/pm-competitive

name: pm-competitive
description: Готовит многомерный разбор конкурентов — feature-матрица, SWOT с cross-strategy, 5 сил Портера, сравнение ценообразования, позиционирование, прогноз стратегических ходов и три уровня дифференциации (догнать / отстроиться / создать новое). Адаптируется под цель (продуктовый дизайн / fundraising / стратегия / годовой обзор). User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-competitive, "конкурентный анализ", "разбор конкурентов", "five forces", "SWOT", "competitive analysis", "competitor comparison", "feature matrix vs competitors".

pm-competitive — Competitive analysis

Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents. Run a systematic multi-dimensional competitor study. Branches by analysis purpose. Includes information-credibility tagging, time-stamping of all findings, and explicit separation of fact vs inference.

Inputs

| Field | Required | Notes | |---|---|---| | Competitor list | yes | 2-5 names; > 5 → batch into rounds | | Our product | no | Used for differentiation positioning | | Purpose | no | Product design / fundraising deck / strategic planning / annual review; default product design | | Dimensions | no | Features / pricing / UX / tech / business model; default features + pricing |

Step 1 — Set purpose and depth

| Purpose | Emphasis | Output focus | Length | |---|---|---|---| | **Product design** | Features + UX | Feature matrix + differentiation list | 2-3 pages | | **Fundraising deck** | Market structure + moats | Landscape map + moat analysis | 1 page | | **Strategic planning** | Full depth | SWOT + 5-Forces + pricing + roadmap | 5-8 pages | | **Annual review** | Market share change + trends | YoY changes + trend judgment | 2-3 pages |

Step 2 — Information collection

Use user-supplied materials first (URLs, screenshots, pricing pages). Tag everything with credibility and timestamp.

**Credibility tiers:**

| Tier | Sources | Tagging | |---|---|---| | **High** | Official site, pricing page, official announcements | Quote directly | | **Medium** | Media coverage, user reviews, industry reports | Cite source | | **Low** | Rumors, speculation, outdated info | Mark `[unverified]` |

**Information-collection checklist:**

| Dimension | What to collect | Typical sources | |---|---|---| | Fundamentals | Founded, funding rounds, team size, user base | Official site, business databases | | Product | Core feature list, recent updates, roadmap | Official site, changelog, blog | | Pricing | Tiers, price ranges, free-tier limits | Pricing page | | Reputation | Praise, complaints, NPS | Review sites, app stores, social platforms | | Strategy | Target market, acquisition channels, partnerships | Press, social media |

**Always tag freshness** — e.g. "based on Q1 2026 public information" — and prompt user to verify currency.

Step 3 — Porter's Five Forces

Evaluate from industry-structure angle.

| Force | Dimension | Evaluation points | |---|---|---| | **Supplier power** | Upstream dependency | Concentration of key tech/talent/resources; switching cost | | **Buyer power** | Downstream customer leverage | Customer concentration; switching cost; price sensitivity | | **New-entrant threat** | Entry barriers | Tech / capital / brand / network effects / regulation | | **Substitute threat** | Alternative solutions | What's the user's current alternative? Substitute's value-for-money? | | **Industry rivalry** | Existing-player dynamics | Competitor count, concentration, differentiation, exit barriers |

Output: each force = strong / medium / weak + one-sentence rationale. Overall industry attractiveness = high / medium / low.

Step 4 — Multi-dimensional comparison

**Feature comparison matrix (core deliverable):**

| Module | Sub-feature | Us | Comp A | Comp B | Comp C | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | {module 1} | {sub 1} | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic | ❌ None | | | {sub 2} | ⚠️ Basic | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic |

Legend: ✅ Mature / ⚠️ Basic (exists but limited) / ❌ Missing / 🔜 Planned

**Positioning deep-dive:**

| Dimension | Method | Scoring | |---|---|---| | **Feature score** | 1-5 per module, weighted total | 5 = best-in-class, 3 = passing, 1 = barely present | | **UX comparison** | Steps in core flow, learning curve, completion efficiency | Compare clicks + time-to-complete | | **Tech architecture** | Patterns, stack, performance, openness | API openness, integration capability, extensibility |

**SWOT per competitor:**

| | Positive | Negative | |---|---|---| | **Internal** | Strengths (core advantages) | Weaknesses (clear gaps) | | **External** | Opportunities (exploitable) | Threats (must watch) |

Each quadrant: 2-3 items, each with factual support. Banned: vague claims like "strong team" or "advanced tech".

**SWOT cross-strategies:**

| Strategy | Meaning | Direction | |---|---|---| | **SO** | Strengths × Opportunities | Use strengths to grab market window | | **WO** | Weaknesses × Opportunities | Fill gaps to capture new opportunities | | **ST** | Strengths × Threats | Use moats to defend against attacks | | **WT** | Weaknesses × Threats | Most urgent defensive priorities |

**Pricing comparison (if pricing dimension included):**

| Item | Us | A | B | C | |---|---|---|---|---| | Free-tier scope | {} | {} | {} | {} | | Entry-tier monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} | | Enterprise monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} | | Billing model | {per-seat / usage / feature-tier} | | | | | Core differentiator | {pricing strategy reading} | | | |

**Pricing-strategy types:**

• **Penetration:** low price for share (look for generous free tier)
• **Skimming:** high price, premium positioning (look for many gated advanced features)
• **Freemium:** core free, advanced paid (look at the gap between free and paid)

Step 5 — Positioning quadrant

Pick two most-discriminating dimensions (e.g. "feature depth vs ease of use", or "price vs feature breadth") and place all products into a 2×2:

| Quadran