competitive-analyzer
Skill2 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Mathews-Tom/armorytheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- Mathews-Tom/armory★ 340same 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- assumption-mapperSkill
- feedback-prioritizerSkill
- jtbd-extractorSkill
- north-star-metric-finderSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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 21
Run a disciplined competitive teardown that goes beyond a feature checklist.
- Distinctive: line 48
Discriminating power: - do competitors meaningfully differ on it?
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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
- Evidence-only scoring. A score without evidence is opinion; opinions don't survive the next leadership review.
- Cut the matrix until it hurts. A 4-dimension matrix that gets used beats a 12-dimension matrix that gets ignored.
- Re-run quarterly. Competitive position shifts; rerun cadence keeps the analysis honest.
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.