Claude-Skills competitive-teardown

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/business-growth/competitive-teardown" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-competitive-teardown && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: business-growth/competitive-teardown/SKILL.md
source content

Competitive Teardown

Production-grade competitor analysis framework covering systematic data collection across 6 intelligence sources, a 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audit methodology, and strategic action plans. Produces battle-card-ready output and stakeholder presentation templates.


Table of Contents


When to Use

TriggerTeardown Scope
Before product strategy or roadmap sessionFull teardown (2-4 competitors)
Competitor launches major feature or pricing changeFocused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only)
Quarterly competitive reviewUpdate existing teardowns + trend analysis
Before a sales pitch (battle card needed)Single-competitor battle card
Entering a new market segmentFull teardown of segment incumbents

Teardown Workflow

Step-by-Step Process

  1. Define competitors -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
  2. Collect data -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
  3. Score using rubric -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
  4. Generate comparison outputs -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
  5. Build action plan -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
  6. Package for stakeholders -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.

Validation Checkpoints

  • Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
  • Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
  • Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point

Data Collection Framework

Source 1: Website and Product Analysis

Data PointWhere to FindWhat It Signals
Pricing tiers and price pointsPricing pageMarket positioning, target segment
Feature lists per tierPricing + feature pagesPackaging strategy
Primary CTA and messagingHomepage heroPositioning and ICP
Case studies and customer logosCase study page, homepageTarget segments, social proof
Integration partnershipsIntegrations pageEcosystem strategy
Trust signalsFooter, security pageEnterprise readiness
Job postingsCareers page, LinkedInGrowth direction, tech stack

Source 2: User Reviews

Platforms: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt

CategoryWhat to TrackStrategic Value
Praise themesWhat users love (top 5 themes)Their defensible strengths
Complaint themesWhat users hate (top 5 themes)Your opportunities
Feature requestsWhat users want but do not haveProduct roadmap gaps
Switching mentionsWhy users left competitorsCompetitive migration paths
Rating trendsQuarter-over-quarter rating changeImproving or declining

Sample size target: 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.

Source 3: Job Postings

SignalWhat It Means
High engineering hiringProduct investment, scaling
AI/ML rolesAI features coming
Sales team expansionMoving upmarket or expanding geographically
Customer success rolesRetention focus, enterprise motion
Compliance/legal rolesRegulatory expansion
Reduced postingsCost cutting, potential contraction

Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis

MetricToolStrategic Value
Top 20 organic keywordsAhrefs, SEMrush, GSCContent strategy and targeting
Domain authorityAhrefs, MozBrand strength
Blog publishing cadenceManual checkContent investment level
Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs)AhrefsTraffic composition

Source 5: Social Media and Community

PlatformWhat to Track
Twitter/XProduct announcements, customer praise, complaints
RedditHonest reviews, comparison threads
LinkedInThought leadership, hiring signals, employee count
Community forumsFeature requests, workarounds, power user patterns
Discord/SlackCommunity size, engagement level

Source 6: Financial and Market Data

SourceData Available
CrunchbaseFunding, valuation, investors, employee count
LinkedInEmployee count trend (growth proxy)
Public filings (if public)Revenue, growth rate, churn
Industry reportsMarket share estimates

12-Dimension Scoring Rubric

Score each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.

#Dimension1 (Weak)3 (Average)5 (Best-in-class)
1FeaturesCore only, many gapsSolid coverageComprehensive + unique capabilities
2PricingConfusing or overpricedMarket-rate, clearTransparent, flexible, fair
3UX / DesignConfusing, high frictionFunctional, adequateDelightful, minimal friction
4PerformanceSlow, unreliableAcceptableFast, high uptime, responsive
5DocumentationSparse, outdatedDecent coverageComprehensive, searchable, with examples
6SupportEmail only, slow responseChat + email, reasonable SLA24/7, multiple channels, fast
7Integrations0-5 native integrations6-25 integrations26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace)
8SecurityNo mentionsSOC2 claimedSOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR
9ScalabilityNo enterprise tierMid-market readyEnterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA)
10BrandGeneric, unmemorableDecent positioningStrong, differentiated, recognized
11CommunityNoneForum or Slack existsActive, vibrant, user-generated content
12InnovationNo releases in 6+ monthsQuarterly releasesFrequent, meaningful, well-communicated

Scoring Output Format

DimensionYour ProductCompetitor ACompetitor BCompetitor C
Features4353
Pricing3434
...............
Total (/60)38354233

Feature Comparison Matrix

Matrix Structure

Feature CategoryYour ProductCompetitor ACompetitor BNotes
Core Features
Feature 1FullFullPartialComp B lacks [specific capability]
Feature 2FullMissingFullOur differentiator
Feature 3PartialFullFullGap to close
Platform
Web appYesYesYes
iOS appYesNoYesComp A gap
API accessFullLimitedFull
Enterprise
SSOYesNoYes
Audit logsYesYesNo
Custom SLAYesYesYes

Score per cell: Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0


Pricing Analysis Framework

Pricing Model Comparison

AttributeYour ProductCompetitor ACompetitor B
Model typePer seatUsage-basedFlat rate
Free tierYes (3 users)Yes (limited)No
Entry price$15/user/mo$29/mo (up to 1K events)$49/mo
Mid-tier price$35/user/mo$99/mo$99/mo
EnterpriseCustomCustom$249/mo
Annual discount20%15%2 months free
Trial14-day free7-day free30-day money-back

Pricing Position Map

PositionCharacteristicYour Strategy
Price leaderLowest price, may signal lower qualityWin on value, not features
Value leaderBest features-per-dollar ratioWin on differentiation
PremiumHighest price, justified by brand/featuresWin on exclusivity and support
DisruptorRadically different model (free, usage-based)Win on accessibility

SWOT Analysis Template

For each competitor, produce:

Competitor SWOT

QuadrantPoints
Strengths (Their advantages)3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal
Weaknesses (Their vulnerabilities)3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints
Opportunities for UsWhat their weaknesses create for us
Threats to UsWhat their strengths mean for our position

Evidence rule: Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).


UX Audit Methodology

First-Run Experience Audit

DimensionWhat to MeasureHow to Score
Time to first value (TTFV)Minutes from signup to first meaningful output< 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1
Steps to activationNumber of screens/actions before core value< 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1
Credit card requiredRequired at signup?No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1
Onboarding qualityWizard, tooltips, empty statesComprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1
SSO availableGoogle, Microsoft, etc.Yes = 5, No = 1

Core Workflow Audit

For the 3 most common workflows, compare:

WorkflowSteps (Yours)Steps (Competitor)Friction Points
[Primary workflow]NNSpecific UX issues
[Secondary workflow]NNSpecific UX issues
[Tertiary workflow]NNSpecific UX issues

Positioning Map

2x2 Positioning Map

Choose the two axes most relevant to your market:

Common Axis PairsWhen to Use
Simple / Complex x Low Price / High PriceGeneral product comparison
SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad FeaturesMarket segment analysis
Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / PlatformGo-to-market comparison
Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / HorizontalAudience analysis

Map Template

                    High Price / Enterprise
                          │
                          │
          [Competitor B]  │  [Competitor C]
                          │
  Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex
                          │
          [YOUR PRODUCT]  │  [Competitor A]
                          │
                          │
                    Low Price / SMB

Action Plan Framework

Three Horizons

HorizonTimeframeEffortExamples
Quick wins0-4 weeksLowPublish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges
Medium-term1-3 monthsModerateBuild top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier
Strategic3-12 monthsHighEnter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II

Priority Scoring

For each action item, score:

FactorWeightScale
Competitive impact40%How much does this close or widen a gap?
Customer demand30%How many customers/prospects request this?
Implementation effort20%How hard is this to build/execute?
Revenue impact10%Direct revenue contribution?

Battle Card Template

One-Page Battle Card

COMPETITOR: [Name]
LAST UPDATED: [Date]
THREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]

THEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]
OUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]

WHERE THEY WIN:
- [Strength 1 with evidence]
- [Strength 2 with evidence]
- [Strength 3 with evidence]

WHERE WE WIN:
- [Advantage 1 with evidence]
- [Advantage 2 with evidence]
- [Advantage 3 with evidence]

LANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):
- "How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?"
- "Can you show me [feature they lack]?"
- "What do their customers say about [common complaint]?"

OBJECTION HANDLING:
- "They're cheaper" → [Response with value framing]
- "They have [feature]" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]
- "Everyone uses them" → [Response with differentiation]

PRICING COMPARISON:
[Quick comparison table]

CUSTOMER QUOTE:
"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]"

Stakeholder Presentation

7-Slide Structure

SlideContent
1. Executive SummaryThreat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action
2. Market Position2x2 positioning map with all players
3. Feature Scorecard12-dimension scores, total comparison
4. Pricing AnalysisPricing comparison table + key pricing insight
5. UX ComparisonWhere they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets)
6. Voice of CustomerTop 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted)
7. Action PlanQuick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities

Output Artifacts

ArtifactFormatDescription
Data Collection ReportStructured notes per sourceRaw intelligence organized by source type
12-Dimension ScorecardScored table with evidenceNumeric comparison across all dimensions
Feature Comparison MatrixGrid tableFeature-by-feature comparison with scoring
Pricing AnalysisComparison table + position mapModel comparison, tier mapping, positioning
SWOT AnalysisPer-competitor 4-quadrantAnchored to data signals
UX AuditScored checklistTTFV, steps, friction analysis
Positioning Map2x2 diagramVisual market position
Action PlanThree-horizon tablePrioritized competitive responses
Battle CardOne-page templateSales-ready competitive reference
Stakeholder Presentation7-slide outlineExecutive-ready competitive briefing

Related Skills

  • competitor-alternatives -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.
  • pricing-strategy -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.
  • page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.
  • content-creator -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.

Tool Reference

1. competitor_scorer.py

Purpose: Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.

python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json
python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json
FlagRequiredDescription
competitor_data.json
YesJSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence
--json
NoOutput results as JSON
--weights
NoCustom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights)

2. feature_matrix_builder.py

Purpose: Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.

python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json
python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json
FlagRequiredDescription
features.json
YesJSON file with feature comparison data
--json
NoOutput results as JSON

3. battle_card_generator.py

Purpose: Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.

python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json
python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json
FlagRequiredDescription
competitor_profile.json
YesJSON file with competitor profile data
--json
NoOutput results as JSON
--format
NoOutput format: text (default) or markdown

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseSolution
Scoring feels subjective across analystsNo shared rubric calibrationUse the 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 definitions; have two analysts score independently and reconcile
Data is stale within weeks of teardownFast-moving competitorsSet calendar reminders for monthly pricing checks and quarterly full refreshes; use competitor_scorer.py to track score changes over time
Feature matrix has too many rows to be usefulTrying to capture every micro-featureGroup features into 8-12 categories; detail only the top differentiators
Battle cards are not used by salesToo long, too academic, or not actionableKeep to one page; lead with "Where We Win" and "Landmines"; validate with 3 sales reps before distributing
Review data is contradictorySmall sample size or selection biasTarget 50+ reviews per competitor across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius; weight recent reviews more heavily
Cannot get pricing data for enterprise tiersCustom pricing not publishedUse sales intel (request a demo), G2 pricing data, or customer interviews for directional estimates
SWOT analysis has no actionable outputAnalysis lacks connection to action planEvery SWOT bullet must map to a specific quick-win, medium-term, or strategic action

Success Criteria

  • 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score
  • Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate
  • Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives
  • Pricing data verified within the last 30 days
  • Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities
  • Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week
  • Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking

Scope & Limitations

  • In scope: Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation
  • Out of scope: Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment
  • Data dependency: Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information
  • Bias risk: Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions
  • Point-in-time: Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes

Integration Points

  • competitor-alternatives -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)
  • pricing-strategy -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis
  • page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content
  • sales-engineer -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses
  • customer-success-manager -- When exit surveys reveal COMPETITOR as a top churn reason, use teardown data to understand what competitors offer that you do not