From armory
Analyzes competitive landscapes with Porter's Five Forces, competitor discovery via WebSearch, feature/pricing matrices, positioning maps, and moat assessment.
npx claudepluginhub mathews-tom/armory --plugin armoryThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Systematic competitive landscape analysis: discovery, force analysis, feature comparison, pricing, positioning, and defensibility assessment.
Implements Playwright E2E testing patterns: Page Object Model, test organization, configuration, reporters, artifacts, and CI/CD integration for stable suites.
Guides Next.js 16+ Turbopack for faster dev via incremental bundling, FS caching, and HMR; covers webpack comparison, bundle analysis, and production builds.
Discovers and evaluates Laravel packages via LaraPlugins.io MCP. Searches by keyword/feature, filters by health score, Laravel/PHP compatibility; fetches details, metrics, and version history.
Systematic competitive landscape analysis: discovery, force analysis, feature comparison, pricing, positioning, and defensibility assessment.
| Need | Skill |
|---|---|
| Analyze competitors, compare features, assess moats | competitive-analyzer (this skill) |
| Market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, demand signals | market-analyzer |
| General web research and data gathering | tavily / web-fetch |
Identify competitors across three tiers using WebSearch.
Tier classification:
"[product category] alternatives", "[product] vs", "best [category] tools 2024""how to [solve problem] without [category]", adjacent category leadersDiscovery sources:
site:producthunt.com [category]site:g2.com [category] reviewssite:capterra.com [category]site:crunchbase.com [category] fundingOutput: A competitor roster table:
| Competitor | Tier | Founded | Funding | HQ | Est. Revenue | Target Segment |
|---|
Include 5-15 competitors. Fewer than 5 suggests the search was too narrow; more than 15 suggests the scope needs tightening.
Score each force 1-5 with supporting evidence. Reference references/porters-five-forces.md for scoring rubric and sub-criteria.
1. Threat of New Entrants (1-5)
2. Supplier Power (1-5)
3. Buyer Power (1-5)
4. Threat of Substitutes (1-5)
5. Competitive Rivalry (1-5)
Synthesis: Calculate overall industry attractiveness (weighted average of forces). Higher scores mean more competitive pressure, lower attractiveness.
Build a comprehensive comparison. Reference references/competitive-matrix.md for structuring methodology.
Feature comparison table:
| Feature Category | Feature | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Our Product |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Feature 1 | Full | Partial | None | Full |
| Integration | API | REST | GraphQL | None | REST+GraphQL |
| Support | SLA | 99.9% | 99.5% | None | 99.95% |
Use: Full / Partial / None / Superior (exceeds category standard)
Feature analysis:
Pricing comparison table:
| Competitor | Model | Free Tier | Entry Price | Mid Tier | Enterprise | Billing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Subscription | Yes | $29/mo | $99/mo | Custom | Monthly/Annual |
| B | Usage-based | Trial | $0.01/unit | Volume discount | Custom | Monthly |
Pricing analysis:
Reference references/positioning-analysis.md for dimension selection and mapping methodology.
Step 1: Dimension selection Select the two dimensions most important to target customers. Common pairs:
Validate dimension selection against customer research or publicly available review themes.
Step 2: Plot competitors Position each competitor on the 2D map using evidence from Phase 3.
High [Dimension Y]
|
| [Comp A] [Comp C]
|
| [Comp B]
| [Our Product]
|
| [Comp D]
|
Low ────────────────────────────── High [Dimension X]
Step 3: White space identification
Evaluate each moat type. Reference references/positioning-analysis.md for the moat taxonomy.
| Moat Type | Present? | Strength | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network effects | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Switching costs | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| IP / Technology | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Brand | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Data advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Cost advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Regulatory | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
Overall moat rating:
Produce the final competitive analysis report with these sections:
Before delivering the report, verify:
| Situation | Adaptation |
|---|---|
| Pre-launch product with no direct competitors | Focus on indirect competitors and substitutes. Emphasize the "potential entrants" tier. The absence of direct competitors is itself a signal worth analyzing (nascent market vs. no market). |
| Highly fragmented market (50+ competitors) | Segment competitors into strategic groups. Analyze 2-3 representative competitors per group rather than every player. |
| Monopoly or duopoly market | Five Forces analysis becomes more important. Focus on substitute threats and potential entrants. Analyze the dominant player's moats in detail. |
| B2B enterprise with opaque pricing | Note pricing opacity as a finding. Use job postings, case studies, and review sites for indirect pricing signals. |
| User provides a competitor list | Skip discovery in Phase 1. Validate the list for completeness (are there missing tiers?) and proceed to Phase 2. |
| Rapidly changing market | Date-stamp all findings. Flag data older than 6 months as potentially stale. Emphasize monitoring recommendations. |