competitor-analysis

Competitor Analysis

Turn a list of names into a structured competitive view that GTM, product, and sales can act on. Tiered profiles, head-to-head differentiation, structural moat assessment, and battle cards that survive real sales conversations.

Framework(s) used: Helmer 7 Powers + Porter 5 Forces — Helmer for durability, Porter for industry structure — pick per Clarification Protocol if both apply. If multiple frameworks apply, trigger Clarification Protocol so the user picks.

Clarification Protocol

When you encounter any of the following, STOP and ask the user — do NOT make a silent assumption, and do NOT flatly refuse:

• Ambiguous or missing input
• A fork in approach (multiple valid frameworks, segments, scopes, or sources)
• A rule that would block progress
• An assumption that materially shapes the output
• Unverified data that a downstream step depends on

Present 2–4 concrete options with trade-offs and your recommendation.

Format:

Decision needed: <what's being decided> Options:

• A) <option> — trade-off
• B) <option> — trade-off
• C) <option> — trade-off My recommendation: <X> because <reason>. Confirm or pick a different option before I continue.

Refusing to proceed is NEVER the final answer. Every "block" must come with an override option. If the user picks an override, honor it on the first request — do not re-prompt the same block multiple times in one run.

Scope

This skill ONLY produces competitive landscape analysis with battle-card-ready competitor profiles. Do not expand into adjacent topics. If the user's request implies adjacent scope, trigger Clarification Protocol with options to (A) stay in scope, (B) note the adjacent need as a follow-up, (C) hand off to a different skill.

Verification Requirements

Before producing the final output, every factual claim about external entities (markets, competitors, people, companies, technologies, pricing, benchmarks) MUST be verified via web search.

• Use a quick lookup for single-fact checks (one company, one stat).
• Use a deep search for landscape/trend questions (multi-source synthesis).
• Tag every verified claim inline as [H/M/L][Sn].
• End the report with a ## Sources section.
• Unverified claims belong in ## Assumptions to Validate, NOT in the main analysis.

Sources are mandatory. If you cannot cite a source for a factual claim, do not state it as fact — move it to Assumptions to Validate or trigger Clarification Protocol.

Never infer competitor pricing or claims without a cited source. If pricing is not public, mark [UNVERIFIED] and surface in Assumptions to Validate — do not estimate.

When to Use

• User asks "Who are our competitors?" or "Map the landscape"
• User wants head-to-head comparison or battle cards
• User asks about defensibility / moat analysis
• Pre-launch competitive grounding or loss-reason investigation
• Pricing benchmark or "alternative-to" positioning research
• User claims "we have no competitors" — force substitute analysis

Legend — Confidence Score

• [H] High — ≥2 independent primary sources within 6 months
• [M] Medium — single primary source OR multiple secondary sources agree
• [L] Low — inferred / single secondary source / >12 months old

Quick Reference

Concept	Detail
Tiers	Direct (same product/buyer/job) / Indirect (different product, same job) / Substitute (Dunford-style alternatives: DIY, hire, do-nothing, shift budget) / Aspirational
Substitute categories (≥1 each)	DIY/manual · Hire a person · Do nothing · Shift budget elsewhere
Helmer's 7 Powers	Scale Economies / Network Economies / Counter-Positioning / Switching Costs / Branding / Cornered Resource / Process Power — each needs benefit AND barrier
Tier targets	3–6 Direct, 2–4 Indirect, 2–4 Substitute, 1–2 Aspirational
Battle card	1 page; 1 wedge; 1 flip-question; 1 proof
No-FUD rule	Every weakness needs a citation

Procedure

1. Build candidate list. Pull buyer-validated alternatives first (lost deals, won deals). Then desk research (G2, Reddit, Crunchbase). Force ≥1 entry from each of 4 Substitute categories. Goal: 15–25 raw candidates.
2. Tier into 4 categories. Direct 3–6 / Indirect 2–4 / Substitute 2–4 / Aspirational 1–2. If Direct <3, default to extending research; if user wants to proceed anyway, trigger Clarification Protocol with options: (A) extend research, (B) proceed with fewer Direct competitors and flag output as lower-confidence, (C) reframe scope.
3. Profile Direct + Substitute. Each gets: positioning, best-fit customer, 3 strengths, 3 weaknesses, pricing, 1 recent move. No fabrication — write "Insufficient data" if absent. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/competitor-profiling.md.
4. Head-to-head matrix. Top 5 + user across positioning / ICP / pricing / motion / 3–5 capabilities.
5. Apply Helmer's 7 Powers. Top 3 + user. Each Power needs benefit AND barrier evidence. Be honest — most early-stage products have 0–1. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/helmer-7-powers.md.
6. Map segment ownership. Per segment: owner / runner-up / user position / rationale. Surface whitespace.
7. Porter's 5 Forces. 1-paragraph sanity-check on structural attractiveness.
8. Win/loss patterns. 3–5 each + 1+ disqualifier. If no data, replace with hypothesis section.
9. Battle cards (top 3 Direct). 1 page each: 1 wedge, 1 flip-question, 1 proof. See ${HERMES_SKILL_DIR}/references/battle-card-template.md.
10. Strategic implications + route downstream. 3–5 implications (observation → so what → action). Recommend next skill.

Pitfalls

• FUD in battle cards — every weakness must cite a source
• Manufactured moats — most early-stage products have 0 Powers; say so
• Skipping substitutes — "spreadsheets + status quo" wins more deals than named competitors
• Feature comparison theater — long checkboxes lose to "what job does the buyer hire each tool for"
• Pricing pages believed — real ACVs come from Vendr/Reddit/internal sales, not published lists
• Battle cards reps won't use — 1 wedge + 1 question + 1 proof beats 5 pages of feature trivia

Verification

1. User can name top 3 Direct competitors and the wedge against each
2. Every weakness has a source citation
3. Battle cards fit on 1 page with 1 wedge + 1 flip-question + 1 proof
4. Helmer analysis is honest — no fake moats
5. Segment ownership map identifies ≥1 whitespace
6. Strategic implications drive ≥3 actions, not just observations

Output Format

• Sections required: Competitor Profile (per competitor), Comparative Matrix, Sources, Assumptions to Validate
• Tables / fields: Competitor Profile table columns = Name | Positioning | Pricing | Strengths | Weaknesses | Source [Sn]; Comparative Matrix columns adapted to competitors x dimensions
• Length target: 800–1,500 words
• File type: markdown
• Mandatory closing sections: Verification Notes, Sources, Assumptions to Validate, Next Step