/prd-v02-competitive-landscape-mapping

name: prd-v02-competitive-landscape-mapping
description: >
  Map the competitive landscape before positioning your product for PRD v0.2 Market Definition.
  Triggers on completing v0.1 Spark, analyzing competitors, researching market, or requests like
  "competitive analysis", "who else solves this", "market landscape", "what alternatives exist",
  "competitor research", "feature comparison". Outputs CFD- entries for competitive intelligence
  and BR- entries for positioning rules.
context: fork
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Glob
  - Grep
  - WebSearch
  - WebFetch

Competitive Landscape Mapping

Understand market reality before defining your position.

Workflow Position

v0.1 Spark (Problem + Value) → Competitive Landscape Mapping → Product Type Classification
       (what hurts)                 (who else solves it)           (how we compete)

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.1:

• **CFD-\* entries (problem statements, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what users need/want
• **CFD-\* entries (value hypotheses, from User Value Articulation) — Desired outcomes users are seeking
• **PRD.md Why section** — Problem framing and market signals

This skill assumes v0.1 Spark is complete (both problem and value).

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• **CFD-\* entries** (competitive intelligence) — Analysis of direct competitors, adjacent solutions, workarounds
• **BR-\* entries** (positioning rules) — Constraints derived from landscape analysis
• **Landscape map artifact** — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, 1% better hypothesis

All CFD competitive intelligence entries should include:

• `confidence: 2-3/5` (based on evidence tier from public sources + user validation)
• Evidence source (G2 reviews, pricing pages, user interviews, etc.)
• Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate gap with 5+ target users"

Example competitive intelligence entry:

CFD-042: Competitive Intelligence — Competitor Landscape Analysis

Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: 2026-02-01
Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 3-customer-interviews)
Competitors Analyzed: 4 direct + 2 adjacent
Primary Gap: All competitors require enterprise licensing; SMB segment underserved

Feature Matrix: [Link to matrix]
1% Hypothesis: "SMB sales teams can get 80% of [Competitor A] features for 40% of price"
Evidence:
  - CFD-001: 3 SMB teams paying $500/mo but using only 5 of 20 features
  - CFD-015: Value hypothesis shows $12,500/year need for core 5 features only
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5+ SMB prospects willing to pay $200/mo"

Workflow Overview

1. **Document current behavior** → What users do TODAY (before competitor search) 2. **Discover alternatives** → Direct, adjacent, workarounds, "do nothing" 3. **Analyze gaps** → Industry/geography gaps, underserved segments 4. **Compare features** → Build comparison matrix 5. **Form hypothesis** → 1% better hypothesis with evidence

Core Output Template

| Element | Definition | Evidence | |---------|------------|----------| | **Current Behavior** | How users solve this today | Observed workflow | | **Direct Competitors** | Products solving same problem | Revenue/funding proof | | **Adjacent Solutions** | Products solving related problems | User overlap | | **Workarounds** | DIY solutions (spreadsheets, manual) | Forum/reddit mentions | | **Feature Matrix** | Side-by-side capability comparison | Product documentation | | **Gap Analysis** | Where competition is weak | Reviews, complaints | | **1% Hypothesis** | How we win | Evidence-anchored |

See `assets/landscape.md` for copy-paste template.

Step 1: Document Current Behavior

**Before searching competitors**, document what target users do TODAY.

Capture Format

Current Behavior: [What they do]
Tools Used: [Existing tools, if any]
Time Investment: [Hours/week on workaround]
Pain Points: [From v0.1 CFD-IDs]

Why First?

• Prevents solution bias from competitor features
• Reveals workarounds competitors might miss
• Establishes true baseline for improvement claims

Step 2: Competitor Discovery

Discovery Categories

| Category | Definition | Search Strategy | |----------|------------|-----------------| | **Direct** | Same problem, same segment | "[problem] software" | | **Adjacent** | Related problem, potential pivot | "[related workflow] tool" | | **Workarounds** | DIY solutions | Reddit: "how I [task]" | | **Do Nothing** | Accept status quo | Why hasn't this been solved? |

Minimum Discovery Checklist

• [ ] 3+ direct competitors (or document why fewer exist)
• [ ] 2+ adjacent solutions
• [ ] 1+ workaround documented
• [ ] "Do nothing" cost quantified

Create CFD Entry Per Competitor

CFD-###: Competitor — [Name]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Source: [Website, G2, Crunchbase]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Overview: [1-2 sentences]
Target Segment: [Who they serve]
Pricing: [Model and range]
Revenue/Funding: [If available]
Key Differentiator: [Their claim]
Weakness Signals: [Reviews, complaints]

Step 3: Gap Analysis

Industry/Geography Gap Table

| Industry | Competitors Serving | Gap Level | |----------|--------------------:|-----------| | [Industry 1] | X of Y | None / Small / Large | | [Industry 2] | X of Y | None / Small / Large |

Segment Gap Table

| Segment | Served By | Underserved Signal | |---------|-----------|-------------------| | Enterprise | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] | | Mid-Market | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] | | SMB | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] | | Prosumer | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |

Underserved Signals

• Tier 1: Users paying but complaining (G2 reviews)
• Tier 2: Users building workarounds (Reddit, forums)
• Tier 3: Users asking for solutions (community posts)
• Tier 4: No apparent demand (caution)

Step 4: Feature Comparison Matrix

Build side-by-side comparison:

| Feature | Us (Planned) | Competit