $50/user extra"]
Answer these questions:
Based on analysis, recommend one of:
| Strategy | When to Use | Risk | |----------|------------|------| | Premium | Clearly superior product + brand | Losing price-sensitive deals | | Parity | Similar product, compete on other axes | Race to bottom | | Penetration | New entrant, need market share fast | Perception of low quality | | Value | Better product at lower price | Margin pressure if costs rise | | Niche | Specialized for segment competitors ignore | Small TAM |
Create one per direct competitor:
# 🏆 Battlecard: Us vs [Competitor]
**Last Updated:** YYYY-MM-DD | **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low
## Quick Stats
| Metric | Us | Them |
|--------|-----|------|
| Founded | | |
| Funding | | |
| Est. Revenue | | |
| Employees | | |
| G2 Rating | | |
| Gartner Position | | |
## Their Pitch (in their words)
"[Their homepage headline or elevator pitch]"
## Why Customers Choose Us Over Them
1. **[Reason 1]**: [Specific proof point — customer quote, metric, demo moment]
2. **[Reason 2]**: [Specific proof point]
3. **[Reason 3]**: [Specific proof point]
## Why Customers Choose Them Over Us (be honest)
1. **[Reason 1]**: [And how to counter it]
2. **[Reason 2]**: [And how to counter it]
## Landmines to Plant 🧨
Questions to ask the prospect that expose competitor weaknesses:
1. "Ask them how they handle [weakness area] — you'll find it requires [workaround]"
2. "Request a demo of [specific feature] — it's not as deep as it looks"
3. "Ask about [hidden cost] — it's not on the pricing page"
## Objection Handling
**"[Competitor] is cheaper"**
> Response: "At first glance, yes. But when you factor in [hidden cost 1], [hidden cost 2], and [limitation requiring workaround], the total cost is actually [higher/comparable]. Plus, [our unique value] saves you [X hours/dollars] per [period]."
**"[Competitor] has [feature we lack]"**
> Response: "[Acknowledge honestly]. Here's why our customers find that [our approach] actually works better for [their use case]: [specific reasoning]. [Customer name] evaluated both and chose us specifically because [reason]."
**"We're already using [Competitor]"**
> Response: "That makes sense — they're solid at [genuine strength]. The customers who switch to us typically hit a wall with [specific limitation]. Are you experiencing [common pain point with that competitor]?"
## Trap Plays (When to Walk Away)
- If prospect needs [specific capability we truly lack], acknowledge it honestly
- If they're deeply embedded in [competitor ecosystem], switching cost may be too high
- If deal size is below $[X], cost of competing isn't worth it
## Win Stories
- **[Customer A]**: Switched from [Competitor] because [reason]. Result: [metric improvement]
- **[Customer B]**: Evaluated both, chose us because [reason]. Quote: "[testimonial]"
## Recent Intel
- [Date]: [Competitor] announced [product change/funding/hire]
- [Date]: [Customer feedback about competitor]
For the sales team's daily use:
| Objection | Short Response | Proof Point | |-----------|---------------|-------------| | "Too expensive" | [Value reframe] | [ROI stat or customer quote] | | "Never heard of you" | [Social proof] | [Customer logos, G2 rank] | | "Missing [feature]" | [Alternative or roadmap] | [Workaround or timeline] | | "Happy with current tool" | [Trigger question] | [Common pain with incumbent] | | "Need enterprise features" | [What we have] | [Enterprise customer reference] |
After every significant deal (won or lost), capture:
win_loss:
deal: "[Company Name]"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
outcome: "won" # won | lost | no-decision
deal_size: "$X ARR"
sales_cycle_days: 45
competitors_evaluated: ["Competitor A", "Competitor B"]
decision_factors:
- factor: "Ease of use"
importance: 5 # 1-5
our_score: 4 # 1-5
winner_score: 3
notes: "Demo experience was decisive"
- factor: "Price"
importance: 4
our_score: 3
winner_score: 4
notes: "We were 20% more expensive but justified by ROI"
- factor: "Integration with Salesforce"
importance: 5
our_score: 5
winner_score: 2
notes: "They required middleware; we're native"
champion: "VP of Sales"
decision_maker: "CRO"
buying_trigger: "Previous tool couldn't scale past 50 users"
key_quote: "Your Salesforce integration sealed the deal"
lessons:
- "Lead with integration story for Salesforce-heavy orgs"
- "ROI calculator was critical for justifying premium price"
Track quarterly:
## Q[X] Win/Loss Summary
### Win Rate by Competitor
| Competitor | Wins | Losses | Win Rate | Trend |
|-----------|------|--------|----------|-------|
| Competitor A | 12 | 8 | 60% | ↑ (was 50%) |
| Competitor B | 5 | 15 | 25% | ↓ (was 35%) |
| No competition | 20 | 3 | 87% | → |
### Top Win Reasons (ranked by frequency)
1. Ease of use (mentioned in 65% of wins)
2. Integration depth (55%)
3. Customer support (40%)
### Top Loss Reasons (ranked by frequency)
1. Price (mentioned in 70% of losses)
2. Missing [specific feature] (45%)
3. Incumbent relationship (30%)
### Action Items from This Quarter's Losses
1. [Feature gap] → Product team building for Q[X+1]
2. [Price objection] → New ROI calculator + case study
3. [Competitor strength] → Invest in [counter-strategy]
Set up monitoring for each direct competitor:
| Signal | Source | Frequency | What to Look For | |--------|--------|-----------|-----------------| | Product changes | Their changelog/blog | Weekly | New features, deprecations | | Pricing changes | /pricing page + Wayback | Monthly | Price increases, new tiers, model changes | | Hiring | LinkedIn Jobs | Bi-weekly | Engineering surge = new product. Sales surge = growth push | | Funding | Crunchbase, TechCrunch | As it happens | New round = aggressive expansion coming | | Leadership | LinkedIn, press | As it happens | New CEO/CRO = strategy shift likely | | Reviews | G2, Capterra | Monthly | Sentiment shifts, recurring complaints | | Content | Their blog, social | Weekly | Messaging changes, new positioning | | Customers | Press releases, case studies | Monthly | Logos gained, industries targeted | | Community | Reddit, HN, Twitter | Weekly | Complaints, praise, feature requests |
## Competitive Intel Brief — Week of [Date]
### 🔴 Critical (action needed)
- [Competitor X] launched [feature] that directly competes with our [feature]
- Impact: [assessment]
- Recommended response: [action]
### 🟡 Notable (monitor)
- [Competitor Y] raised Series C ($40M) — expect aggressive hiring/marketing
- [Competitor Z] changed pricing model from per-seat to usage-based
### 🟢 Informational
- [Competitor X] published blog post about [topic]
- [Competitor Y] hiring 3 new enterprise AEs in EMEA
### Win/Loss This Week
- Won [Deal] vs [Competitor] — reason: [X]
- Lost [Deal] to [Competitor] — reason: [X]
Rate your moat and each competitor's (1-5):
| Moat Type | Description | Us | Comp A | Comp B | |-----------|------------|-----|--------|--------| | Network Effects | Product gets better with more users | | | | | Switching Costs | Pain of leaving increases over time | | | | | Data Advantage | Proprietary data that improves product | | | | | Brand | Trust, recognition, preference | | | | | Scale Economies | Cost advantages from size | | | | | Regulatory | Licenses, certifications, compliance | | | | | Technology | Patents, proprietary tech, speed | | | | | Ecosystem | Integrations, partnerships, marketplace | | | |
Total moat score = sum. Higher = harder to displace.
For each major competitor move, predict their likely response to YOUR moves:
**If we [action]...**
- Competitor A will likely: [response] because [reasoning]
- Competitor B will likely: [response] because [reasoning]
- Timeline: [how fast they'll respond]
- Our counter-move: [what we do next]
After mapping all competitors, look for:
| Command | What It Does | |---------|-------------| | "Map my competitive landscape" | Full Phase 1 market mapping | | "Tear down [competitor]" | Product teardown (Phase 2) | | "Compare pricing with [competitors]" | Pricing intelligence (Phase 3) | | "Build battlecard for [competitor]" | Sales battlecard (Phase 4) | | "Analyze our win/loss data" | Win/loss patterns (Phase 5) | | "Weekly competitive brief" | Monitoring summary (Phase 6) | | "Assess our competitive moat" | Strategic analysis (Phase 7) | | "Find blue ocean opportunities" | Gap analysis (Phase 7.3) | | "How should we respond to [competitor move]?" | Response prediction (Phase 7.2) | | "Full competitive review" | All phases, comprehensive output |
tools
Use when the user wants to connect to, test, or use the McDonalds service at mcp.mcd.cn, including checking authentication, probing MCP endpoints, listing tools, or calling McDonalds MCP tools through a reusable local CLI.
development
Web scraping platform — Twitter/X data, Vinted marketplace, and general web scraping API
development
SlowMist AI Agent Security Review — comprehensive security framework for skills, repositories, URLs, on-chain addresses, and products (Claude Code version)
data-ai
去除中文文本中的 AI 写作痕迹,使其读起来自然。基于维基百科 AI 写作特征指南,检测 24 种 AI 模式。触发词:humanizer-cn、去除 AI 痕迹、去除 AI 写作痕迹、中文文本人性化。