prd-v02-competitive-landscape-mapping

Competitive Landscape Mapping

Understand market reality before defining your position.

Workflow Position

v0.1 Spark (Problem + Value) → Competitive Landscape Mapping → Product Type Classification
       (what hurts)                 (who else solves it)           (how we compete)

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.1:

• **CFD-* entries (problem statements, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what users need/want
• **CFD-* entries (value hypotheses, from User Value Articulation) — Desired outcomes users are seeking
• PRD.md Why section — Problem framing and market signals

This skill assumes v0.1 Spark is complete (both problem and value).

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• CFD-* entries (competitive intelligence) — Analysis of direct competitors, adjacent solutions, workarounds
• BR-* entries (positioning rules) — Constraints derived from landscape analysis
• Landscape map artifact — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, 1% better hypothesis

All CFD competitive intelligence entries should include:

• confidence: 2-3/5 (based on evidence tier from public sources + user validation)
• Evidence source (G2 reviews, pricing pages, user interviews, etc.)
• Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate gap with 5+ target users"

Example competitive intelligence entry:

CFD-042: Competitive Intelligence — Competitor Landscape Analysis

Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: 2026-02-01
Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 3-customer-interviews)
Competitors Analyzed: 4 direct + 2 adjacent
Primary Gap: All competitors require enterprise licensing; SMB segment underserved

Feature Matrix: [Link to matrix]
1% Hypothesis: "SMB sales teams can get 80% of [Competitor A] features for 40% of price"
Evidence:
  - CFD-001: 3 SMB teams paying $500/mo but using only 5 of 20 features
  - CFD-015: Value hypothesis shows $12,500/year need for core 5 features only
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5+ SMB prospects willing to pay $200/mo"

Workflow Overview

1. Document current behavior → What users do TODAY (before competitor search)
2. Discover alternatives → Direct, adjacent, workarounds, "do nothing"
3. Analyze gaps → Industry/geography gaps, underserved segments
4. Compare features → Build comparison matrix
5. Form hypothesis → 1% better hypothesis with evidence

Core Output Template

Element	Definition	Evidence
Current Behavior	How users solve this today	Observed workflow
Direct Competitors	Products solving same problem	Revenue/funding proof
Adjacent Solutions	Products solving related problems	User overlap
Workarounds	DIY solutions (spreadsheets, manual)	Forum/reddit mentions
Feature Matrix	Side-by-side capability comparison	Product documentation
Gap Analysis	Where competition is weak	Reviews, complaints
1% Hypothesis	How we win	Evidence-anchored

See assets/landscape.md for copy-paste template.

Step 1: Document Current Behavior

Before searching competitors, document what target users do TODAY.

Capture Format

Current Behavior: [What they do]
Tools Used: [Existing tools, if any]
Time Investment: [Hours/week on workaround]
Pain Points: [From v0.1 CFD-IDs]

Why First?

• Prevents solution bias from competitor features
• Reveals workarounds competitors might miss
• Establishes true baseline for improvement claims

Step 2: Competitor Discovery

Discovery Categories

Category	Definition	Search Strategy
Direct	Same problem, same segment	"[problem] software"
Adjacent	Related problem, potential pivot	"[related workflow] tool"
Workarounds	DIY solutions	Reddit: "how I [task]"
Do Nothing	Accept status quo	Why hasn't this been solved?

Minimum Discovery Checklist

• 3+ direct competitors (or document why fewer exist)
• 2+ adjacent solutions
• 1+ workaround documented
• "Do nothing" cost quantified

Create CFD Entry Per Competitor

CFD-###: Competitor — [Name]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Source: [Website, G2, Crunchbase]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Overview: [1-2 sentences]
Target Segment: [Who they serve]
Pricing: [Model and range]
Revenue/Funding: [If available]
Key Differentiator: [Their claim]
Weakness Signals: [Reviews, complaints]

Step 3: Gap Analysis

Industry/Geography Gap Table

Industry	Competitors Serving	Gap Level
[Industry 1]	X of Y	None / Small / Large
[Industry 2]	X of Y	None / Small / Large

Segment Gap Table

Segment	Served By	Underserved Signal
Enterprise	[List]	[Signal or "Well served"]
Mid-Market	[List]	[Signal or "Well served"]
SMB	[List]	[Signal or "Well served"]
Prosumer	[List]	[Signal or "Well served"]

Underserved Signals

• Tier 1: Users paying but complaining (G2 reviews)
• Tier 2: Users building workarounds (Reddit, forums)
• Tier 3: Users asking for solutions (community posts)
• Tier 4: No apparent demand (caution)

Step 4: Feature Comparison Matrix

Build side-by-side comparison:

Feature	Us (Planned)	Competitor A	Competitor B	Gap
[Feature 1]	✅/❌/🔄	✅/❌	✅/❌	[Our advantage]
[Feature 2]	✅/❌/🔄	✅/❌	✅/❌	[Our advantage]

Legend: ✅ = Has | ❌ = Missing | 🔄 = Planned

Matrix Requirements

• Include all "table stakes" features (what everyone has)
• Identify 1-3 differentiating features
• Note pricing tier where features unlock
• Flag features competitors are building (roadmap signals)

Step 5: 1% Better Hypothesis

Template

We can be 1% better than [Competitor X] by [specific improvement] for [specific segment].

Evidence:
- [CFD-ID]: [Supporting evidence]
- [CFD-ID]: [Supporting evidence]

Why This Matters:
- [Segment] cares about this because [reason]
- Current solutions fail at this because [reason]

Risk:
- [What could invalidate this hypothesis]

Hypothesis Quality Check

• "1% better" is specific and measurable
• References CFD-IDs for evidence
• Targets a defined segment
• Explains WHY this gap exists
• Acknowledges risks

Quality Gates

Pass Checklist

• ≥3 competitors documented with CFD-IDs
• Feature matrix with ≥5 compared features
• ≥1 gap identified with Tier 1-2 evidence
• 1% better hypothesis formed
• Current behavior documented FIRST

Testability Check

• Can validate 1% hypothesis in <30 days?
• Can find 10 people in target segment?
• Gap evidence is from users, not assumptions?

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Signal	Fix
Competitor-first thinking	Started with competitor features	Document current behavior first
False uniqueness	"No competitors" claim	Include workarounds and adjacent
Feature bloat	Matrix has 20+ features	Focus on differentiators
Vague gaps	"Better UX" without evidence	Add specific user complaint
10x claims	"10x better than X"	Start with 1% provable claim
Ignored workarounds	Only listed software competitors	Include spreadsheets, manual

CFD/BR Output Format

CFD Entry (Competitive Intelligence)

CFD-###: Competitive Intelligence — [Market/Segment]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Competitors Analyzed: [Count]
Primary Gap: [Description]
Evidence Tier: [1-5]

Feature Matrix: [Link or inline]
1% Hypothesis: [Statement]

BR Entry (Positioning Rule)

BR-###: Positioning Rule — [Title]
Type: Business Rule
Source: CFD-###
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Rule: [Specific constraint derived from landscape]
Rationale: [Why this matters]
Applies To: [Scope]

Bundled Resources

• references/research-prompts.md — Deep research templates for competitor discovery and gap analysis.
• references/examples.md — Good/bad competitive analysis examples.
• assets/landscape.md — Copy-paste template for landscape mapping.
• assets/feature-matrix.md — Feature comparison matrix template.

Handoff

Competitive landscape complete when quality gates pass. Landscape map informs:

• Product Type Classification (next skill) — What type are we? Clone, Slice, etc.
• v0.3 Pricing — Competitive pricing anchors
• v0.3 Moat — Where competitors are weak

Next: Product Type Classification (How should we compete based on landscape?)