# Competitive Scan

> [discovery-phase pack · evidence] Maps direct competitors, indirect substitutes, and adjacent (non-software) workarounds for the problem in problem-canvas.md. Identifies the actual gap and any "free incumbent" the client can't outcompete. Produces competitive-scan.md. Reads discovery-context.md.

- Skill: `stanislavnianko/competitive-scan` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add stanislavnianko/competitive-scan`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/stanislavnianko/competitive-scan/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: stanislavnianko (https://skillmd.com/u/stanislavnianko)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/stanislavnianko/competitive-scan

---


# Competitive Scan

> Part of the **discovery-phase** skill pack · `evidence` group · reads `discovery-context.md` (run `profile-builder` first if missing).

Answers two questions: **what's already out there**, and **why haven't users adopted it for this problem?** The second is more important.

## Step 1 — Read inputs

Read `discovery-context.md` (sections **1. Client → Domain**, **2. Product / Initiative**) and `problem-canvas.md` (anchors the scan against the framed problem).

If `discovery-context.md` is missing, ask the BA inline: "client domain + product type in one line" — tag the output `[ASSUMED DOMAIN]`. If `problem-canvas.md` is missing, ask: "what problem in one line; what success signal would matter?" — tag the output `[NO-PROBLEM-FRAME]` so reviewers know the gap analysis is weak. Never block; recommend `profile-builder` / `problem-framing` for high-stakes work.

## Step 2 — List competitive set in 3 layers

1. **Direct competitors** — products explicitly solving the same problem in the same domain
2. **Indirect substitutes** — adjacent products or workflows users already use (often surfaced by interviews / SME workshops)
3. **Adjacent (non-software) workarounds** — Excel, manual ops, contractors, doing nothing

Aim for 4-8 entries across all 3 layers. More than 12 = over-research; fewer than 3 = the BA hasn't looked hard enough.

## Step 3 — Delegate web research if available

If `deep-research`, `market-research`, or `exa-search` skills are installed:
> "Use `deep-research` to produce a cited scan of tools that do `<problem from canvas>` for `<user segment>` in `<domain>`. Include pricing, last meaningful update, and notable user complaints."

Otherwise fall back to: G2/Capterra/Product Hunt for category, GitHub `topic:<keyword>` for OSS, Reddit + HN for complaints, vendor blogs for positioning (vs reality).

## Step 4 — Score each entrant

Per entrant capture:

| Field | Notes |
|---|---|
| Name + URL | |
| Layer | direct / indirect / adjacent |
| Positioning (their words) | from homepage / pitch |
| Real-world use (review/complaint signal) | often differs from positioning |
| Pricing model | including free tier |
| Last meaningful release | stale tools = often opportunities |
| Key limitation for the client's user segment | the why-not-this part |
| What it's great at | be honest, not dismissive |

## Step 5 — Extract the gap

One paragraph after the table: **what job is NOT well-served for this client's specific user segment?** Cite specific gaps with links to reviews / threads / dated screenshots.

This gap is the opportunity that feeds `opportunity-mapping`.

## Step 6 — Flag substitutes the client can't outcompete

If a free incumbent does 80%+ of the job, **call it out top of doc.** This is high-signal for `go-nogo-memo` — sometimes the right answer is "don't build this; integrate with the free thing".

Same for incumbents with significantly more capital, distribution, or network effects.

## Step 7 — Outsourcing-specific note

Strategic fit is judged from the **client's** perspective, not the agency's. The agency might find a competitor uninteresting; the client might find them existential. Frame the gap and the substitutes for **the client's success metric from problem-canvas.md**.

## Output

`./discovery/competitive-scan.md` per `./template.md`.

Append to `_log.md`: `[competitive-scan | YYYY-MM-DD] direct: <N>; indirect: <N>; adjacent: <N>; gap: <one-line>; substitute_risk: <high/med/low>`.

## Anti-patterns

- **Feature-checklist evaluation.** Users buy outcomes, not feature parity. Evaluate by "does this tool solve our user's job".
- **Ignoring "built it ourselves".** If users built their own internal tool to solve this, that IS the competitor.
- **Burying the substitute risk.** "We lose to a free thing" is the most important finding the scan can produce. Top of doc.
- **Generic gap statement.** "There's no good tool" is not a gap; "no tool serves SMB admins with 20-100 employee orgs in healthcare with HIPAA-compliant audit logs" is.