Competitor Intel Brief

Competitor Intel Brief

Run a structured competitive teardown in 20 minutes.

Most competitive research is vague, slow, and useless in a meeting. "They're strong in content" is not intelligence. This skill runs a structured teardown — positioning, ICP, offer gaps, moat assessment using Helmer's 7 Powers, vulnerability mapping, and a direct attack brief. Every finding needs a specific signal. Output is pitch-deck ready without editing.

How This Works

You give me a competitor. I pull apart how they position, what they sell, where they're overextended, and exactly where you can exploit the gap. Each section is actionable by design — built for founders and marketers who need to make a decision, not just understand the landscape.

What you'll get:

1. Positioning Snapshot — ICP, message, and tone fingerprint
2. Offer & Pricing Analysis — what they sell, what the pricing signals, what's missing
3. Content & Channel Fingerprint — where they publish, what they own, what they avoid
4. Moat Assessment — Helmer's 7 Powers applied, with honest durability score
5. Vulnerability Map — 3 specific gaps with evidence and language to exploit each
6. Attack Brief — how to position, where to show up, what to say, what to do first

Time to complete: 20 minutes with a clear target.

Step 1 — Intake

Ask for all of this in a single message:

To run this competitive teardown, give me the following in one message:

1. **Competitor name** — the company or person you want analyzed
2. **Website URL** — homepage is enough to start; add pricing/about pages if you have them
3. **Your own positioning** — optional, but the output quality improves significantly. One sentence: who you serve, what you do, how you're different.
4. **What decision is this intel for?** — choose one or more:
   - Enter market (deciding whether/how to compete)
   - Differentiate (sharpen your positioning against them)
   - Pitch (competitive slide, investor question prep)
   - Pricing (benchmarking, anchoring, undercutting)
   - All of the above

Before running the analysis, fetch the competitor's website. Review the homepage, about page, and pricing page (if public). Pull direct quotes — verbatim language from their site is the foundation of the whole analysis.

If the URL is inaccessible or returns an error, note it and proceed with what can be inferred from the name + search results. Flag clearly where live data is missing.

Step 2 — Live Research Protocol

Before writing any output, do the following:

1. Fetch the homepage — capture their hero headline, subheadline, and primary CTA verbatim
2. Fetch the about page — capture how they describe their origin, mission, and team
3. Fetch the pricing page (if public) — capture tier names, prices, and included features
4. Run a web search for [competitor name] reviews, [competitor name] vs, and [competitor name] complaints — capture patterns, not just individual reviews
5. Run a web search for [competitor name] on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and any obvious content channels

Flag every data point with its source. Do not assert things you cannot verify from live data. If a section requires data you don't have, write: [DATA NEEDED: describe what's missing and how to get it]

Step 3 — Output

Deliver all six sections. Every claim needs a specific signal. No vague assertions.

SECTION 1: Positioning Snapshot

1a. How they describe themselves Quote their hero headline and subheadline verbatim. If their homepage has changed recently or is behind a login, note it.

Verbatim hero copy:
"[Headline]"
"[Subheadline]"
Source: [URL, accessed date]

1b. Actual ICP vs. Implied ICP

• Implied ICP (who they say they're for): The audience stated in their marketing copy
• Actual ICP (who they're optimized for): The audience their pricing, case studies, testimonials, and product features are actually built for

These are often different. A company that says "for teams of all sizes" but prices at $500/month minimum has an actual ICP of mid-market and above. Call the gap explicitly.

1c. Primary message and what it's optimized for State the core message in one sentence. Then identify what it's built for:

• Acquisition — designed to convert new buyers who don't know them yet
• Retention — designed to reinforce value with existing customers
• Trust-building — designed to reduce skepticism before conversion
• Category creation — designed to establish a new way of thinking about the problem

1d. Tone fingerprint Five words that describe how they communicate. Pull these from actual copy — not from what they claim to be, but how the writing actually reads.

Example format:

Tone fingerprint: [word], [word], [word], [word], [word]
Evidence: "[verbatim quote that demonstrates this]"

SECTION 2: Offer & Pricing Analysis

2a. What they sell and how it's packaged Map their offer structure:

• Product/service names
• Tier structure (if tiered) — starter / growth / enterprise or equivalent
• Bundles or add-ons
• Any services wrapped around the core product
• Free trial / freemium / demo model (yes/no, structure)

If pricing is hidden ("contact us"), note it. Hidden pricing is a strategic signal — usually enterprise-only, usually high ACV.

2b. What the pricing structure signals about their customer Pricing is positioning. Analyze what the price points reveal:

• Under $50/mo → self-serve, price-sensitive, high volume
• $100–500/mo → SMB, some hand-holding, features-led
• $500–2K/mo → mid-market, relationship expected, outcomes over features
• $2K+/mo or custom → enterprise, ROI-justified, long sales cycles

Don't just state the price; interpret it. "Their $299/month entry tier with no annual discount signals they're targeting buyers who prioritize flexibility over commitment — likely agencies or project-based buyers, not growing SaaS teams."

2c. What's conspicuously absent from their offer This is the gap analysis. Look for:

• Audience segments not served (the excluded customer)
• Price points with nothing available (the missing tier)
• Features or outcomes mentioned in reviews but not in the product
• Services competitors provide that this company doesn't
• Integrations, compliance, or use cases conspicuously unaddressed

Format:

Gap: [specific description]
Signal: [what they said, showed, or priced that reveals this gap]

SECTION 3: Content & Channel Fingerprint

3a. Where they publish and how often List every content channel identified:

• Blog / Resource center (post frequency if detectable)
• Email newsletter (yes/no, frequency, any observable topics)
• LinkedIn (follower count, post frequency, format preference)
• Twitter/X (presence, engagement level)
• YouTube / podcast (yes/no, frequency, topic focus)
• Community or forum (Discord, Slack, etc.)
• Paid media signals (if any)

Be specific about frequency. "They post daily on LinkedIn" is more useful than "they're active on LinkedIn."

3b. Topics they consistently own The 3–5 topics that appear repeatedly across their content. These are their content moats — the areas where they've built enough depth that they rank, get cited, and are associated with those terms.

For each topic:

Topic: [description]
Evidence: [where/how often it appears — blog, posts, talks, case studies]
SEO/AEO signal: [do they rank for it? Do they appear in AI search results for it?]

3c. Topics they avoid or handle poorly Content gaps are market gaps. Look for:

• Pain points their customers mention in reviews that don't appear in their content
• Questions their audience would logically have that they never address
• Adjacent topics they're positioned to own but don't publish on
• Topics where their content is thin, old, or generic

For each gap:

Gap: [topic description]
Why it matters: [why their audience needs this content]
Opportunity: [how to own this gap against them]

3d. SEO/AEO presence Do they show up in AI-powered search for their core terms?

Search for: "best [their category]," "[their category] tools," "[primary pain point they solve]" in ChatGPT or Perplexity and note whether they appear.

AI Search Signal: [do they appear? In what context? What does the AI say about them?]
Implication: [what this means for competing with or against them in AI search]

If you can't run live AI searches, flag it: [DATA NEEDED: Run "[term]" in Perplexity/ChatGPT and add results here]

SECTION 4: Moat Assessment

Using Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers framework, assess which competitive advantages this company actually has — and which are weaker than they appear.

The 7 Powers:

For each power, assess:

• Have it: Yes — confirmed with evidence
• Weak version: Present but not durable
• Doesn't have it: No evidence; may look like it but isn't

Format:

[Power Name]
Assessment: [Have it / Weak version / Doesn't have it]
Evidence: [specific signal — a feature, pricing decision, public statement, user behavior, or market fact]

After all 7:

Overall Moat Durability Score:

• Fragile — 0–1 real powers. Mostly features, not moats. Copyable in 12–24 months.
• Moderate — 2–3 real powers. Some durability, but not structurally protected. Winnable with the right approach.
• Strong — 4+ real powers, or 1–2 deep structural advantages. Hard to displace without a fundamentally different model.

Reasoning (2–4 sentences): Explain the score. What's protecting them long-term? What's their biggest structural vulnerability?

SECTION 5: Vulnerability Map

Three specific places their positioning leaves room for a competitor. Not vague weaknesses — specific exploitable gaps.

For each of the three:

Vulnerability [1/2/3]:

The gap: One specific, concrete description of what they're leaving uncovered. Not "they're weak on customer support" — instead: "They don't serve sub-10-person teams: their pricing starts at $199/month and their onboarding assumes a dedicated ops person, which most small teams don't have."

The signal: The specific thing they said, avoided, or priced that confirms this gap exists:

• A verbatim quote that over-specifies their ICP
• A pricing tier that leaves a segment unserved
• A review complaint that appears more than 3 times
• A content topic they conspicuously avoid
• A feature request they've ignored publicly

Signal: "[specific quote or data point]"
Source: [where this came from]

The language to exploit it: The exact positioning language you'd use. Not strategy — words. What you'd put in your headline, your landing page hero, or your sales pitch.

Exploit language: "[specific copy that names the gap and claims ownership]"

SECTION 6: Attack Brief

If you were launching against this competitor tomorrow. This section is a decision brief, not a brainstorm.

Positioning: How you'd describe yourself in direct contrast to them. Not just "the better version" — a specific claim they can't make back.

Positioning statement: "[one sentence — audience + differentiated outcome + why you, not them]"
Why they can't say this: [one sentence explaining the structural reason they're unable to claim this position]

Channel: Where you'd show up first and why. Be specific — not "social media" but "LinkedIn, posting daily with short-form breakdowns of problems their customers complain about in reviews, targeting their audience by job title in paid."

Primary channel: [specific platform/format]
Rationale: [why this channel, why now, why against this competitor specifically]
Expected time to signal: [realistic estimate of when you'd see response — days/weeks/months]

Message: The one thing you'd say that they can't say back. This is the asymmetric claim — something true about you that's false for them.

Core message: "[one sentence]"
Why it's asymmetric: [what about their positioning, history, or business model prevents them from claiming this]

First action: The specific move in the next 30 days. Not "build awareness" — the actual action with a deadline.

First action: [specific, time-bound, measurable action]
Success signal: [how you'd know it's working in 30 days]

Step 4 — Close

After delivering all six sections, end with this framing:

That's your full competitive teardown on [competitor name].

What's next?

A) Go deeper on any section — tell me which one and what question you need answered
B) Run the same analysis on a second competitor
C) Build a side-by-side comparison table (useful for pitch decks or strategy docs)
D) Done — you have what you need

Which one?

If They Choose C — Side-by-Side Comparison Table

Build a comparison table suitable for a pitch deck or strategy doc. Format:

Include a 2-sentence "so what" under the table: what the comparison reveals, and what it means for the decision the user described in intake.

Guardrails (Always Active)

Evidence mandate: Every claim needs a specific signal. "They're strong in content marketing" is not an output from this skill. "They publish 3x/week on LinkedIn and rank #2 for 'project management for agencies' according to their blog post dates and Google snippet" is an output.

No fabrication: If you don't have data for a section, write [DATA NEEDED] with specific instructions for how to get it. Never invent signals. The entire value of this analysis is that it's grounded in real information.

Pitch-deck ready: Every section should be usable as a slide or section in a competitive analysis doc without editing. Use precise, direct language. No hedging ("might," "could potentially," "it seems").

Flag the unknown: If the competitor is small, private, or has limited online presence, say so upfront. Adjust section depth accordingly — a small competitor with 3 employees doesn't have a process moat.

Specificity over comprehensiveness: A single deeply specific insight is more valuable than five vague observations. When in doubt, go deeper on the signal you have.

Research Sources

Use these in order of reliability:

1. Live website fetch — homepage, about, pricing (most reliable — primary source)
2. G2 / Capterra / Trustpilot reviews — customer signals, complaint patterns
3. LinkedIn company page — team size, growth signals, job postings (shows where they're investing)
4. Job postings — reveals strategic priorities and gaps
5. Podcast/interview appearances — unguarded positioning language
6. Twitter/X — real-time positioning and engagement signals
7. Crunchbase / PitchBook — funding, investors, growth stage
8. Web search — news, press coverage, partnerships

Compatibility

Version 1.0.0 — Competitor Intel Brief Part of the AI Marketing Skills library by Brian Wagner Premium skill — available on Claw Mart github.com/BrianRWagner/ai-marketing-skills