# Peer Bank Tech Intel > Collect what other major banks publicly share about their developer platforms, AI coding adoption, platform engineering, and SDLC modernization — engineering blogs (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Capital One, BofA, Wells Fargo, Citi, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Barclays), conference talks (FS-ISAC, QCon Financial Services tracks), public RFCs / open-source projects, and named-analyst commentary. Output at vault/research/peer-bank/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}.md. Composes with stakeholder-update-writer (exec asks "what are peers doing?") and decision-memo-writer. Use when the user asks what peer banks are publicly doing or saying about developer platforms, AI coding, or SDLC modernization — producing a fresh, cited research note from public sources only — not for evaluating a specific vendor's security posture (vendor-security-eval) or comparing AI coding tools (ai-coding-tools-compare). - Skill: `themarmack/peer-bank-tech-intel` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add themarmack/peer-bank-tech-intel` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/themarmack/peer-bank-tech-intel/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: themarmack (https://skillmd.com/u/themarmack) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/themarmack/peer-bank-tech-intel --- # peer-bank-tech-intel The "what are peers actually doing?" skill. Banks rarely share details publicly, but enough information leaks through engineering blogs, conference talks, public open-source contributions, and named-analyst case studies to triangulate posture. ## When to use - Exec or board question: "what are JPMorgan / Goldman / etc. doing on AI coding?" - Posture review: is the bank ahead, on pace, or behind peers on a specific capability? - Vendor selection: which peers have publicly adopted vendor X — and what did they say afterward? - Annual peer-bank posture summary. ## When NOT to use - Specific vendor evaluation → `vendor-security-eval`. - Specific Copilot question → `copilot-faq-answerer`. - Confidential / non-public peer intelligence — out of scope, do not source from non-public material. ## Obsidian-first workflow (mandatory) 1. **Query the vault first** via `vault-querier`: - Full-text search the peer's name and the capability's key terms across `vault/research/peer-bank/**`, relevant `vault/facts/**` entities (per-bank entities where they exist), `vault/insights/**` (conference-talk notes often carry peer-bank signals), and recent `vault/digests/**` (last 90 days). - Backlink check on the peer-bank entity (e.g. `[[jpmorgan]]`, `[[capital-one]]`) and the capability's entities. 2. **Triage findings**: - If the vault answers the question fully → return the existing answer with source citations (vault path + original source URLs). No new write. - If partial → identify the **gap**. Web research targets only the gap. - If empty → full web research. - A **gap** means the vault has no note ≤90 days old answering the question. 3. **Web research** (only on confirmed gaps): - Use `source-fetcher` (with `prompt-injection-guard`) on the source taxonomy below — public sources only; never source from non-public material. - Extract claims via `claim-extractor`. 4. **Verify load-bearing claims** via `verify-claim` (3-vote refute): - A bank's own engineering blog is tier-1 for what THEY claim to do, but marketing-adjacent — any claim about outcomes or scale, and all analyst characterizations of a peer's actual posture, get the full 3-vote treatment. 5. **Write the research note** via `digest-writer` (which delegates the file write to `vault-writer.write_research`): - Path: `vault/research/peer-bank/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}.md` - Frontmatter per `research.yml` schema: `topic: peer-bank`, `question`, `sources`, `findings_count`, `verified_claims`. - Body: TL;DR + Findings framed per the 4 questions below (with quoted anchors) + Sources (with credibility-tier badges). 6. **Stage promotable claims** to `_inbox/peer-bank-tech-intel/`: - Any verified fact-typed claim (e.g. "peer X publicly adopted vendor Y in {year}") → `_inbox/peer-bank-tech-intel/{timestamp}-{slug}.md` with `suggested_surface: facts` and a `suggested_path` under the matching `facts/` entity. - `memory-curator` decides on its next sweep. ## Source taxonomy - **Engineering blogs**: medium.com, eng blog subdomains for the named banks above. - **Conference talks**: QCon, GOTO, KubeCon (financial-services track when present), GitHub Universe, FS-ISAC summits, BankInfoSecurity webinars. - **Open-source contributions**: github.com/{bank-org}, Bank-org publicly-contributed CodeQL packs, CloudCustodian policies, etc. - **Named-analyst case studies**: Forrester Wave entries, Gartner peer insights, public IDC reports (where excerpts are public). - **Earnings-call quotes**: tech-specific quotes from quarterly earnings calls (public materials). ## Bank-relevant framing per finding Each finding answers: 1. What did the peer publicly say or show? 2. How does the org's posture compare? 3. Is there a capability gap or surplus worth surfacing to leadership? 4. Is the peer's public posture different from their actual (per analyst commentary) — important for not over-indexing on marketing. ## Composes with Standard Phase-1 foundation. Cross-feeds: - `stakeholder-update-writer` — exec-tier "what are peers doing" - `decision-memo-writer` — when peer activity informs a bank decision - `vendor-security-eval` — when a peer's vendor adoption is the signal worth investigating - [`executive-summary-writer`](../executive-summary-writer/SKILL.md) — **only when the user explicitly asks for an exec summary** (never auto-invoked after vault write). Takes the just-written research note's path and produces a 1-page summary tuned to a named audience (CISO, VP Eng, etc.). - [`email-sender`](../email-sender/SKILL.md) — after `vault-writer.write_research()` succeeds, invoke `prompt_then_send(path)` to ask the user whether to distribute the note via Gmail. ## Acceptance test (for step 30 done-criteria) SKILL.md describes the source taxonomy + framing per finding. Live exercise deferred to first concrete peer-research invocation (when leadership asks a specific question about a specific peer).