daddia Map Competitive Landscape
When to use
CI and product strategy practitioners grouping competitors by strategic logic — cost structure, segment, channel, model — not surface product labels.
What this skill does not do
- Does not forecast responses — route to
/market-intelligence:forecast-competitive-response. - Does not test positioning — route to
/market-intelligence:test-positioning. - Does not invent market share data — tag figures
[verify]or omit.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Market definition (practice profile or user) | Ask; do not assume category from product name alone |
| Named competitors or candidate set | Ask user to name players; flag [review] if list may be incomplete |
| Practice profile | Proceed from user input; label assumptions |
Provisional mode
Thin competitor list: output groups with explicit UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: unknown — competitor set incomplete flag; do not present white space as validated.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
structured-aggregation):- High: MECE groups, mobility barriers rated with evidence, white space hypothesis stated with structural rationale.
- Medium: Groups solid, some barrier ratings
[review], under-the-radar scan attempted. - Low: Incomplete competitor set or category-only grouping — scaffold only.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces groups and threats; does not recommend which position to take.
- Client confidentiality: Competitor intelligence sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header per plugin
CLAUDE.md. - Accountability gap: White space labeled attractive vs. structurally unattractive — strategist validates.
- Analytical Rigor: Groups MECE by strategic logic; mobility barriers falsifiable.
- Incentive Gaming: N/A for this shape.
- Escalation triggers: User insists on category-only grouping — explain failure mode, proceed only if acknowledged.
Assumption audit
Before grouping, audit assumptions that would invalidate the map:
| Assumption | Status | If wrong, what breaks |
|---|---|---|
| Market boundary definition | [confirmed / user-stated / assumed] | Wrong competitors included or excluded |
| Competitor set completeness | [complete / partial / unknown] | White space is artefact of missing players |
| Mobility barrier ratings | [evidence-backed / judgment / unknown] | False sense of defensibility |
| Share or size figures used | [sourced / omitted / verify] | Attractive segments mis-sized |
List audited assumptions in the output header when any row is assumed or unknown.
Red flags
Non-negotiable — do not deliver High confidence without passing every check:
- MUST NOT group by product category labels alone when strategic logic (cost structure, segment, channel, model) is available — category grouping causes false white-space signals.
- Do not proceed to white-space recommendations if the competitor set is incomplete — incomplete sets tend to cause phantom gaps.
- Hard stop: presenting market size or share without
[verify]or a named source — invented share data causes bad entry bets. - MUST NOT rate mobility barriers "high" from inertia alone — inertia is not a structural barrier and causes overconfidence in moats.
Outside-view step
After step 4 (white space), compare the proposed map to a reference class of markets with similar structure (number of strategic groups, typical barrier height, consolidation pattern):
- Name the reference class (e.g. "B2B SaaS workflow tools, 3–5 strategic groups, winner-take-most in enterprise").
- State whether this market's group count and barrier pattern matches or diverges — divergence needs explicit rationale.
- If white space looks attractive vs. the reference class, ask: did peers also see this gap and fail to capture it? Absence of entrants may mean structural unattractiveness, not opportunity.
Always sanity-check white space against peer-market reference classes because unseen gaps in one map often reflect missing competitors rather than genuine opportunity — incomplete scans tend to cause false white-space calls.
Workflow
Before step 1: Read and apply ../../references/trust-conventions.md — source-tagging, [verify] on model-only numbers, load-bearing assumptions at top, numbers provenance, confidence labeling, and board-ready gate.
- Read the practice profile —
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/org-profile.mdand~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md— for market definition and known competitor set. - Group competitors into strategic groups by cost structure, target segment, channel, business model — not product category labels.
- Identify mobility barriers between groups — capital, channel, brand, regulatory; rate realistically (inertia ≠ high barrier).
- Identify white space — ask: unoccupied because unseen or structurally unattractive? State which explanation is more likely.
- Flag under-the-radar competitor — adjacent group player with low mobility barrier into your space.
- Completeness check before output: every named competitor placed; market figures source-tagged.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
STRATEGIC GROUP: [name — defined by cost structure/segment/channel/model]
Members: [...]
[repeat per group]
MOBILITY BARRIERS:
[Group A] → [Group B]: [barrier, realistic rating: high/medium/low]
WHITE SPACE: [position] — Unoccupied because: [nobody's spotted it / structurally
unattractive — explain which]
UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: [player, group, low-barrier path into your space, even if not
currently visible as a competitor]
Worked example
Input: Workflow automation market. User names Incumbent A (enterprise suite), Challenger B (mid-market SaaS), Adjacent C (RPA vendor expanding).
Expected output (excerpt):
CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
STRATEGIC GROUP: Enterprise integrated suite
Members: Incumbent A
STRATEGIC GROUP: Mid-market point solution
Members: Challenger B
MOBILITY BARRIERS:
Mid-market → Enterprise: high (implementation services, brand trust)
WHITE SPACE: Vertical-specific compliance workflows — Unoccupied because: structurally unattractive (small TAM per vertical) [verify]
UNDER-THE-RADAR THREAT: Adjacent C — RPA/automation group — low-barrier path via workflow module launch into mid-market [review]
Quality checks before delivering
- Groups defined by strategic logic, not category labels only
- Every named competitor placed in a group
- White space includes structural attractiveness assessment
- Under-the-radar threat explicitly named or gap flagged
- Market figures source-tagged or omitted
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: forecast-competitive-response, test-positioning, or map-incentives on key players.