From financial-analysis
Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.
npx claudepluginhub rodaquino-omni/crowtech-healthcare-finance --plugin financial-analysisThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Two-phase: scope + outline approval first, build second.
Provides Ktor server patterns for routing DSL, plugins (auth, CORS, serialization), Koin DI, WebSockets, services, and testApplication testing.
Conducts multi-source web research with firecrawl and exa MCPs: searches, scrapes pages, synthesizes cited reports. For deep dives, competitive analysis, tech evaluations, or due diligence.
Provides demand forecasting, safety stock optimization, replenishment planning, and promotional lift estimation for multi-location retailers managing 300-800 SKUs.
Two-phase: scope + outline approval first, build second.
.pptx (or build into one the user uploaded).Use ask_user_question to pin down scope before research. Gather in one round:
If user uploads an Excel/CSV, confirm which columns map to which metrics. Use values exactly as given.
Do not create slides until the outline is approved. Propose slide titles + one-line content notes, get yes. A 10-20 slide deck is interlocking — the outline is the cheap iteration point.
Use ask_user_question for structural decisions: positioning visualization type (Step 5), how to group competitors (Step 4).
Typography (set explicitly):
Charts:
6 series -> split or use a table
Tables:
Color: 2-3 muted colors max. Same color meanings throughout.
| Always | Case-by-case |
|---|---|
| Exact titles/sections when user specifies | Creative titles when unspecified |
| Chart/table type as specified | Visualization type when unspecified |
| Every competitor they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |
| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |
What 3-5 metrics does this industry run on? Use consistently across competitors.
| Industry | Key metrics |
|---|---|
| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40 |
| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |
| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate |
| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |
| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |
| Healthcare services (multi-site) | Same-store growth, payor mix, visits/encounters, labor % of revenue, DSO |
| Healthcare AI / HCIT | ARR, NRR, Rule of 40, HIPAA/SOC 2 attestation, payer vs provider customer mix |
Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.
Correct: "U.S. ambulatory surgery center market is $35-40B in 2024, growing 6-8% CAGR (Bain 2024)" Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
Map how value flows:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $150M |
| Growth | +14% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $22M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 85 sites |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~3% |
Multi-segment companies add a breakdown.
Group by whichever lens fits (ask_user_question if unclear):
| Type | When |
|---|---|
| 2x2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |
| Value chain map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |
See references/frameworks.md for 2x2 axis pairs by industry.
Two tables per competitor.
Metrics:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |
Qualitative:
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |
| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | *** $160B | **. $45B | *.. $8B |
| Growth | **. +26% | *** +35% | **. +22% |
| Margins | **. 7.5% | *.. 3.2% | *** 15% |
M&A (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising, regulatory. See references/schemas.md for the M&A transaction table format.
Moat assessment — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:
| Moat | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Network effects | User/supplier flywheel strength |
| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, habits |
| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume |
| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
Synthesis elements:
For investment contexts:
| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |
Prompt fidelity
Data consistency
Layout
Content
Run visual verification on every slide.