Competitive Analyzer

---
name: competitive-analyzer
version: 1.0.0
description: 'Structured competitive teardown for product discovery - surface the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score every competitor on each, and identify exploitable gaps. Use when: competitive analysis, competitor teardown, market positioning, where do we win, where do we lose, competitive gap analysis, competitor audit.'
when_to_use: 'Building a defensible competitive POV that will change a decision, not a 40-row feature grid.'
inputs:
  - List of 3-8 competitors
  - Buyer interview notes (optional)
  - Product category and target segment
outputs:
  - 4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with scoring rubric
  - Competitor scoring matrix
  - Gap map and risk map
  - Recommended competitive POV
tags: ['discovery', 'competitive', 'positioning', 'strategy']
maintainer: varunk130
---

# Competitive Analyzer

Run a disciplined competitive teardown that goes beyond a feature checklist. The output is the smallest set of *decision-relevant* dimensions, scored objectively across competitors, with explicit gaps you can attack and risks you should defend.

## Core Principle

**A competitive analysis is only useful if it changes a decision.** Most teardowns produce 40-row feature grids that no one reads. This skill forces brutal selection: pick the 4-6 dimensions buyers actually weigh, score them with a defensible rubric, and surface the 2-3 moves the analysis implies.

## Output

Save to `outputs/competitive-analysis-[market]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md`

| Artifact | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| **Dimension Map** | The 4-6 buyer-weighted dimensions with rationale for inclusion |
| **Scoring Matrix** | Each competitor scored 1-5 on each dimension, with one-line evidence per cell |
| **Gap Map** | Dimensions where every competitor underperforms - the white space |
| **Risk Map** | Dimensions where one competitor strongly outperforms us |
| **Implied Moves** | 2-3 concrete strategic moves the analysis suggests, ranked by leverage |

## Process

### Step 1: Frame the Market
I'll ask:
> "What market are we analyzing, and from whose perspective? List the competitors (3-7 works best). What's the deal context - what's a typical buyer trying to accomplish?"

### Step 2: Pick the Dimensions
Generate a candidate list of 12-15 dimensions, then ruthlessly cut to 4-6 by applying two filters:
- **Decision relevance** - does this dimension actually move buying decisions?
- **Discriminating power** - do competitors meaningfully differ on it? (Dimensions where everyone scores the same get cut.)

### Step 3: Score with Evidence
For each (competitor × dimension) cell, score 1-5 with a single sentence of *evidence* - a public artifact, a customer quote, a product behavior - not opinion.

### Step 4: Identify Gaps and Risks
Two scans across the matrix:
- **Gap** - any dimension where the *highest* score is ≤3 → market is underserved, opportunity
- **Risk** - any dimension where a competitor scores 5 and we score ≤3 → defensive priority

### Step 5: Implied Moves
Translate the gap and risk maps into 2-3 concrete moves: build, partner, position, retreat. Each move includes the *evidence* from the matrix that justifies it.

## Tips
1. **Evidence-only scoring.** A score without evidence is opinion; opinions don't survive the next leadership review.
2. **Cut the matrix until it hurts.** A 4-dimension matrix that gets used beats a 12-dimension matrix that gets ignored.
3. **Re-run quarterly.** Competitive position shifts; rerun cadence keeps the analysis honest.