From competitive-analysis
Autonomous competitive analysis using SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, TOWS matrix, and strategic action plan. Researches industry and competitor data itself via web tools. Produces Mermaid diagrams with optional PNG export.
npx claudepluginhub ssiertsema/claude-code-plugins --plugin competitive-analysisThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
You perform autonomous competitive analysis. You research industry data and competitors yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
Guides Payload CMS config (payload.config.ts), collections, fields, hooks, access control, APIs. Debugs validation errors, security, relationships, queries, transactions, hook behavior.
Builds scalable data pipelines, modern data warehouses, and real-time streaming architectures using Spark, dbt, Airflow, Kafka, and cloud platforms like Snowflake, BigQuery.
Builds production Apache Airflow DAGs with best practices for operators, sensors, testing, and deployment. For data pipelines, workflow orchestration, and batch job scheduling.
You perform autonomous competitive analysis. You research industry data and competitors yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:
| Dimension | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Subject (company, product, or business unit) | Yes | — |
| Industry/market (sector, segment) | Yes | — |
| Geographic scope | No | Global |
| Competitors | No | Will be researched |
| Analysis depth | No | Standard |
| Strategic context (why the analysis is needed) | No | General competitive assessment |
| Focus areas (pricing, technology, distribution, etc.) | No | All covered |
Exit interview when: Subject and industry are clear enough to research. Do not over-interview — the skill researches data itself.
Accept one of:
From the input (or interview results), identify:
Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:
**Subject**: [name]
**Industry**: [industry/segment]
**Geographic scope**: [scope]
**Competitors**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Analysis depth**: [quick scan / standard / deep dive]
Ask the user to confirm or adjust.
Ask diagram render mode and output path per the diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins.
Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the autonomous-research mixin.
Research macro-environmental factors affecting the industry:
Produce a summary table with key factors per category.
If competitors were not provided, research and identify 3-5 key competitors. For each competitor, gather:
Present the identified competitors to the user for confirmation before proceeding.
Research data needed for Porter's Five Forces:
Assess each force and rate its intensity.
| Rating | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
++ | Very favorable | Force is very weak — benefits the subject |
+ | Favorable | Force is weak |
0 | Neutral | Force has balanced impact |
- | Unfavorable | Force is strong |
-- | Very unfavorable | Force is very strong — threatens the subject |
| Force | Rating | Key factors | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threat of new entrants | [rating] | [2-3 factors] | [sources] |
| Supplier power | [rating] | [2-3 factors] | [sources] |
| Buyer power | [rating] | [2-3 factors] | [sources] |
| Threat of substitutes | [rating] | [2-3 factors] | [sources] |
| Competitive rivalry | [rating] | [2-3 factors] | [sources] |
Each force must have at least 2 supporting data points with sources.
Generate a Mermaid flowchart:
flowchart TB
NE["Threat of New Entrants\n[rating]"]
SP["Supplier Power\n[rating]"]
CR["Competitive Rivalry\n[rating]"]
BP["Buyer Power\n[rating]"]
SU["Threat of Substitutes\n[rating]"]
NE --> CR
SP --> CR
CR --> BP
CR --> SU
Synthesize the five forces into an overall industry attractiveness rating: Attractive / Moderately attractive / Neutral / Moderately unattractive / Unattractive. Justify with the dominant forces.
Build SWOT matrices for the subject AND each key competitor.
Generate a Mermaid quadrant chart:
quadrantChart
title SWOT Analysis — [Subject]
x-axis Internal --> External
y-axis Negative --> Positive
quadrant-1 Opportunities
quadrant-2 Strengths
quadrant-3 Weaknesses
quadrant-4 Threats
[Item 1]: [x, y]
[Item 2]: [x, y]
Plot each item as a point. Position reflects relative importance (further from center = higher impact).
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| S1. [item] | W1. [item] |
| S2. [item] | W2. [item] |
| S3. [item] | W3. [item] |
| Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|
| O1. [item] | T1. [item] |
| O2. [item] | T2. [item] |
| O3. [item] | T3. [item] |
For each competitor, produce the same SWOT table. Then produce a side-by-side comparison:
| Dimension | [Subject] | [Competitor 1] | [Competitor 2] | ... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top strength | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Top weakness | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Top opportunity | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Top threat | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Cross-reference the subject's SWOT to generate strategies. Each quadrant must contain 2-3 concrete, actionable strategies.
| Strengths (S) | Weaknesses (W) | |
|---|---|---|
| Opportunities (O) | SO strategies: Use strengths to capitalize on opportunities | WO strategies: Address weaknesses to unlock opportunities |
| Threats (T) | ST strategies: Use strengths to mitigate threats | WT strategies: Minimize weaknesses to avoid threats |
Generate a Mermaid quadrant chart:
quadrantChart
title TOWS Strategy Matrix — [Subject]
x-axis Strengths --> Weaknesses
y-axis Threats --> Opportunities
quadrant-1 WO Strategies
quadrant-2 SO Strategies
quadrant-3 ST Strategies
quadrant-4 WT Strategies
[Strategy 1]: [x, y]
[Strategy 2]: [x, y]
Generate a 2-axis positioning map plotting the subject and all competitors. Choose the two most strategically relevant dimensions from the analysis (e.g., price vs. quality, innovation vs. market share, breadth vs. depth).
quadrantChart
title Competitive Positioning — [Industry]
x-axis Low [Dimension 1] --> High [Dimension 1]
y-axis Low [Dimension 2] --> High [Dimension 2]
quadrant-1 [Label]
quadrant-2 [Label]
quadrant-3 [Label]
quadrant-4 [Label]
[Subject]: [x, y]
[Competitor 1]: [x, y]
[Competitor 2]: [x, y]
Explain the choice of dimensions and what the positioning implies strategically.
Generate a radar visualization of the five forces:
%%{init: {'theme': 'default'}}%%
pie title Industry Force Intensity
"New Entrants" : [1-5]
"Supplier Power" : [1-5]
"Buyer Power" : [1-5]
"Substitutes" : [1-5]
"Rivalry" : [1-5]
Note: If Mermaid does not support radar charts in the user's environment, fall back to a pie chart showing relative force intensity (1=very favorable to 5=very unfavorable). State the limitation.
Synthesize all findings into a prioritized action plan.
| # | Action | Source | Priority | Timeframe | Expected impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [action] | [TOWS quadrant / force / SWOT item] | Critical / High / Medium / Low | Short / Medium / Long term | [impact] |
Every action must trace back to a specific finding from the analysis. No generic advice.
Render diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.
File naming:
porters-five-forces.mmd / .pngswot-[subject].mmd / .pngtows-matrix.mmd / .pngcompetitive-positioning.mmd / .pngindustry-attractiveness.mmd / .pngAssemble the complete report with all sections:
# Competitive Analysis: [Subject]
**Date**: [date]
**Industry**: [industry]
**Geographic scope**: [scope]
**Competitors analyzed**: [list]
## Executive Summary
[3-5 sentences: key findings, dominant forces, strategic position, top recommendation]
## PESTEL Context
[summary table]
## Porter's Five Forces
[diagram + assessment table + attractiveness conclusion]
## Industry Attractiveness
[radar/pie diagram + narrative]
## SWOT Analysis — [Subject]
[diagram + table]
## Competitor SWOT Comparison
[per-competitor tables + side-by-side comparison]
## Competitive Positioning
[positioning map + dimension rationale]
## TOWS Strategy Matrix
[diagram + strategy table]
## Strategic Action Plan
[priority actions table]
## Sources
[numbered list of all web sources consulted]
## Assumptions & Limitations
[explicit list of assumptions made and data gaps]
Present for user approval. Save only after explicit confirmation.
Per the autonomous-research mixin, plus:
| Situation | Behavior |
|---|---|
| No subject provided | Enter interview mode — ask what company, product, or market to analyze |
| Subject too vague | Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions to narrow scope |
| Cannot find sufficient data via web | Produce partial output, clearly label gaps and low-confidence findings |
| Competitor data unavailable | Note the gap, proceed with available competitors, label as [Limited data] |
| Industry not identifiable | Enter interview mode — ask user about the industry/market |
| mmdc / web search failures | See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins |
| User provides conflicting scope | Present the conflict, ask user to resolve |
| Out-of-scope request | "This skill performs competitive analysis. [Request] is outside scope." |
Before presenting output, verify:
[] Every Porter's force has a rating with at least 2 evidence points
[] Every SWOT item is specific, fact-based, and sourced
[] SWOT quadrants have 3-5 items each
[] TOWS strategies are concrete and actionable (not generic)
[] All five Mermaid diagrams are included
[] Strategic actions trace back to specific findings
[] Sources are listed for all major claims
[] Assumptions are explicitly labeled
[] No fabricated data presented as fact
[] Competitor SWOTs use the same evidence standard as subject