Skill: draco-kzn/draco-competitor-analysis (version 1.0.0)

--- name: competitor-analysis description: Write the competitor-analysis section of research reports, strategy decks, and product/brand studies. Use when the user asks for 竞品分析、竞对拆解、对标分析、benchmarking、标杆案例分析、营销案例拆解、产品定位对比、上市节奏分析、品牌升级分析, especially when the goal is not to summarize features but to extract usable conclusions, recommendations, and strategic implications. --- # competitor-analysis Use this skill to turn raw competitor information into **decision-useful analysis**. Core rule: > The goal of competitor analysis is not to describe what others did. It is to solve our problem by borrowing others' experience. ## When to use Trigger this skill when the task is to: - write a competitor-analysis section in a report or memo - compare products / companies / campaigns for strategic insight - benchmark categories, leaders, challengers, substitutes, or avoidable cases - analyze marketing campaigns, product positioning, product launch, or brand upgrade - answer "what should we learn / avoid / do next" Do **not** stop at information collection. The output must end with actionable conclusions. ## Required workflow Follow this sequence: 1. **Define the problem** - What exact question are we trying to answer? 2. **Define the competitor set** - Why these objects, and what role does each one play? 3. **Decompose the case** - Facts → motives → effects 4. **Extract the root variable** - What actually drove success or failure? 5. **Convert to action** - What should we borrow, avoid, or do next? If step 5 is weak, the analysis is incomplete. ## Five questions you must answer Before finalizing, check whether the draft answers all five: 1. What problem are we solving? 2. Which information is actually useful for that problem? 3. Where did the information come from? 4. Is the analysis surface-level or root-cause level? 5. What concrete help does the conclusion provide for this project? ## Competitor types Classify each analyzed object into one or more of these roles: - **Core competitor**: highly overlaps with us in product, target users, positioning, budget, or category - **Benchmark competitor**: stronger / larger / category-leading reference worth learning from - **Potential competitor**: smaller but strategically interesting; may have sharper tactics or better product logic - **Substitute competitor**: different category but solves the same higher-order need - **Avoidance competitor**: negative case that shows what not to do Do not create a wide list without role labels. ## Three-layer decomposition For each important case, analyze in this order: ### 1) Fact layer — what happened? Capture concrete actions only: - what was launched / changed / communicated - timing and sequence - channel / resource allocation - execution structure ### 2) Motive layer — why did they do it? Explain the logic behind the actions: - market / company / user background - why this timing - target outcome - strategic path chosen - why this method instead of another ### 3) Effect layer — what happened as a result? Look for: - business result - user cognition shift - engagement / conversion / adoption signals - success factor or failure reason - the decisive variable Always push past description. Ask: **what was the main contradiction / main variable?** ## Output rule Every competitor-analysis section must end with three explicit buckets: - **What to borrow** - **What to avoid** - **What we should do next** If the user asks for a report section, prefer this output shape: ## Suggested section structure 1. Problem statement 2. Competitor map and role labels 3. Cross-case comparison 4. Deep dive by selected cases 5. Root insight / decisive variables 6. Recommendations for us ## Scenario-specific frameworks Read the matching reference file before drafting: - **Marketing / campaign analysis** → `references/marketing.md` - **Product positioning / category comparison** → `references/product-positioning.md` - **Product launch / GTM / 0→1 or 1→10** → `references/product-launch.md` - **Brand upgrade / repositioning** → `references/brand-upgrade.md` - **General method and review checklist** → `references/methodology.md` ## Writing standards - Lead with the problem, not with the competitor list. - Prefer a small number of well-chosen cases over a big shallow inventory. - Label evidence and inference separately when useful. - Do not confuse “interesting action” with “relevant action”. - Do not summarize surface phenomena without extracting implications. - Keep conclusions sharp, short, and decision-oriented. ## Good conclusion examples Good: - "We should borrow competitor A's timing logic, but not its channel mix; their budget intensity is not replicable for us." - "Competitor B succeeded less because of creativity and more because it matched a high-frequency scenario with credible RTB." - "Competitor C is useful as an avoidance case: the launch failed because concept, target user, and channel rhythm were misaligned." Bad: - "Competitor A did social media and got good results." - "Competitor B's campaign was creative and worth learning from." - "There are many things we can reference." ## Final self-check Before delivering, verify: - Is the analysis tied to the user's actual business question? - Are competitor roles clearly labeled? - Did we move from facts to motives to effects? - Did we identify a decisive variable? - Does the output clearly say what we should borrow / avoid / do next?


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