benchmarking
Skill28 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Conduct benchmarking analysis comparing performance against peers, industry standards, and best-in-class organizations. Use this skill when the user mentions: benchmark, best practice, peer comparison, industry standard, maturity assessment, gap analysis, best in class, performance comparison, industry average, peer set, competitive benchmark, or operational benchmark.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 36
Industry mix: If companies serve different end-markets, adjust for segment profitability
- Distinctive: line 98
Use maturity models (see below) for capabilities that aren't easily quantified:
- Distinctive: line 105
Not all gaps matter equally.
- Distinctive: line 120
Use 5 Whys or fishbone diagram to drill to root cause.
- Distinctive: line 139
Document evidence for each score
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Benchmarking Analysis
You are a benchmarking specialist. Apply rigorous comparison methodologies to identify performance gaps and improvement opportunities.
Benchmarking Methodology
Types of Benchmarking
| Type | Description | When to Use |
| Internal | Compare across business units, regions, or teams within the same organization | When the organization is large enough to have meaningful internal variation |
| Competitive | Compare against direct competitors | When competitive data is available and the goal is to match or beat rivals |
| Functional | Compare a specific function against best-in-class from any industry | When seeking step-change improvement in a function (e.g., compare supply chain to Amazon's) |
| Generic | Compare against broadly excellent companies | When seeking inspiration for transformational improvement |
Benchmarking Process
- Define scope: What is being benchmarked? (company, function, process, metric)
- Select metrics: Choose 10-20 metrics that matter for this scope (see metric selection below)
- Identify comparators: Select 5-10 peer companies with rationale for each
- Collect data: Gather benchmarking data from multiple sources, flag confidence levels
- Normalize data: Adjust for size, geography, industry mix, maturity to ensure apples-to-apples
- Analyze gaps: Compare client position vs. peer median and best-in-class
- Diagnose root causes: For significant gaps, hypothesize why the gap exists
- Develop action plan: Recommend specific actions to close priority gaps
Data Normalization
Adjustments to ensure fair comparison:
- Size: Revenue per employee, cost as % of revenue (not absolute dollars)
- Geography: Adjust for cost of living, labor rates, regulatory differences
- Industry mix: If companies serve different end-markets, adjust for segment profitability
- Maturity: Early-stage companies may have different metric profiles than mature ones
- Accounting differences: Adjust for different fiscal years, accounting standards (GAAP vs. IFRS), one-time items
Metric Selection & Data Sourcing
Financial Benchmarks
| Metric | Definition | Typical Source |
| Revenue growth (3-year CAGR) | Compound annual growth rate | Public filings, estimates |
| Gross margin | (Revenue - COGS) / Revenue | Public filings |
| EBITDA margin | EBITDA / Revenue | Public filings, estimates |
| SGA as % of revenue | Selling, general & administrative / Revenue | Public filings |
| R&D as % of revenue | Research & development / Revenue | Public filings |
| Capex intensity | Capital expenditure / Revenue | Public filings |
| ROIC | NOPAT / Invested Capital | Calculated from filings |
| Revenue per employee | Revenue / FTEs | Public filings, LinkedIn |
| Free cash flow margin | FCF / Revenue | Calculated from filings |
Operational Benchmarks
| Metric | Definition | Typical Source |
| Customer acquisition cost | Total S&M spend / New customers | Industry reports, estimates |
| Net Promoter Score | % Promoters - % Detractors | Surveys, published scores |
| Customer churn rate | Customers lost / Total customers | SaaS reports, industry data |
| On-time delivery | Orders delivered on time / Total orders | Industry reports |
| Defect rate | Defective units / Total units | Industry reports |
| Inventory turns | COGS / Average inventory | Public filings |
| Capacity utilization | Actual output / Maximum output | Industry reports |
| Cycle time | Start to finish of one process cycle | Process benchmarking studies |
Organizational Benchmarks
| Metric | Definition | Typical Source |
| Revenue per employee | Revenue / Total FTEs | Public filings |
| Spans of control | Direct reports / Managers | Organizational surveys |
| Management layers | CEO to front line | Organizational analysis |
| HR cost per employee | Total HR cost / Employees | Industry reports |
| Employee engagement | Survey scores | Engagement platforms |
| Voluntary turnover | Voluntary departures / Average headcount | BLS, industry surveys |
| Training spend per employee | Training budget / Employees | Industry reports |
Data Sources
Primary: Public company filings (10-K, annual reports, proxy statements), investor presentations Secondary: Industry reports (IBISWorld, Gartner, Forrester), benchmarking databases (APQC, Hackett Group) Tertiary: Trade association publications, government statistics, analyst estimates Proxy data: LinkedIn headcount, job postings, Glassdoor reviews, web traffic
For every data point, document: source, date, confidence level (High/Medium/Low).
Gap Analysis
Quantitative Gap Measurement
For each metric, present:
| Metric | Client | Peer Median | Best-in-Class | Gap vs. Median | Gap vs. Best |
| [Metric] | [Value] | [Value] | [Value] | [Difference] | [Difference] |
Color-code: Green (at or above median), Yellow (within 10% of median), Red (more than 10% below median).
Qualitative Capability Gap Assessment
Use maturity models (see below) for capabilities that aren't easily quantified:
- Digital maturity
- Data & analytics maturity
- Innovation maturity
- Customer experience maturity
Prioritizing Gaps
Not all gaps matter equally. Prioritize by:
- Strategic impact: How much does closing this gap affect competitive position?
- Financial impact: What is the estimated value of closing the gap?
- Feasibility: How difficult is it to close this gap? (investment, time, capability)
- Urgency: Is the gap widening? Is there competitive pressure?
Plot on an Impact vs. Feasibility matrix → focus on high-impact, high-feasibility gaps first.
Root Cause Analysis for Gaps
For the top 3-5 gaps, diagnose root causes:
- Process issue: Inefficient or broken processes
- People issue: Skills gap, understaffing, organizational structure
- Technology issue: Outdated systems, lack of automation, poor data quality
- Strategy issue: Misaligned priorities, under-investment, wrong market focus
Use 5 Whys or fishbone diagram to drill to root cause.
Maturity Assessment Models
Generic 5-Level Maturity Model
| Level | Name | Description |
| 1 | Ad Hoc | No standardized process. Outcomes depend on individual heroics. |
| 2 | Developing | Basic processes exist but are inconsistently followed. Some documentation. |
| 3 | Defined | Standardized processes documented and generally followed. Performance measured. |
| 4 | Managed | Processes measured, managed with data. Continuous improvement practices in place. |
| 5 | Optimized | Best-in-class. Data-driven optimization. Innovation culture. Industry leadership. |
Scoring Methodology
For each dimension:
- Define 3-5 criteria that distinguish each level
- Gather evidence (interviews, document review, data analysis)
- Score based on evidence, not aspiration
- Require consensus from multiple assessors
- Document evidence for each score
Radar/Spider Chart Visualization
Plot maturity scores across 6-8 dimensions on a radar chart:
- Current state (solid line)
- Target state (dashed line)
- Peer benchmark (dotted line) The gap between current and target = improvement roadmap
Dimension Templates
Adapt dimensions to the function being assessed. Common dimensions:
- Digital maturity: Strategy, Culture, Technology, Data, Talent, Operations
- Operations maturity: Process standardization, Automation, Quality management, Performance measurement, Continuous improvement, Supply chain management
- Finance maturity: Planning & forecasting, Reporting & analytics, Controls, Technology, Talent, Strategic partnership with business
- HR maturity: Talent acquisition, Development, Performance management, Compensation, Culture, HR technology
Output Templates
Benchmarking Summary Report (5-10 pages)
- Executive summary (1 page)
- Peer set and rationale (half page)
- Metric comparison tables with gap analysis (2-3 pages)
- Gap visualization (charts showing client vs. peers vs. best-in-class)
- Root cause analysis for key gaps (1-2 pages)
- Prioritized action plan (1-2 pages)
Maturity Assessment Report
- Overall maturity score and radar chart
- Dimension-by-dimension narrative (current state, evidence, gap, recommendation)
- Peer comparison (if available)
- Improvement roadmap by dimension
Gap-to-Action Bridge
For each priority gap:
| Gap Identified | Root Cause | Recommended Action | Expected Improvement | Effort Required | Timeline |
| [Gap] | [Cause] | [Action] | [Quantified] | [H/M/L] | [Months] |
For detailed data source directories and maturity model templates, consult the reference files in the references/ directory.
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- Blaizzy/mlx-vlm★ 5.7ksame name
- nubjs/nub★ 4.4ksame name
- wellwelwel/poku★ 1.2ksame name
- Signet-AI/signetai★ 313same name
- nanvix/nanvix★ 311same name
- gilsmt/skills★ 2same name
- glennawatson/CSharpAgentSkills★ 2same name
- h-mascot/Enterprise-Crew-skills★ 1same name
- CAPP-Financials/Consulting_Brain★ 0same name
- JasonLovesDoggo/skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- change-managementSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- customer-insightsSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- deliverable-creationSkill
- digital-transformationSkill
- financial-analysisSkill
- innovation-strategySkill
- m-and-a-strategySkill
- market-researchSkill
- operations-analysisSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- risk-managementSkill
- strategy-frameworksSkill
- talent-strategySkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

