Skill: ivangdavila/competitor-research (version 1.0.0)

--- name: Competitor Research slug: competitor-research version: 1.0.0 homepage: https://clawic.com/skills/competitor-research description: Deep competitor audits with market positioning, gap analysis, and actionable insights for winning strategies. changelog: Initial release with analysis frameworks, depth levels, and iterative workflow. metadata: {"clawdbot":{"emoji":"🔬","requires":{"bins":[],"paths":["~/competitor-research/"]},"os":["linux","darwin","win32"]}} --- ## Setup On first use, read `setup.md` for integration guidelines. ## When to Use User needs deep competitor analysis. Agent conducts thorough research on competitors in a niche, identifies gaps and opportunities, and delivers actionable strategies. Supports both new market entry and existing business competitive analysis. ## Architecture Memory lives in `~/competitor-research/`. See `memory-template.md` for structure. ``` ~/competitor-research/ ├── memory.md # Status + research preferences + niche context ├── niches/ # Research by market/niche │ └── {niche}/ # One folder per niche │ ├── overview.md # Market landscape │ └── {company}.md # Individual competitor deep dives └── insights/ # Cross-cutting findings └── {date}-{topic}.md # Strategic insights and recommendations ``` ## Quick Reference | Topic | File | |-------|------| | Setup process | `setup.md` | | Memory template | `memory-template.md` | | Research frameworks | `frameworks.md` | ## Core Rules ### 1. Define Scope Before Research Never start without clarity on: | Question | Why It Matters | |----------|----------------| | What decision will this inform? | Shapes depth and focus | | New market entry or existing competition? | Different analysis needs | | Direct competitors only, or substitutes too? | Defines research boundaries | | Time constraint? | Determines depth level | If user is vague, ask. Bad scope = wasted research. ### 2. Use Depth Levels | Level | Time | Output | Best For | |-------|------|--------|----------| | **Quick Scan** | 15-30 min | Top 5 competitors, key differentiators, obvious gaps | Initial exploration | | **Standard** | 1-2 hours | Full landscape, pricing matrix, positioning map, opportunities | Business planning | | **Deep Dive** | Half day+ | Individual competitor audits, detailed SWOT, strategic playbook | Serious competition | Always confirm depth level before starting. Default to Standard if unsure. ### 3. Structure Every Competitor Analysis For each competitor, cover: ``` BASICS - What they do (one sentence) - Target customer - Pricing model and range - Founding date, funding, size indicators PRODUCT - Core features - Key differentiators - Weaknesses/gaps - Recent changes POSITIONING - How they describe themselves - Who they compare against - Messaging tone and style TRACTION SIGNALS - Reviews/ratings (G2, Capterra, etc.) - Social proof they highlight - Customer logos/testimonials - Growth indicators ``` ### 4. Always Find Gaps and Opportunities End every research session with: **GAP ANALYSIS** - What do customers complain about that nobody solves? - What segments are underserved? - What's overpriced in the market? - What's missing that should exist? **OPPORTUNITIES** - Where can user win? (price, features, positioning, audience) - What would be the wedge to enter? - What's the unfair advantage potential? Research without actionable gaps is just a report. Make it strategic. ### 5. Iterate and Build Knowledge Each research session builds on previous ones: - **First session:** Establish landscape, identify key players - **Follow-up sessions:** Deep dive individual competitors - **Return visits:** Update with new findings, track changes Before researching a niche again, check `niches/{niche}/` for prior work. ### 6. Cite and Date Everything Mark all findings with: - **Source:** Where you found it (website, G2, LinkedIn, etc.) - **Date:** When observed (pricing changes, features evolve) - **Confidence:** High (direct source) / Medium (inferred) / Low (speculation) Undated intelligence becomes unreliable fast. ### 7. Deliver Actionable Recommendations Every research deliverable ends with: ``` STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 1. [Specific action] because [finding supports it] 2. [Another action] based on [gap identified] 3. [What to avoid] given [competitor strength] WHAT TO WATCH - [Signal that would change this analysis] - [Competitor move to monitor] ``` ## Research Frameworks ### Market Landscape Start broad, then narrow: 1. List all players (direct, indirect, substitutes) 2. Categorize by segment (enterprise, SMB, prosumer, etc.) 3. Map by positioning (premium vs budget, generalist vs niche) 4. Identify white space ### Competitive Matrix Compare on dimensions that matter: | Competitor | Price | Feature X | Feature Y | Target | Differentiator | |------------|-------|-----------|-----------|--------|----------------| | Player A | $$$ | ✅ | ❌ | Enterprise | Security | | Player B | $ | ❌ | ✅ | SMB | Simplicity | | (User) | $$ | ✅ | ✅ | Mid-market | Best of both | ### Win/Lose Analysis For each competitor, answer: - Why would a customer choose them over user? - Why would a customer choose user over them? - What type of customer is a slam-dunk for each? ### Positioning Audit Analyze how competitors position: - Homepage headline and subhead - Three main value props - Social proof strategy - Pricing presentation - Comparison pages (if any) Look for positioning gaps nobody owns. ## Iterative Research Workflow **Session 1: Landscape** ``` "I want to research competitors in [niche]" → Quick scan of market → Identify 5-10 key players → Create overview.md for the niche → Ask: want to deep dive any specific competitor? ``` **Session 2+: Deep Dives** ``` "Let's analyze [Company X]" → Load niche overview for context → Full competitor analysis → Save to niches/{niche}/{company}.md → Update overview with new findings ``` **Return Visit** ``` "What do we know about [niche/company]?" → Load existing research → Note what might be outdated → Offer to refresh specific sections ``` ## Common Traps - **No scope = bad research** → Always clarify what decision this informs before starting - **Feature obsession** → Business model and positioning often matter more than features - **Outdated pricing** → Check pricing pages directly, don't trust cached data - **Missing substitutes** → Direct competitors aren't the only threat. What else solves the same job? - **Analysis paralysis** → Set time limits. Good-enough research beats perfect research never delivered - **No recommendations** → A list of competitors isn't strategy. What should user DO with this? - **Forgot to save** → Update memory and niche files after every session ## Security & Privacy **Data that stays local:** - All research stored in `~/competitor-research/` - Niche analyses and competitor profiles - User preferences and context **This skill does NOT:** - Access private competitor systems - Create fake accounts for research - Scrape content violating ToS - Send your research externally - Store any credentials ## Related Skills Install with `clawhub install <slug>` if user confirms: - `market-research` — broader market analysis - `business` — strategic frameworks - `competitor-monitoring` — ongoing tracking after research ## Feedback - If useful: `clawhub star competitor-research` - Stay updated: `clawhub sync`


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)