Competitor Analysis Skill

Research, score, and document the competitive landscape. Output a structured comparison matrix with scoring rubric.

Constraints

• NEVER invent competitor data. If you cannot verify a data point, mark it [UNVERIFIED] and note the source you would check.
• NEVER list more than 5 competitors. Focus on the 3-5 most relevant direct competitors, not tangentially related products.
• NEVER skip the scoring rubric. Every feature row MUST have a 1-5 numeric score, not just checkmarks.
• Every recommendation MUST cite a specific finding from the matrix (e.g., "Competitor X scores 5 on onboarding while we score 2 — prioritize guided setup").
• Always include a "Last Verified" date. Competitor data goes stale fast.

Output Format

Write output to .claude/specs/[feature]/competitor-analysis.md using this exact structure:

# Competitive Analysis: [Product Category]
**Last Verified:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Analyst Context:** [What triggered this analysis — e.g., "Pre-launch positioning for [product]"]

## Executive Summary
[3-5 bullet points. Lead with the single most actionable insight.]

## Scoring Rubric
| Score | Meaning             | Criteria                                         |
|-------|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| 1     | Missing             | Feature does not exist                           |
| 2     | Basic               | Feature exists but is minimal / buggy / limited  |
| 3     | Adequate            | Feature works but nothing notable                |
| 4     | Strong              | Feature is well-executed, above average          |
| 5     | Best-in-class       | Industry-leading implementation                  |

## Comparison Matrix
| Dimension              | Our Product | [Comp A] | [Comp B] | [Comp C] |
|------------------------|-------------|----------|----------|----------|
| **Core Features**      |             |          |          |          |
| [Feature 1]            | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| [Feature 2]            | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| [Feature 3]            | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| **UX / Onboarding**    |             |          |          |          |
| Time to first value    | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| Documentation quality  | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| **Pricing**            |             |          |          |          |
| Free tier              | [desc]      | [desc]   | [desc]   | [desc]   |
| Paid entry point       | [$]         | [$]      | [$]      | [$]      |
| Enterprise             | [$]         | [$]      | [$]      | [$]      |
| **Technical**          |             |          |          |          |
| API / Integrations     | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| Performance / Scale    | [1-5]       | [1-5]    | [1-5]    | [1-5]    |
| **Market Position**    |             |          |          |          |
| Target segment         | [who]       | [who]    | [who]    | [who]    |
| Estimated market share | [%/rank]    | [%/rank] | [%/rank] | [%/rank] |
| Key differentiator     | [what]      | [what]   | [what]   | [what]   |
| **TOTAL (features)**   | [sum/max]   | [sum/max]| [sum/max]| [sum/max]|

## Per-Competitor Deep Dive

### [Competitor A]
- **What they do well:** [specific feature/UX with evidence]
- **Where they fall short:** [specific weakness]
- **Pricing model:** [free/freemium/paid, tiers, per-seat vs flat]
- **Tech stack signals:** [what you can infer from job posts, docs, public repos]
- **Recent trajectory:** [growing/stable/declining, recent funding, product launches]
- **Threat level:** Low | Medium | High — [one sentence justification]

[Repeat for each competitor]

## Gap Analysis
| Gap (we lack, they have)          | Which competitors | Impact | Effort to close |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------|--------|-----------------|
| [Missing feature/capability]      | [Comp A, Comp B]  | H/M/L  | S/M/L/XL        |

## Strategic Recommendations
1. **[Action]** — [Justification citing specific matrix scores or gaps]
2. **[Action]** — [Justification]
3. **[Action]** — [Justification]

Data Gathering Workflow

When researching each competitor, gather in this order:

1. Product surface — Sign-up flow, free tier, core UI, feature list from marketing site
2. Pricing page — Tiers, per-seat vs usage-based, enterprise contact-us signals
3. Documentation — API reference quality, SDK support, integration list
4. Public engineering signals — GitHub repos (stars, activity), job postings (tech stack), blog/changelog (ship velocity)
5. Community signals — Reddit/HN mentions, G2/Capterra reviews (filter to last 12 months), Twitter/X sentiment
6. Business signals — Crunchbase funding, employee count trends on LinkedIn, recent press

For each data point, note the source. If a source is unavailable (e.g., no web search tool), mark the field [NEEDS VERIFICATION — check: URL/source].

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Do not list 10+ competitors in a shallow table. Depth on 3-5 beats breadth on 15.
• Do not copy marketing language as fact. "Enterprise-grade security" means nothing without specifics.
• Do not treat feature presence as feature quality. A competitor having "AI search" as a checkbox tells you nothing about whether it works.
• Do not assume pricing is static. Note the date you verified it.