competitor-teardown

TL;DR

Produces a structured competitive intelligence report analyzing named competitors against the user's product or service. Generates a feature comparison matrix, pricing tier analysis, positioning narrative, per-competitor SWOT, and actionable differentiation recommendations. Output is a branded HTML report using JM Labs dark theme, ready for stakeholder presentation or strategic planning sessions.

When to Activate

• User names specific competitors and asks for comparison or analysis.
• User requests a competitive landscape review for a product, service, or market segment.
• User asks for feature-by-feature competitor comparison or pricing benchmarks.
• User mentions "competitor teardown", "competitive analysis", "analizar competencia", or "competitor comparison".
• Do NOT activate for broad market sizing (use market-intelligence), internal product strategy (use product-strategy), or vendor evaluation for procurement (use vendor-evaluation).

Analysis Framework

Phase 1: Competitor Profiling

For each named competitor, build a structured profile:

Dimension	Data Points
Identity	Company name, founding year, HQ location, employee count estimate, funding status
Product	Core offering, product lines, target customer segment, delivery model (SaaS, services, hybrid)
Market position	Estimated market share, growth trajectory (expanding/stable/declining), geographic reach
Pricing	Published pricing tiers, freemium availability, enterprise pricing model, discounting patterns
Technology	Tech stack (if public), integrations, API availability, mobile support
Reputation	G2/Capterra rating range, notable client logos, public case studies, known complaints

Evidence tagging: every data point marked [EXPLICIT] if from user input, [INFERRED] if derived from public knowledge, [OPEN] if unverifiable and requiring user validation.

Phase 2: Feature Comparison Matrix

Build a comprehensive feature matrix as an HTML table:

• Rows: features/capabilities relevant to the competitive space.
• Columns: user's product + each competitor.
• Cell values: supported (checkmark), partial (tilde), not supported (dash), unknown (question mark).
• Priority column: user rates each feature as MUST-HAVE, NICE-TO-HAVE, or DIFFERENTIATOR.
• Source column: where the information was obtained or inferred.

Group features into logical categories (e.g., Core Functionality, Integrations, Support & SLA, Pricing & Billing, Security & Compliance).

Phase 3: Positioning Analysis

Construct a 2x2 positioning narrative (not a visual chart, described textually for reproducibility):

• Default axes: Price (low to high) vs Feature Breadth (narrow to broad).
• Alternative axes: user can specify (e.g., Enterprise Focus vs SMB Focus, Technical Depth vs Ease of Use).
• Quadrant descriptions: name each quadrant and place competitors with reasoning.
• Movement vectors: note if any competitor is shifting position (launching enterprise tier, going downmarket, etc.).

Phase 4: SWOT per Competitor

For each competitor, produce a focused SWOT:

• Strengths: 3-5 genuine competitive advantages with evidence tags.
• Weaknesses: 3-5 exploitable gaps or limitations.
• Opportunities: market shifts that could benefit them.
• Threats: factors that could weaken their position (including the user's own product).

Close each SWOT with an "Attack Vector" paragraph: the single most effective way to compete against this specific player.

Differentiation Synthesis

After individual analysis, synthesize cross-cutting findings:

1. Uncontested space: features or positioning no competitor owns.
2. Table-stakes gaps: capabilities the user lacks that all competitors offer.
3. Perception gaps: areas where competitors are perceived stronger but may not actually be.
4. Pricing opportunity: underserved price points or packaging models.
5. Recommended actions: prioritized list of 3-5 strategic moves, each with effort estimate (Low/Medium/High) and impact estimate (Low/Medium/High).

Report Structure (HTML Output)

The branded HTML report contains:

1. Executive Summary: 3-paragraph overview of competitive landscape and key findings.
2. Competitor Profiles: one section per competitor with profile card.
3. Feature Matrix: interactive-feeling table (CSS hover highlights, sticky headers).
4. Positioning Map: textual description with competitor placement rationale.
5. SWOT Cards: grid layout, one card per competitor, color-coded quadrants.
6. Differentiation Roadmap: prioritized action items with effort/impact badges.
7. Methodology Note: evidence tagging legend, data freshness disclaimer.

Brand styling: JM Labs dark theme (#0a0a0a, #e94560, #1a1a2e), Inter font stack, print stylesheet included.

Trade-off Matrix

Decision	Option A	Option B	Default
Competitor count	2-3 deep dives	5-8 surface scans	3-5 balanced depth
Data sourcing	User-provided only	User + public knowledge	User + public knowledge
SWOT format	Bullet lists	Narrative paragraphs	Bullet lists (scannable)
Positioning axes	Standard (price/features)	Custom user-defined	Standard, custom on request
Output format	HTML report	Markdown summary	HTML report (presentation-ready)
Evidence rigor	All claims tagged	Key claims only	All claims tagged (credibility)

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumption: user has basic familiarity with named competitors; this skill synthesizes and structures, not discovers from scratch. [INFERRED]
• Assumption: analysis is based on publicly available information and user-provided intelligence, not proprietary data. [EXPLICIT]
• Assumption: the user's own product/service capabilities are provided or known from context. [EXPLICIT]
• Limit: no live web scraping or API calls to competitor sites; analysis uses provided data and training knowledge.
• Limit: pricing data may be outdated; all figures include freshness disclaimer.
• Limit: no visual chart generation (scatter plots, radar charts); positioning is described textually.
• Limit: maximum 8 competitors per report for depth quality.

Edge Cases

1. Single competitor: user names only one competitor. Produce full teardown of that one player with extended SWOT and attack vector, skip positioning map (needs 2+ points).
2. Competitor is a giant (e.g., Google, Microsoft): focus analysis on the specific competing product/feature, not the entire company. Flag resource asymmetry explicitly.
3. No pricing data available: competitor has opaque enterprise pricing. Mark as [OPEN], note "Contact for quote" model, compare on value dimensions instead.
4. User IS the new entrant: user has no existing product yet. Frame analysis as market entry opportunity assessment, focus on gaps and positioning whitespace.
5. Rapidly changing market: competitor just launched/pivoted/was acquired. Add prominent "Market Event" callout box with date and implications.

Good vs Bad Example

Good

Input: "Teardown of Notion vs Coda vs Airtable for our project management tool
        targeting Latin American SMBs. We're cheaper ($5/user) and have
        WhatsApp integration they don't."

Output: Branded HTML report with:
- 3 competitor profiles with evidence-tagged data points
- Feature matrix: 25+ features across 5 categories
- Each feature marked with support level and source
- User's WhatsApp integration highlighted as differentiator
- SWOT per competitor with LatAm-specific observations
- Positioning: user placed in "affordable + regional fit" quadrant
- Action items: "Double down on WhatsApp workflows" [High Impact, Low Effort]
- All pricing marked [INFERRED - verify current rates]

Bad

Output that:
- Copies marketing language from competitor websites verbatim
- Presents opinions as facts without evidence tags
- Ignores the LatAm SMB context entirely
- Produces a generic SWOT with platitudes ("strong brand")
- Recommends "be better at everything" without prioritization
- Omits the user's own product from the comparison matrix
- Uses a plain text dump instead of structured HTML report

Validation Gate

Before delivering the competitive report, verify:

• Every factual claim carries an evidence tag: [EXPLICIT], [INFERRED], or [OPEN].
• Feature matrix includes the user's own product as the first column.
• SWOT produced for each named competitor (not a generic combined SWOT).
• Each SWOT contains an "Attack Vector" recommendation.
• Differentiation synthesis identifies at least one uncontested space.
• Pricing data includes freshness disclaimer and verification recommendation.
• HTML output uses JM Labs brand colors and is self-contained (no external deps).
• Print stylesheet included for stakeholder distribution.
• Executive summary is 3 paragraphs or fewer, not a wall of text.
• Recommended actions include effort and impact estimates.
• No proprietary competitor data presented as public (ethical boundary).
• Report handles the actual competitor count provided (not padded with extras).

Reference Files

File	Purpose
references/analysis-frameworks.md	SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, positioning map templates
references/brand-tokens.md	JM Labs color palette, typography, card layout patterns
references/evidence-tagging.md	Tag definitions and usage guidelines for claims
references/report-structure.md	HTML skeleton for competitive intelligence reports