# Swot > SWOT competitive analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in market evidence - Skill: `georgeqle/swot-4` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add georgeqle/swot-4` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/georgeqle/swot-4/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: GeorgeQLe (https://skillmd.com/u/georgeqle) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/georgeqle/swot-4 --- ## 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 `$pack install ` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install ` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack. # SWOT - Competitive Evidence Analysis Invoke from the parent queue as `$competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot`. This is a framework subskill for `$competitive-analysis`. It translates product, customer, and competitor evidence into a SWOT matrix for parent synthesis. It must not emit downstream next-step routing. ## Report-First Approval Gate Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings. After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files. 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. ## Staged Research Workflow Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files. 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. 2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary--research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary--research.md`. Replace `` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2. 3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved. Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them. ## Prerequisites - **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop. - **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and source files that reveal product capability. ## Product-Path Scope Resolution Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`. ## Process 1. Load product/customer context and seeded competitors. 2. Use web search and repo evidence to identify competitor strengths, weaknesses, unmet opportunities, and threats. 3. Separate internal-ish product evidence from external market evidence: - strengths and weaknesses must be grounded in actual product/repo/research capability, not aspiration - opportunities and threats must be grounded in competitor, market, customer, or trend evidence 4. Score each SWOT item by evidence strength and strategic relevance. 5. Identify contradictions or uncertain assumptions for parent synthesis. 6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections. ## Output ### `research/competitive-analysis-swot.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-swot.md`) ```markdown # SWOT Competitive Analysis > Based on: [parent context, sources] > Date: [current date] > Methodology: SWOT ## SWOT Matrix | Quadrant | Item | Evidence | Confidence | Synthesis Implication | |----------|------|----------|------------|-----------------------| | Strength | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] | | Weakness | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] | | Opportunity | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] | | Threat | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] | ## Strategic Tensions [Where strengths meet threats, weaknesses block opportunities, or evidence conflicts] ## Evidence Matrix | Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence | |-------|--------|---------------|------------| ``` ## Constraints - Do not invent strengths from product aspirations; cite repo/research evidence. - Do not turn SWOT into positioning or feature recommendations. - This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`. ## Alignment Page When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/swot-{topic}.html`. ## Default Shipping Contract Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.