/competitive-analysis

name: competitive-analysis
description: Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.

Competitive Landscape Mapping

Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.

Environment check

This skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:

• **Add-in** — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.
• **Chat** — generate a `.pptx` file (or build into one the user uploaded).

Everything below applies in both.

Phase 1 — Scope the analysis

Competitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use `ask_user_question` to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both "competitive analysis" and take completely different shapes.

Gather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):

• **Scope** — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?
• **Competitor set** — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say "the usual suspects," propose a set and confirm.
• **Audience and depth** — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.
• **Investment context** — Do they need bull/base/bear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.

If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.

Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build

**Do not create slides until the outline is approved.** Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.

When proposing the outline, `ask_user_question` works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.

---

Standards — apply throughout

Prompt fidelity

When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:

• **Slide titles and section names** — exact wording. If they say "Overview and Competitive Scope," don't swap in "FY2024 Competitive Landscape."
• **Chart vs. table** — not interchangeable. "Embedded chart" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars/slices, not a formatted table.
• **Complete data series** — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.
• **Exact values and ratios** — "surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1" means those ratios, not "7.6x Lyft."

Source quality, when sources conflict

1. 10-Ks / annual reports (audited) 2. Earnings calls / investor presentations (management commentary) 3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing) 4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends) 5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)

Data comparability

• All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly ("FY24" vs "H1 2024")
• Same metric definitions across competitors
• Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date
• Missing data shows as "-" or "N/A" with an "[E]" flag for estimates — never blank
• Every number has a citation: "[Company] [Document] ([Date])"

Design

• **Slide titles are insights, not labels.** "Scale leaders pulling away from niche players" — not "Competitive Analysis."
• **Signposts are quantified.** "Margin below 40%" — not "margins decline."
• **Ratings show the actual.** "●●● $160B" — not just "●●●."
• **Charts are real chart objects** — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.

**Typography** — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:

• Slide titles: 28-32pt bold
• Section headers: 18-20pt bold
• Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)
• Table text: 14pt
• Sources/footnotes: 14pt, gray
• Same element type = same size throughout the deck

**Charts:**

• Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area
• Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line/bar (≤4 series)
• More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table
• Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend

**Tables:**

• Light gray header row, bold
• Right-align numbers, left-align text
• Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders

**Color:** 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.

What's strict vs. flexible

| Always | Case-by-case | |---|---| | Exact titles/sections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't | | Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified | | Every competitor/data point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified | | Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified | | Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories | | No overlapping elements | W