competitive-intel
Skill0 starsChanged 27 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning.
19 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- memi-design/design-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MoizIbnYousaf/marketing-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Hyde-and-Larkin/product-marketing-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- hassanzouhar/market_analyticstheir own version, first seen Sep 24, 2026
- CyranoB/web-foragertheir own version, first seen Sep 17, 2026
- XPOZpublic/xpoz-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 9, 2026
Other versions19 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18100% same
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 1
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 285% same
Wrote their own version · 16
- Natan-Mohart/24-strategy-skills-for-claude★ 41same name
- MoizIbnYousaf/marketing-cli★ 33same name
- GTMify/aigtm★ 25same name
- XPOZpublic/xpoz-agent-skills★ 15same name
- CyranoB/web-forager★ 10same name
- memi-design/design-skills★ 7same name
- Aditya923-c/xpoz-agent-skills★ 6same name
- RizwanZafaris/product-manager-OS★ 4same name
- saberapp/skills★ 4same name
- Hyde-and-Larkin/product-marketing-toolkit★ 2same name
6 more not listed
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 repository198 other files it gives its agents.
- a11y-auditSkill
- ab-test-setupSkill
- ad-creativeSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- aeoSkill
- agent-designerSkill
- agent-protocolSkill
- agent-workflow-designerSkill
- ai-securitySkill
- analytics-trackingSkill
- andreessenSkill
- api-design-reviewerSkill
- api-test-suite-builderSkill
- apple-hig-expertSkill
- app-store-optimizationSkill
- autoresearch-agentSkill
- aws-solution-architectSkill
- azure-cloud-architectSkill
- board-deck-builderSkill
- board-meetingSkill
- book-to-skillSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- browser-automationSkill
- business-growth-skillsSkill
- business-investment-advisorSkill
- campaign-analyticsSkill
- ceo-advisorSkill
- cfo-advisorSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- change-managementSkill
- chaos-engineeringSkill
- chief-ai-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-customer-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-data-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- chro-advisorSkill
- churn-preventionSkill
- ci-cd-pipeline-builderSkill
- ciso-advisorSkill
- claude-coachSkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- cmo-advisorSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- company-osSkill
- competitive-teardownSkill
- competitor-alternativesSkill
- content-creatorSkill
- content-humanizerSkill
- content-productionSkill
- content-strategySkill
- context-engineSkill
- contract-and-proposal-writerSkill
- copy-editingSkill
- copywritingSkill
- cpo-advisorSkill
- cro-advisorSkill
- cs-onboardSkill
- cto-advisorSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.
10
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 23
Ask in natural language for the deliverable you need:
- Distinctive: line 46
Update this quarterly. Who's moved quadrants?
- Distinctive: line 99
Update battlecards with new intel
- Distinctive: line 112
Add/remove companies from tracking list
- Distinctive: line 121
Every lost deal >$50K ACV
- Distinctive: line 122
Every churn >6 months tenure
- Distinctive: line 123
Every competitive win (learn why — it may not be what you think)
- Distinctive: line 126
NOT the AE who worked the deal (too close, prospect won't be candid)
- Distinctive: line 161
Don't let them set your agenda
- Distinctive: line 176
One source of truth: All competitive intel lives in one place (Notion, Confluence, Salesforce).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 13 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
Competitive Intelligence
Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession — intelligence that drives real decisions.
Keywords
competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy
Quick Start
Ask in natural language for the deliverable you need:
"Map our competitive landscape" — direct, indirect, and future competitors "Build a battlecard for [competitor]" — sales-ready battlecard "Run a win/loss analysis" — recent wins and losses by reason "What did [competitor] do recently?" — competitor update tracking "Build a competitive positioning map" — 2x2 positioning map
Framework: 5-Layer Intelligence System
Layer 1: Competitor Identification
Direct competitors: Same ICP, same problem, comparable solution, similar price point. Indirect competitors: Same budget, different solution (including "do nothing" and "build in-house"). Future competitors: Well-funded startups in adjacent space; large incumbents with stated roadmap overlap.
The 2x2 Threat Matrix:
| Same ICP | Different ICP | |
| Same problem | Direct threat | Adjacent (watch) |
| Different problem | Displacement risk | Ignore for now |
Update this quarterly. Who's moved quadrants?
Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions
Track these 8 dimensions per competitor:
| Dimension | Sources | Cadence |
| Product moves | Changelog, G2/Capterra reviews, Twitter/LinkedIn | Monthly |
| Pricing changes | Pricing page, sales call intel, customer feedback | Triggered |
| Funding | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered |
| Hiring signals | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed | Monthly |
| Partnerships | Press releases, co-marketing | Triggered |
| Customer wins | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly |
| Customer losses | Win/loss interviews, churned accounts | Ongoing |
| Messaging shifts | Homepage, ads (Facebook/Google Ad Library) | Quarterly |
Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks
SWOT per Competitor:
- Strengths: What do they do well? Where do they win?
- Weaknesses: Where do they lose? What do customers complain about?
- Opportunities: What could they do that would threaten you?
- Threats: What's their existential risk?
Competitive Positioning Map (2 axis): Choose axes that matter for your buyers:
- Common: Price vs Feature Depth; Enterprise-ready vs SMB-ready; Easy to implement vs Configurable
- Pick axes that show YOUR differentiation clearly
Feature Gap Analysis:
| Feature | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap status |
| [Feature] | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Your advantage |
| [Feature] | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Gap — roadmap? |
| [Feature] | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | Moat |
| [Feature] | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Competitor B only |
Layer 4: Output Formats
For Sales (CRO): Battlecards — one page per competitor, designed for pre-call prep.
See templates/battlecard-template.md
For Marketing (CMO): Positioning update — message shifts, new differentiators, claims to stop or start making.
For Product (CPO): Feature gap summary — what customers ask for that we don't have, what competitors ship, what to reprioritize.
For CEO/Board: Monthly competitive summary — 1-page: who moved, what it means, recommended responses.
Layer 5: Intelligence Cadence
Monthly (scheduled):
- Review all tier-1 competitors (direct threats, top 3)
- Update battlecards with new intel
- Publish 1-page summary to leadership
Triggered (event-based):
- Competitor raises funding → assess implications within 48 hours
- Competitor launches major feature → product + sales response within 1 week
- Competitor poaches key customer → win/loss interview within 2 weeks
- Competitor changes pricing → analyze and respond within 1 week
Quarterly:
- Full competitive landscape review
- Update positioning map
- Refresh ICP competitive threat assessment
- Add/remove companies from tracking list
Win/Loss Analysis
This is the highest-signal competitive data you have. Most companies do it too rarely.
When to interview:
- Every lost deal >$50K ACV
- Every churn >6 months tenure
- Every competitive win (learn why — it may not be what you think)
Who conducts it:
- NOT the AE who worked the deal (too close, prospect won't be candid)
- Customer success, product team, or external researcher
Question structure:
- "Walk me through your evaluation process"
- "Who else were you considering?"
- "What were the top 3 criteria in your decision?"
- "Where did [our product] fall short?"
- "What was the deciding factor?"
- "What would have changed your decision?"
Aggregate findings monthly:
- Win reasons (rank by frequency)
- Loss reasons (rank by frequency)
- Competitor win rates (by competitor, by segment)
- Patterns over time
The Balance: Intelligence Without Obsession
Signs you're over-tracking competitors:
- Roadmap decisions are primarily driven by "they just shipped X"
- Team morale drops when competitors fundraise
- You're shipping features you don't believe in to match their checklist
- Pricing discussions always start with "well, they charge X"
Signs you're under-tracking:
- Your AEs get blindsided on calls
- Prospects know more about competitors than your team does
- You missed a major product launch until customers told you
- Your positioning hasn't changed in 12+ months despite market moves
The right posture:
- Know competitors well enough to win against them
- Don't let them set your agenda
- Your roadmap is led by customer problems, informed by competitive gaps
Distributing Intelligence
| Audience | Format | Cadence | Owner |
| AEs + SDRs | Updated battlecards in CRM | Monthly + triggered | CRO |
| Product | Feature gap analysis | Quarterly | CPO |
| Marketing | Positioning brief | Quarterly | CMO |
| Leadership | 1-page competitive summary | Monthly | CEO/COO |
| Board | Competitive landscape slide | Quarterly | CEO |
One source of truth: All competitive intel lives in one place (Notion, Confluence, Salesforce). Avoid Slack-only distribution — it disappears.
Red Flags in Competitive Intelligence
| Signal | What it means |
| Competitor's win rate >50% in your core segment | Fundamental positioning problem, not sales problem |
| Same objection from 5+ deals: "competitor has X" | Feature gap that's real, not just optics |
| Competitor hired 10 engineers in your domain | Major product investment incoming |
| Competitor raised >$20M and targets your ICP | 12-month runway for them to compete hard |
| Prospects evaluate you to justify competitor decision | You're the "check box" — fix perception or segment |
Integration with C-Suite Roles
| Intelligence Type | Feeds To | Output Format |
| Product moves | CPO | Roadmap input, feature gap analysis |
| Pricing changes | CRO, CFO | Pricing response recommendations |
| Funding rounds | CEO, CFO | Strategic positioning update |
| Hiring signals | CHRO, CTO | Talent market intelligence |
| Customer wins/losses | CRO, CMO | Battlecard updates, positioning shifts |
| Marketing campaigns | CMO | Counter-positioning, channel intelligence |
References
references/ci-playbook.md— OSINT sources, win/loss framework, positioning map constructiontemplates/battlecard-template.md— sales battlecard template
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.

