Mohit Aggarwal Competitor Teardown Skill
This skill produces a complete competitive analysis document — structured for use in strategy decks, investor materials, sales enablement, or product planning sessions.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Your product (name + one-line description)
- Competitors to analyse (list 2–5 names; if not provided, ask)
- Analysis depth (quick overview / detailed teardown)
- Primary use case for this analysis (e.g. sales enablement, investor deck, internal strategy, product planning)
Deeper Materials
references/intel-sourcing-guide.md— where competitive facts come from (four source tiers), which source to use per teardown section, the [verified]/[reported]/[assumed] confidence labels, and the ethics line. Apply its labelling to every substantive claim in the output.templates/teardown-skeleton.md— a fill-in teardown with the confidence labels and a verification queue built in. Offer it when the user wants to gather the intel themselves.
Output Structure
1. Competitive Landscape Overview
One paragraph summarising the market dynamic: who the key players are, how the market is segmented, and where the white space sits. Keep this under 150 words — it's the exec summary.
2. Positioning Map
Describe a 2x2 positioning map in text form (since you can't render images):
- Define the two axes relevant to this market (e.g. "Ease of Use vs. Depth of Features" or "Price vs. Enterprise Readiness")
- Place each competitor in one quadrant with a one-sentence rationale
- Place the user's product and highlight the strategic implication
3. Feature Comparison Table
| Feature / Capability | [Your Product] | [Competitor A] | [Competitor B] | [Competitor C] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | ✅ / ❌ / 🟡 Partial |
Use ✅ (has it), ❌ (doesn't have it), 🟡 (partial/limited). Add a "Strategic Notes" column for features where the difference is a significant selling point or risk.
Include 10–15 rows. If user hasn't provided feature details, note which cells need to be verified.
4. Messaging Analysis
For each competitor, analyse their public-facing messaging (website headline, tagline, primary value prop):
[Competitor Name]
- Their primary claim: [what they say they do]
- Target audience signal: [who they seem to be targeting based on language/imagery]
- Emotional hook: [fear / aspiration / authority / speed / simplicity]
- Gap or weakness in their messaging: [what they don't address that your product could own]
5. SWOT Summary
Produce a clean SWOT for the user's product in the context of this competitive landscape:
- Strengths: [2–3 genuine differentiators]
- Weaknesses: [2–3 honest gaps or vulnerabilities]
- Opportunities: [2–3 market gaps or competitor weaknesses to exploit]
- Threats: [2–3 competitor moves or market shifts to watch]
6. Strategic Recommendations
3–5 actionable recommendations based on the analysis. Frame each as: "Given [observation], [your product] should [action] to [outcome]."
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Map meaningfulness | Axes are generic (price × quality) | Market-specific axes but positions unjustified | Axes capture the real buying tension in this market and every placement is defensible |
| Comparative depth | Feature table is checkmarks | Features compared with some notes | Differentiators carry strategic notes explaining why the gap matters and to whom |
| SWOT honesty | Weaknesses/threats softened to niceties | Honest but unprioritized | Weaknesses and threats stated plainly, ranked by how much they should worry you |
| Recommendation specificity | Generic strategy advice | Actionable but unlinked to findings | Each recommendation follows "given [observation], do [action] to [outcome]" and traces to the analysis |
Quality Checks
- Axes on positioning map are meaningful and specific to this market
- Feature table includes strategic notes on key differentiators
- Messaging analysis covers all named competitors
- SWOT is honest — Weaknesses and Threats should not be softened
- Recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic strategy advice
Anti-Patterns
- Do not mark feature presence as equivalent across competitors without noting quality differences — both products may have "reporting" while one's is meaningfully better
- Do not position the user's product in the most favourable quadrant without justification — a self-serving positioning map that ignores real competitive pressure provides no strategic value
- Do not soften Weaknesses or Threats in the SWOT — a SWOT that only celebrates strengths is a marketing document, not a strategy tool
- Do not include unverifiable claims about competitor capabilities without flagging them as assumptions — presenting rumours as facts damages analytical credibility
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Do a competitor analysis of [Product] vs [Competitor A] and [Competitor B]"
- "Tear down [Competitor]'s positioning"
- "Give me a competitive landscape for [market]"
- "Build a SWOT for our product against [competitor]"