competitor-analysis

Competitor Analysis

Reasoning skill that takes raw competitor inputs and produces a structured strategic comparison. Pair with the competitor-researcher agent when you also need web fetching.

When to use

• "Analyze these 4 competitors: A, B, C, D"
• "I pasted competitor sites — find the brechas"
• After competitor-researcher has done its sweep, use this skill to push deeper on positioning logic
• Before gtm-strategist — strategy without competitor map is positioning in a vacuum

Inputs

Input	Required	Source
Competitor names + URLs	Yes	User or agent output
Client ICP	Yes	clients/<name>/research/icp-*.md
Client positioning (if exists)	Optional	clients/<name>/strategy.md
Raw page content	Optional	If already fetched, skip the fetching step

Framework — 4 layers of analysis

Most competitor decks compare features. That's the least useful layer. Go deeper.

Layer 1 — Surface (the obvious)

• Categories they claim
• Headline pricing
• Logo customers
• Features they highlight

This is table stakes. Capture it, but don't stop here.

Layer 2 — Positioning (the strategic)

• Who they fire as a customer — pricing floor reveals down-market exclusion; messaging reveals up-market exclusion
• What category they refuse to compete in — "we are X, not Y" tells you what they ceded
• What objection they keep answering — repeated rebuttal reveals their #1 lost-deal reason
• Anchor concept — the 1 metaphor or analogy they keep reaching for (e.g., "the Stripe of X", "spreadsheet replacement")

Layer 3 — Narrative (the emotional)

• Hero of their story — is the customer the hero, or is the product the hero?
• Enemy — every brand needs an enemy. Theirs is: legacy tools? manual work? competing category?
• Promise — what transformation do they promise? (be specific: from X state to Y state)
• Proof tone — case studies as numbers or stories? big logos or peer logos?

Layer 4 — Operational (where they're weak)

• Loading speed, design quality (does the marketing site feel premium?)
• Content cadence — abandoned blog? Fresh weekly?
• Support visible? Or hidden behind login?
• Last fundraise / last big release — momentum signal

Cross-competitor synthesis

After analyzing each individually, force these synthesis questions:

1. Convergence point — what claim do ALL of them make? (That claim is now table stakes — don't make it your positioning.)
2. Battlegrounds — what 2-3 dimensions are they actively fighting on? (Speed? Price? Enterprise? DevEx?)
3. Whitespace — what does the ICP care about that NONE of them address well?
4. Vulnerable competitor — which one has the weakest narrative + strongest market share? That's the one to attack.

Output format

# Competitor Analysis — <client>
Date: <YYYY-MM-DD>

## Competitive set
- A (<url>) — leader / challenger / disruptor
- B (<url>) — ...
- C (<url>) — ...

## Per-competitor breakdown

### A — <Name>
[Layer 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 — fill all 4]

### B — ...
### C — ...

## Synthesis

### Convergence (table stakes — don't repeat)
- ...
- ...

### Active battlegrounds
| Dimension | Who's winning | Why |
|-----------|---------------|-----|

### Whitespace (no one's serving this)
1. ...
2. ...

### Vulnerable competitor
**[Name]** — strong market share but weak narrative because [...]. Attack vector: [...]

## Implications for <client>

3 positioning moves that follow from this analysis:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Principles

• Cite literal copy. When capturing positioning, quote exactly. "They emphasize speed" is weak; "Ship 10x faster" is strong.
• Force the synthesis. Per-competitor reports are dumps. The synthesis is where strategic value lives.
• Whitespace ≠ feature gap. A feature competitors don't have isn't whitespace — it might be a feature customers don't want. Whitespace is unmet need.
• Don't fake neutrality. Recommend a vulnerable target. Strategy requires choice.

Don't

• Don't compare features in isolation — features without narrative are noise
• Don't list "differentiators" the client claims but can't prove
• Don't skip layer 4 — operational weakness is where small teams beat big competitors