Skip to content
competitive-analysis-process · product-manager-skills · Flowy
Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card.
One skill from product-manager-skills .
$ npx -y skills add deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills --skill competitive-analysis-process --agent claude-codeInstalls just this skill. Get the whole plugin for auto-invocation.
⚡ How it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
Fires itself Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work. You can call it Invoke it directly when you want it. Slash command /competitive-analysis-process👁️ Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card. </> SKILL.md
competitive-analysis-process.SKILL.md
---
name : competitive-analysis-process
argument-hint: "[competitor set or market, and the decision this analysis supports]"
description : "Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card."
intent : >-
The umbrella workflow for competitive analysis: six analytical steps — landscape overview, product
comparison, customer-need fulfillment, business baseline, perception and positioning, strategic
direction — each grounded in named frameworks and delegated to the right investigation skill, ending
in the four output artifacts that make the work actionable.
type : workflow
theme : market-intelligence
best_for:
- "Running a complete competitive analysis instead of a one-off scan"
- "Sequencing the market-intelligence skills into one coherent engagement"
- "Choosing which analytical step (and which framework) a competitive question actually needs"
scenarios:
- "New fiscal year, new strategy cycle — run the full competitive analysis on our space"
- "I've got scattered competitive research everywhere; give me the process that organizes it"
estimated_time : "1-2 weeks calendar time; each step is a 20-45 min working session"
---
# Competitive Analysis Process
Flowy AI Flows that just work. Hand-picked Claude Code plugins that fire the right skill as you prompt.
## Purpose
Orchestrate rigorous, repeatable competitive analysis across **six analytical steps**, producing four
actionable output types (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning counter-moves, threat
assessments). This is the umbrella: each step names its purpose, its frameworks, and the skill that
does the work — the way `discovery-process` orchestrates the discovery skills. Run all six for a
strategy cycle; run one when a specific question walks in the door. The steps build on each other, but
the sequence bends to the decision.
## Input
**Works best with:** the market or competitor set in scope, and **the decision this analysis
supports** — a roadmap bet, a positioning refresh, a market entry, deal defense. The decision
determines which steps get depth and which get a pass.
**Also useful:** any existing intelligence — a prior landscape scan, snapshots, battle cards, or
`company-intel` output — so steps consume rather than repeat it.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it; don't re-ask.
**Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The workflow opens by asking what decision is on the table
and what you already know, then recommends which steps to run and in what order.
**Example invocation:** `Run the competitive analysis process on the mid-market payroll space —
decision : whether we defend down-market or push up. We have last quarter's landscape scan.`
## Key Concepts
- **Six steps, four outputs.** The steps are analytical lenses; the outputs (battle cards, comparison
matrices, positioning moves, threat assessments) are what sales, execs, and roadmap owners actually
consume. A step that doesn't feed an output is a detour.
- **Steps delegate; this skill orchestrates.** Each step below names the skill that does the work.
This file holds the sequence, the frameworks, and the decision points — not the research mechanics.
- **Evidence discipline throughout.** Every step honors the
[`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) protocol
(Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, real URLs, confidence stacking), drawing signals from the
channels in [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md).
- **Named frameworks, cited.** Each step stands on published strategy work — Porter's Five Forces,
the Kano model, Jobs-to-be-Done, the Business Model Canvas, Ries & Trout positioning, Hamel &
Prahalad strategic intent. The frameworks are defined where used; agents shouldn't assume prior
knowledge.
- **Present ≠ future.** Steps 1-5 read where competitors *are*; Step 6 reads where they're *going* —
and it's the step most teams skip, which is why they're perpetually surprised.
## Application
**Step 0 — Scope.** Confirm the decision, the competitor set (or run
[`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) to find it), and which steps matter.
Offer the six steps as a numbered menu; recommend a subset when the decision doesn't need all six.
### Step 1: Overview of the Competitive Landscape
*Who's in the game, where, and how they operate — market saturation, fragmentation, disruptive entrants.*
- **Frameworks:** Porter's Five Forces (industry structure); strategic group mapping (clustering
competitors by GTM model, innovation pattern, or regional depth); market fragmentation indexing.
- **Run:** [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) — segments, player map,
dynamics, whitespace with the dead-zone test.
- **Decision point:** which 2-4 players deserve depth? Everything downstream narrows to them.
### Step 2: Comparisons at the Product Level
*Beyond feature lists: value delivery, architecture, interoperability, lifecycle maturity.*
- **Frameworks:** Kano model (which features delight vs. merely satisfy); Geoffrey Moore's Whole
Product model (core product vs. the ring of services and integrations deals actually hinge on);
JTBD-based capability maps (compare by customer job, not by feature name).
- **Run:** [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) on the
selected players — its comparison matrix is this step's artifact.
- **Watch for:** feature parity theater. A capability map by job-to-be-done exposes what a feature
checklist hides: two "identical" features serving different jobs badly.
### Step 3: Ability to Fulfill Customer Needs
*How well they serve real customers — outcomes, support quality, ecosystem benefits — not tech specs.*
- **Frameworks:** Outcome-Driven Innovation (score against customer-defined outcomes); Value
Proposition Canvas (their promise vs. the jobs/pains/gains that matter).
- **Run:** [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) across the sources your
buyer reads — need themes, quoted verbatims, competitor weak points, and switching triggers, each
with a source-bias note.
- **Watch for:** vendor-authored "reviews" and case studies. Independent complaint clusters are the
signal; curated success stories are marketing.
### Step 4: Compilation of Business Information
*The financial, organizational, and market baseline: structure, revenue streams, growth levers, channels.*
- **Frameworks:** Business Model Canvas (how the whole machine fits together); revenue stream
breakdown; sales channel profiling (direct vs. OEM vs. VAR vs. platform).
- **Run:** [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) per deep-dive competitor — its eleven-section
output (financials, offers, org signals) is this step's artifact; FININT sources per
`intelligence-collection-disciplines` do the heavy lifting.
- **Watch for:** press-release accounting. Filings and earnings calls outrank announcements —
companies lie less where lying is a felony.
### Step 5: Perception and Relative Positioning
*How buyers perceive you versus them — in promise, emotion, and mental association, not capability.*
- **Frameworks:** Ries & Trout positioning theory (the battle is for the buyer's mind); perceptual
mapping (price vs. value-perception plots; find the uncontested space); Blue Ocean strategy canvas.
- **Run:** contrast their *stated* positioning (Step 2 snapshots) against *customer language* (Step 3
review mining); draft or revise with [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md).
- **Watch for:** the promise-delivery gap — where a competitor's marketing writes checks their reviews
say they don't cash. That gap is a positioning counter-move waiting to be claimed.
### Step 6: Competitors' Strategic Direction
*Where they're going, not where they are — the step that lets you preempt instead of react.*
- **Frameworks:** Hamel & Prahalad's strategic intent (read the ambition behind the moves); the
Innovation Ambition Matrix (core/adjacent/transformational mix of their bets).
- **Run:** the forward-looking disciplines in
[`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) — TECHINT
(patent clusters, trademark filings, preprints), HUMINT (hiring surges, leadership moves), FININT
(earnings language, M&A themes), MASINT (supply chain, facility buildout) — fused via the
confidence-stacking rule. [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) keeps
this step running on a cadence after the initial pass.
- **Watch for:** single-signal panic. One patent is exploration; a cluster plus a hiring surge plus a
subdomain cert is a committed bet. Stack before you brief.
### Step 7: Produce the Outputs
Close by building what the audience consumes — offer as a numbered menu:
1. **Battle cards** for the field — [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md)
2. **Executive comparison matrix** — from Step 2's snapshot
3. **Positioning counter-moves** — from Step 5's gap analysis
4. **Threat assessment brief** — Step 6's fused signals, with confidence levels and recommended responses
Then set the maintenance cadence: [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) on
the schedule the artifact mapping in `intelligence-collection-disciplines` prescribes (weekly SIGINT
layer for cards, quarterly deep passes for direction).
A copy/paste engagement tracker for all seven steps lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
## Examples
**Scoping to the decision (fictional):** the decision is deal defense against one rival in enterprise
deals. The right subset is Steps 2, 3, and 5 on that one competitor, straight into a battle card —
Steps 1, 4, and 6 add days, not win-rate. The orchestrator's value is *permission to skip*: "Based on
your decision, I recommend Steps 2→3→5 only. Run the full six?
1. Yes, deal defense scope (2, 3, 5 → battle card)
2. Add Step 6 — they've been acquiring lately and I want the direction read
3. Full six-step pass
4. Something else"
**Step 6 catching what Steps 1-5 missed:** the present-state read shows a competitor stable and
mid-pack. The direction pass finds a patent cluster in a new classification, four platform-engineer
postings, and an earnings call where the CFO declined to break out R&D — three disciplines, one story:
a platform pivot in progress. The threat assessment brief re-ranks them from "monitor" to "act," a
quarter before their announcement would have forced a reactive scramble.
See [`examples/sample.md`](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked engagement (fictional
FSM-software market) showing the orchestration decisions — scoping menu, recorded skips, and
step-to-step compounding — with links into the delegated skills' own worked artifacts.
[`examples/sample-industrial.md`](examples/sample-industrial.md) shows the umbrella bending —
steps merged, one run out of order, cadence slowed — with each call's reasoning stated.
## Common Pitfalls
- **Running all six on autopilot.** The steps are a menu, not a mandate. Scope to the decision or the
analysis ships after the decision got made without it.
- **Skipping Step 6.** Present-state analysis ages the moment it ships; direction analysis is what
buys you a quarter of lead time. Teams that skip it are perpetually surprised on launch day.
- **Framework name-dropping.** Citing Five Forces without rating the forces, or Kano without
classifying a single feature. A framework earns its mention by producing a judgment.
- **Analysis without outputs.** Six beautiful steps and no battle card, no matrix, no brief. Step 7
isn't optional — research is only done when it names the artifact it changes.
- **One-time heroics.** A grand annual analysis that's stale by month three. The process ends by
installing the watch cadence, or it didn't end — it just stopped.
## References
- [`market-landscape-scan`](../market-landscape-scan/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 1
- [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 2
- [`voice-of-customer-miner`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 3
- [`company-intel`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 4
- [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md) (Component) — Step 5
- [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 6 cadence + maintenance
- [`battle-card-builder`](../battle-card-builder/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — Step 7 output
- [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — signal channels throughout
- [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — evidence discipline throughout
- External frameworks: Porter, *How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy* (HBR, 1979); Kano, attractive
quality theory; Moore, *Crossing the Chasm* (Whole Product); Ulwick, Outcome-Driven Innovation;
Osterwalder & Pigneur, *Business Model Generation*; Ries & Trout, *Positioning*; Hamel & Prahalad,
*Competing for the Future* (HBR, 1994); Nagji & Tuff, *Managing Your Innovation Portfolio* (HBR, 2012)
- Adapted from Dean Peters' Competitive Analysis Playbook (Productside).
© 2026 Flowy · Free and open source
Built for Claude Code · Not affiliated with Anthropic
