# Competitive Intelligence > Map competitors across positioning, product, pricing, proof, and weaknesses, then turn the research into sales-ready battlecards with an update cadence. Use when someone asks "what are our competitors doing", "build a battlecard", "how do we compare to X", "why are we losing deals to X", or before a pricing or positioning decision. Do NOT use for designing long-term defensibility strategy - use competitive-moat instead; for a public comparison landing page use comparison-page-builder; for rep-facing objection scripts beyond the battlecard use objection-handler. - Skill: `skillmedev/competitive-intelligence` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add skillmedev/competitive-intelligence` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/skillmedev/competitive-intelligence/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: SkillMedev (https://skillmd.com/u/skillmedev) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/skillmedev/competitive-intelligence --- # Competitive Intelligence Competitive intelligence turns scattered impressions of rivals into artifacts sales and product can act on. The costly mistake it prevents is losing winnable deals to a competitor pitch nobody prepared for - or worse, repositioning the whole product around a competitor claim that was never verified. Everything below runs on one discipline: separate fact from inference, and date every claim. ## Operating procedure ### Step 1: Gather inputs 1. The 3-5 competitors that actually show up in deals (ask sales; if pre-sales, the ones prospects mention). Default: cap at 3 - depth beats coverage. 2. Which deals or segments each appears in. 3. Existing win/loss notes, lost-deal reasons, sales call recordings if available. 4. The decision this research feeds: sales enablement, pricing move, roadmap, or positioning. This sets how deep each dimension goes. ### Step 2: Work the source ladder, primary first Collect in this order and cite each claim's source: 1. Their own properties: homepage, pricing page, docs, changelog/release notes, security page. These yield positioning, features, pricing, and shipping velocity as fact. 2. Review sites (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius): filter to reviews from your ICP's segment; the "dislikes" sections are the closest thing to free win/loss data. 3. Job postings and team pages: what they're hiring for is what they'll ship in two quarters - label this inference. 4. Your own win/loss calls and prospect quotes: the highest-signal source for how they actually pitch against you. 5. Community chatter (forums, social, comparison threads): tie-breaker only; never the sole source for a claim. ### Step 3: Map the five dimensions For each competitor, capture: - Positioning: who they say they're for, and the one promise they lead with. - Product: core capabilities, notable gaps, recently shipped features (from the changelog, with dates). - Pricing: model (seat, usage, tiered), entry price, what's gated where. If not public, record "unknown - not published" rather than a guess. - Proof: marquee customers, funding, momentum signals. - Weaknesses: where they're vulnerable - verified via reviews or lost-deal quotes, never assumed. Mark every cell F (fact, stated by them or observed directly) or I (inference, your read), and stamp the date collected. Flag unknowns explicitly instead of guessing. ### Step 4: Build the comparison matrix Rows = competitors, columns = the five dimensions. Keep cells terse - one line each, with the F/I tag and date. The matrix is the internal source of truth; battlecards are views generated from it. ### Step 5: Fill a battlecard per competitor Use the template below. A battlecard passes only if a rep can absorb it in 90 seconds before a call. ### Step 6: Set the update cadence Competitive facts go stale fast. Establish on delivery: - Monthly (15 min per competitor): recheck pricing page and changelog; diff against the matrix. - Quarterly: full refresh of all five dimensions plus a win/loss review; retire or reverify anything older than 6 months. - Event-driven: competitor funding round, major launch, or two lost deals citing the same claim triggers an immediate battlecard update. - Every claim carries its collection date; treat any claim older than 6 months as expired until reverified. ## Battlecard template ``` BATTLECARD: [FILL: competitor] Updated: [FILL: date] Owner: [FILL] WHEN YOU'LL SEE THEM Deal profile: [FILL: segments/deal types they appear in] Tell: [FILL: the question or phrase a prospect uses that signals they're evaluating them] THEIR PITCH (how they'll frame it) [FILL: their one-line promise, in their words - source: their homepage] WHERE WE WIN (2-3, honest and provable) 1. [FILL: advantage] - proof: [FILL: source/customer/number] 2. [FILL] - proof: [FILL] WHERE THEY WIN (be honest; reps need to know) 1. [FILL: their genuine advantage and which buyers it matters to] LANDMINES (questions to plant that expose their weaknesses) - "[FILL: question]" - surfaces: [FILL: verified weakness, source] OBJECTION HANDLING They'll say: "[FILL: likely attack]" We respond: "[FILL: response with proof point]" PRICING SNAPSHOT Model: [FILL] Entry: [FILL] Gated: [FILL] (F/I + date: [FILL]) ``` Worked contrast for the "Where we win" field - Bad: "Better UX and more modern architecture." (unprovable, sounds like every vendor). Good: "Setup in under 10 minutes vs their 2-week implementation - 14 G2 reviews cite their onboarding time; ours is self-serve." ## Deliverable Produce two artifacts: a comparison matrix (competitors × five dimensions, every cell tagged fact/inference with source and date) and one battlecard per competitor from the template, plus the written update cadence with an owner. Hand rep training on the cards to sales-enablement-kit. ## Do NOT - Do not fabricate pricing, customers, or features - "unknown" is a valid and useful cell; a fabricated one poisons every decision downstream. - Do not present inference as fact; a hiring-page guess dressed as a shipped feature sends product chasing ghosts. - Do not disparage without a source; reps repeat it, prospects verify it, credibility dies. - Do not build cards sales never asked for - start from the competitors in live deals. - Do not let cards rot; a battlecard with claims older than 6 months is worse than none, because reps trust it. ## Quality bar - Every claim has a source and a date; every cell is tagged fact or inference. - Weaknesses are verified by reviews or lost-deal quotes, not assumed. - "Where they win" is non-empty for every competitor - an all-wins card means the research is dishonest. - A rep can read any battlecard in 90 seconds and name the two landmine questions from memory. - The update cadence has a named owner and calendar triggers. ## Escalation Route moat and defensibility strategy to competitive-moat, public comparison pages to comparison-page-builder, whitespace and category-gap analysis to white-space-analysis, and full objection-handling scripts to objection-handler.