Competitive Analysis

Pack Availability Guard

Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check .agents/project.json.enabled_packs. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend $pack install <pack> instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.

Competitive Analysis — Market Landscape Research

Report-First Approval Gate

Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.

Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.

When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. Do not include Recommended next skill, Recommended next command, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.

Conduct deep web-based research to compile a comprehensive competitive landscape for the project. Uses web search to identify competitors, evaluate their maturity, analyse their go-to-market strategies, and surface market gaps.

Default stance: assume the user has no insider knowledge of the market. Present the landscape, category terms, and recommendations from first principles so the analysis stands on its own. Ask for corrections, hard constraints, or proprietary facts, not intuition.

Prerequisites

Detect mode before proceeding:

• Concept-validation mode activates when: no research/icp.md AND (no meaningful codebase OR $ARGUMENTS contains "concept"/"validate"). Use this mode to validate market gaps after a concept has been shaped by $idea-scope-brief or an equivalent brief; if no concept is clear, recommend $idea-scope-brief first. Announce mode to user, then ask for concept description (problem, audience, approach).
• Standard mode (default): Read the codebase, README, CLAUDE.md, and existing research/specs (research/icp.md or research/{app}/icp.md, research/enterprise-icp.md or research/{app}/enterprise-icp.md, research/mvp-gap.md or research/{app}/mvp-gap.md) to understand the product.

Process

0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)

Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:

1. If $ARGUMENTS specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of research/, use it.
2. If research/ contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically.
3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).

When app scope {app} is active:

• Read/write research from research/{app}/ instead of research/
• Read/write specs from specs/{app}/ instead of specs/
• Also read research/icp.md (cross-app overview) for broader context

1. Establish Product Context

Standard mode: Read CLAUDE.md, README, package config, key source files. Read research/icp.md (or research/{app}/icp.md) if it exists — the ICP defines the competitive frame. Read research/enterprise-icp.md (or research/{app}/enterprise-icp.md) and research/mvp-gap.md (or research/{app}/mvp-gap.md) if they exist. Summarise what the product does, who it's for, and what problem it solves.

Concept-validation mode: Use research/concept-brief.md when present, otherwise use the concept description from Prerequisites. Summarise what the concept proposes (problem, audience, approach). Confirm with the user before researching.

2. Identify Competitors

Use web search extensively across: direct competitors, indirect competitors, incumbents, emerging players, DIY alternatives.

Checkpoint 1 — Present competitor list to user. Show all identified competitors grouped by category. For each competitor, include a one-line description and why it's in that category, citing the search source. Ask: "Are there competitors I missed? Any incorrectly categorised?" Incorporate feedback.

3. Research Each Competitor

For each: Company & Product (features, funding, pricing), Maturity & Traction (stage, user signals, integrations), GTM Strategy (acquisition, pricing, content, community), Strengths (user praise, moat), Weaknesses (complaints, gaps, vulnerabilities).

4. Identify Market Gaps

Synthesise: underserved segments, feature gaps, pricing gaps, UX gaps, integration gaps, geographic/vertical gaps, technology gaps.

4a. Gap Assessment (concept-validation mode only)

Synthesise market gaps into: Market State (Virgin/Sparse/Crowded), Incumbent Quality (Dominant-and-loved / Dominant-but-resented / Fragmented-and-mediocre / Emerging-and-unproven), Gap Quality (Clear unmet need / Underserved segment / UX/approach gap / Minor improvement / No meaningful gap), Verdict (Proceed to ICP / Pivot concept / Abandon). If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text before continuing.

5. Analyse Positioning Opportunities

Standard mode: Where we fit, differentiation angles, competitor lessons, GTM strategy fit, 2-3 angles we could own.

Concept-validation mode: Frame as hypothetical — "if you built this": where it would fit, differentiation angles, competitor lessons, GTM fit.

6. Present Findings & Validate

Checkpoint 2 — Present full analysis before writing. Show: landscape summary, key competitors, market gaps, recommended positioning, GTM insights. Ask: "Which gaps, positioning claims, or assumptions need stronger evidence? Any product-specific constraints or facts I should factor in?" Continue until all details are nailed down.

7. Write Output

Only after user validates, write the output files.

Deliverables

• research/competitive-analysis.md (or research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md) — Full competitive landscape: summary, competitor profiles, GTM analysis, market gaps, positioning recommendations, next steps. In concept-validation mode, includes ## Gap Assessment section (Market State, Incumbent Quality, Gap Quality, Verdict).
• research/competitive-analysis-search-log.md (or research/{app}/competitive-analysis-search-log.md) — Raw research log: every query, findings, source attribution, reasoning

Standard mode next steps: ## Next Steps section with a Recommended item and Other options (2–4 alternatives). Choose the recommended item by the first matching condition:

1. IF no research/journey-map.md: check .agents/project.json.enabled_packs for customer-lifecycle — if not enabled, $pack install customer-lifecycle; if enabled, $journey-map — map the customer and user journey before solution-value decisions, using competitive gaps as inspiration
2. IF no research/value-prop.md: $value-prop-canvas — validate solution-customer fit using journey-placed competitive gaps to sharpen the value map
3. IF no specs/ directory or it's empty: $spec-interview [top journey-backed market gap or positioning opportunity] — spec the strongest opportunity after journey context exists
4. IF no research/gtm.md: $gtm — build go-to-market plan leveraging competitive gaps
5. IF codebase exists and no research/mvp-gap.md: $mvp-gap — check if the codebase exploits the gaps found

Use this format in the output:

Next Steps

Recommended: [first matching command above] — [reason grounded in this analysis]

Other options:

• $value-prop-canvas — validate solution-customer fit before positioning decisions (if no research/value-prop.md and not recommended)
• $journey-map — map the customer journey to find where competitors fall short (if no research/journey-map.md and not recommended; check .agents/project.json.enabled_packs for customer-lifecycle — if not enabled, recommend $pack install customer-lifecycle instead)
• $spec-interview [riskiest competitive assumption or top journey-backed market gap] — validate the most important unresolved competitive assumption with a targeted interview (if not recommended and journey context exists)
• $gtm — build go-to-market plan leveraging competitive gaps (if no research/gtm.md and not recommended)
• $mvp-gap — check if the codebase exploits the gaps found (if codebase exists, no research/mvp-gap.md exists, and not recommended)
• $brainstorm — generate alternative solution ideas (only if the analysis found multiple plausible market gaps and product direction is still unclear)

Only include items whose conditions are met. Do not recommend brainstorm just because competitive whitespace exists. Any $spec-interview recommendation must include a concrete target from the analysis, not a bare command. Use the top market gap, riskiest competitive assumption, or strongest positioning opportunity as the bracketed topic.

Concept-validation mode next steps: Use the same Recommended + Other options format, but choose the recommendation from the validated ## Gap Assessment verdict:

Next Steps

Recommended: [verdict-based next step] — [reason grounded in the gap assessment]

Other options:

• IF verdict is Proceed to ICP: recommend $icp — the competitive gap is validated; define who to build for
• IF verdict is Pivot concept: recommend $brainstorm — the market has a gap, but this concept needs a different angle before ICP work is useful
• IF verdict is Abandon: recommend No follow-up skill recommended — the analysis did not find a meaningful gap worth pursuing; include $brainstorm only if the user wants to explore a new concept
• $competitive-analysis — re-run in standard mode after ICP is defined (only after a proceed verdict and after $icp creates research/icp.md)

Task Classification

When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:

• Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in tasks/todo.md.
• Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in tasks/manual-todo.md with _(blocks: Step N.X)_ or _(after: Step N.X)_; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in tasks/todo.md.
• One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in tasks/record-todo.md with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
• Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in tasks/recurring-todo.md with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
• Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in tasks/todo.md unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.

Constraints

• Use web search extensively — every competitor must come from a search result.
• Cite sources for competitor facts.
• Be honest about uncertainty.
• Stay in analysis mode — no product changes or architecture.
• Focus on actionable insights over raw lists.
• Do not overwrite existing research/competitive-analysis.md (or research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md) without asking.
• Prefer recent sources (last 12 months).
• Search breadth over depth initially.
• Present before writing — never write until findings are validated.
• ## Next Steps must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other options.

Alignment Page

When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at alignment/competitive-analysis-{topic}.html. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.

Full content requirement. The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item. It is a thorough interactive review document, not a summary. Render the full deliverable content in clean, readable HTML with appropriate hierarchy, styling, and navigation. If the skill writes multiple scoped deliverables in one run, build one alignment page that contains all deliverables with anchor-linked navigation. Durable tracker artifacts, such as research/assumption-tracker.md, remain canonical markdown outputs but must also be fully rendered into the alignment page before approval.

Dark-mode styling. Use a dark color scheme by default. Base CSS variables: --bg: #0d1117; --surface: #161b22; --border: #30363d; --text: #c9d1d9; --text-muted: #8b949e; --accent: #58a6ff; --green: #3fb950; --red: #f85149; --orange: #d29922; --purple: #bc8cff;. Apply background: var(--bg); color: var(--text); on body. Use --surface for cards, nav, and table headers. Use --border for all borders. Use --purple for question blocks and gate headings. Use --accent for links and section headings. Keep headings color: #fff or var(--accent) for hierarchy. Question block backgrounds should use #1c2333.

Alignment gates. Treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization until its required inline questions are answered and compiled into YAML. Include every gate that applies to the skill output, and include these gate types whenever relevant: evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, scope/non-goals, candidate/verdict decisions, artifact destination, proposed file changes, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route.

Report-only research gates. For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the alignment page must explicitly contain evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before any canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.

Discovery-specific gates. Render evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, artifact destination, proposed file changes, approval, and post-approval route as gates before creating or updating canonical discovery artifacts.

Required inline questions. Each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section.

Gate YAML contract. At the bottom of the page, include a "Compile Answers" button that aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with one item per gate answer using this stable shape: section, gate_type, status (answered, other, or needs-clarification), answer, optional notes, and optional target_artifact or target_path when the gate controls file output. Display the YAML in a read-only, click-to-copy textarea.

Pre-approval stop. Before user approval, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide the compiled YAML answers. Do not include Recommended next skill, Recommended next command, or downstream routing language until after compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.

Diff highlighting on updates. When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving compiled answers, highlight what changed since the previous version. The agent chooses inline annotation or side-by-side layout per situation.

Archiving. Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/competitive-analysis-{topic}.html.

Browser open. Attempt to open the resulting HTML page in the browser and report whether the open succeeded or was blocked. A blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail when the files were written correctly.

Archive-First Replacement Policy

• Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (research/**/*.md, specs/**/*.md, or docs/specifications/**/*.md), copy the current file to docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>.
• Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
• After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
• Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
• New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
• Keep any existing user approval requirement before overwriting or replacing a document; archiving does not replace asking when the skill already requires approval.

Default Shipping Contract

• Default next-step routing: when reporting completion, include either Recommended next skill: <command> or the two-line pair **Next work:** <specific task or "none"> and **Recommended next command:** <one command or route> so the next operator has a concrete handoff.
• If this skill creates or modifies tracked repository files, finish by committing and pushing all intended changes to the repository primary branch (main when present, otherwise master) before stopping, even if the user did not explicitly ask for commit/push.
• Do not leave tracked changes or unpushed commits behind. If unrelated tracked work is already present, either include it in sensible commits too or stop and explain the blocker.
• This contract does not override stricter safety rules about secrets, destructive history changes, release publication/tag confirmation, or production deploy confirmation.