Skilllibrary competitor-teardown
git clone https://github.com/merceralex397-collab/skilllibrary
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/merceralex397-collab/skilllibrary "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/16-business-research-and-optional-domains/competitor-teardown" ~/.claude/skills/merceralex397-collab-skilllibrary-competitor-teardown && rm -rf "$T"
16-business-research-and-optional-domains/competitor-teardown/SKILL.mdPurpose
Provides a repeatable framework for dissecting a competitor's product, business model, pricing, UX, and technology into structured, evidence-based analysis. Produces actionable intelligence that informs strategic decisions — not just a feature list, but a weighted assessment of competitive position with implications for your own strategy.
When to use this skill
- User asks to analyze, compare, or tear down one or more competitors
- Task requires a SWOT analysis with evidence for each quadrant
- User needs a feature comparison matrix with weighted scoring
- Pricing analysis is requested: plan tiers, value metrics, hidden fees
- UX teardown needed: signup flow, time-to-value, friction points
- Technical stack identification or architecture inference is requested
- User asks "how does X compare to Y" or "what are X's weaknesses"
- Strategic planning requires a competitive landscape overview
- Porter's Five Forces analysis is requested for an industry or market
Do not use this skill when
- The task is broad market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, or trend research — use
market-research - The user is evaluating their own business idea, not a competitor — use
business-idea-evaluation - The comparison is between real estate properties — use
property-research - The task is internal product strategy without a competitive frame — use
tradeoff-analysis - The user needs a quick factual lookup ("what does company X do?") with no analytical framework
Operating procedure
Step 1 — Define scope and competitors
- Identify the focal company — the user's product or the product being benchmarked against.
- Select competitors — categorize each as:
- Direct — same product category, same target customer (e.g., Figma vs. Sketch)
- Indirect — different product, same job-to-be-done (e.g., Figma vs. pen and paper)
- Aspirational — market leaders to benchmark against even if not direct competitors
- Define comparison dimensions — which aspects matter? (features, pricing, UX, technology, business model, go-to-market)
- Confirm the decision this analysis supports — "should we build feature X?", "where should we position our pricing?", "which market segment is underserved?"
Step 2 — Competitor profiling
For each competitor, build a structured profile:
| Field | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Company | Name, founded, HQ, funding stage/revenue if known |
| Product | Core product description in 1–2 sentences |
| Target customer | Primary persona, company size, industry vertical |
| Value proposition | How they describe their own differentiation (use their own words from marketing) |
| Distribution | Primary acquisition channels: PLG, sales-led, partnerships, marketplace |
| Key metrics (if available) | Users, revenue, growth rate, market share |
| Recent moves | Last 6 months: product launches, pricing changes, acquisitions, partnerships |
Step 3 — SWOT analysis
For each competitor, produce a SWOT matrix. Every cell must include evidence.
| Quadrant | Definition | Evidence requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths | Internal advantages the competitor has today | Observable facts: feature, patent, team, brand, distribution, data moat |
| Weaknesses | Internal disadvantages or gaps | Documented: missing features, known bugs, negative reviews, churn signals |
| Opportunities | External trends the competitor could exploit | Market data: growing segment, regulatory change, technology shift |
| Threats | External risks to the competitor's position | Market data: new entrants, substitutes, regulatory risk, platform dependency |
Format as a 2×2 matrix with bullet points. Each bullet = one claim + one evidence citation.
Step 4 — Feature comparison matrix
- Define feature categories — group features into logical categories (e.g., Core, Collaboration, Integrations, Analytics, Security, Support).
- List features — enumerate specific features within each category.
- Score each feature per competitor on a consistent scale:
= absent0
= basic / partial implementation1
= solid implementation, meets expectations2
= best-in-class, exceeds expectations3
- Weight categories — assign importance weights (1–5) based on target customer priorities.
- Calculate weighted scores — (score × weight) per category, summed for an overall weighted total.
- Highlight differentiators — features where scoring gaps are ≥ 2 points between competitors.
Present as a table with competitors as columns and features as rows.
Step 5 — Pricing teardown
Analyze each competitor's pricing structure:
| Dimension | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Plan tiers | Free, Starter, Pro, Enterprise — name and price point of each |
| Value metric | What do they charge per? (seat, usage, feature gate, flat rate) |
| Per-unit economics | Cost per seat/unit at each tier; how does unit cost change with scale? |
| Free tier limits | What's included for free? What triggers the upgrade? |
| Hidden fees | Overage charges, implementation fees, support tiers, API rate limits |
| Annual vs. monthly | Discount for annual commitment; typical discount is 15–20% |
| Enterprise pricing | "Contact sales" signals; estimate from public data or reviews if possible |
| Value perception | Price-to-feature ratio; are they positioned as premium, mid-market, or budget? |
Produce a pricing comparison table and a price-per-feature-point calculation using the weighted scores from Step 4.
Step 6 — UX teardown
Evaluate the user experience through these lenses:
-
Signup flow analysis
- Count steps from landing page to first value-delivering action
- Note friction points: required credit card, email verification, mandatory onboarding
- Measure (or estimate) time-to-value: how long until a new user achieves their first "aha" moment?
-
Core workflow efficiency
- Map the primary user workflow (the job-to-be-done)
- Count clicks/steps to complete the core task
- Note UX friction: confusing navigation, missing defaults, excessive configuration
-
Information architecture
- Evaluate navigation structure: depth, discoverability, consistency
- Check for progressive disclosure vs. overwhelming dashboards
-
Mobile / responsive experience
- Note if mobile is native, responsive web, or absent
- Key functionality available on mobile?
-
Documentation & support
- Quality of docs, tutorials, in-app help
- Support channels: chat, email, community, phone
Step 7 — Technical teardown
Infer and document the competitor's technology:
| Method | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| BuiltWith / Wappalyzer | Frontend framework, analytics, CDN, hosting provider |
| Developer docs / API | API design (REST/GraphQL), auth method, rate limits, SDK languages |
| Job postings | Backend language, database, infrastructure (AWS/GCP/Azure), team structure |
| Open source contributions | Internal tools, libraries, architectural preferences |
| Network inspection | API endpoints, request patterns, WebSocket usage, third-party services |
| Performance | Page load time (Lighthouse), bundle size, caching strategy |
Flag any technical choices that create lock-in (proprietary formats, closed APIs) or scalability concerns (architectural limitations visible from the outside).
Step 8 — Business model analysis
Map each competitor against these dimensions:
- Revenue model — SaaS subscription, usage-based, marketplace commission, freemium + upsell, advertising, data licensing
- Customer segments — SMB, mid-market, enterprise, consumer, developer, vertical-specific
- Distribution channels — self-serve, inside sales, field sales, partner/channel, marketplace listing
- Key partnerships — technology partners, integration ecosystem, reseller network
- Cost structure — infrastructure-heavy vs. people-heavy; gross margin signals
- Network effects — does the product get more valuable with more users? (marketplace, collaboration, data)
- Switching costs — what locks customers in? (data, integrations, training, contracts)
Step 9 — Porter's Five Forces
Apply Porter's framework to the competitive landscape:
| Force | Assessment (High/Medium/Low) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Threat of new entrants | Barriers: capital, technology, regulation, brand, network effects | |
| Bargaining power of buyers | Switching costs, concentration, price sensitivity, alternatives available | |
| Bargaining power of suppliers | Dependency on platforms (AWS, Apple, Google), talent scarcity, key vendor concentration | |
| Threat of substitutes | Alternative approaches to the same job-to-be-done; including "do nothing" | |
| Competitive rivalry | Number of competitors, differentiation level, market growth rate, exit barriers |
Conclude with an overall industry attractiveness assessment.
Step 10 — Strategic synthesis
- Identify the top 3 competitive advantages the focal company has (or could build).
- Identify the top 3 vulnerabilities that competitors could exploit.
- Map white space opportunities — underserved segments or unaddressed needs.
- Recommend strategic actions — prioritized by impact and feasibility.
- Flag what data is missing and how it would change the analysis.
Decision rules
- Every SWOT claim must cite evidence — no unsupported assertions. "They have a great brand" requires proof (traffic data, NPS, press mentions).
- Feature scores must be justified — each score > 0 needs a one-line rationale; don't score features you haven't verified.
- Weight categories before scoring — unweighted feature counts are misleading; a security feature and a minor UI tweak should not count equally.
- Include indirect competitors — the biggest threats often come from adjacent categories; always include at least one indirect competitor.
- Pricing must include hidden costs — listed price is the floor; document overage, support, implementation, and migration costs.
- UX claims require walkthrough evidence — don't assess UX from screenshots alone; walk through the actual signup and core workflow.
- Technical claims must cite source — BuiltWith data, job postings, or API docs; don't guess the stack.
- Time-bound the analysis — state the date of research; competitive data decays quickly. Flag anything > 6 months old as potentially stale.
- State confidence levels — High (verified firsthand), Medium (inferred from public data), Low (estimated/rumored). Tag each major finding.
Output structure
Deliver these sections in order:
1. Competitor Profiles
Structured profile table for each competitor from Step 2.
2. SWOT Matrix
2×2 matrix per competitor with evidence-backed bullet points.
3. Feature Comparison Matrix
Weighted scoring table with category weights, per-feature scores, weighted totals, and highlighted differentiators.
4. Pricing Analysis
Comparison table with tier-by-tier breakdown, value metric analysis, and price-per-feature-point calculation.
5. UX Audit
Signup flow step count, time-to-value estimate, friction point inventory, and core workflow comparison per competitor.
6. Technical Landscape
Stack summary per competitor with confidence level, architectural inferences, and lock-in / scalability flags.
7. Business Model Map
Revenue model, segments, distribution, partnerships, and moat analysis per competitor.
8. Porter's Five Forces Summary
Force-by-force assessment table with overall industry attractiveness conclusion.
9. Strategic Implications
Top advantages, vulnerabilities, white space opportunities, and prioritized action recommendations.
10. Confidence and Gaps
Table of data confidence levels per section and list of missing data with suggested sources.
Anti-patterns
- Cherry-picking weaknesses — analyzing only what competitors do poorly while ignoring their strengths produces a dangerously biased picture. The SWOT must be balanced.
- Ignoring indirect competitors — Blockbuster didn't lose to another video store. Always map the job-to-be-done and identify non-obvious substitutes.
- Static point-in-time analysis — a snapshot without trajectory is misleading. Note growth rates, recent moves, and momentum direction for each competitor.
- Feature-counting without weighting — "we have 47 features and they have 32" is meaningless if their 32 include the 5 that matter most to customers. Always weight by customer priority.
- Pricing comparison without value metric alignment — comparing a per-seat price to a usage-based price is apples-to-oranges. Normalize to a common usage scenario.
- Assuming public info is complete — competitors don't advertise their best features on the pricing page. Test the product, read reviews, talk to customers of competitors.
- Confusing correlation with causation — "they grew because of feature X" needs evidence, not just temporal coincidence.
- Analyzing only current competitors — the next entrant matters too; assess barriers to entry and who might enter the market.
- No "so what" — analysis without strategic implications is an academic exercise. Every section must connect to an actionable recommendation.
Related skills
— broader market sizing and trend analysis that provides context for competitive positioningmarket-research
— evaluating your own product/idea viability, informed by competitive intelligencebusiness-idea-evaluation
— making strategic decisions between options using the competitive datatradeoff-analysis
— combining multiple research sources into coherent findingsresearch-synthesis
— translating competitive insights into product specificationsspec-authoring
— identifying capability gaps between your product and competitorsgap-analysis
Failure handling
- If no competitor is named, ask the user to identify at least the primary competitor and their own product/position.
- If the competitor is in stealth mode or has minimal public information, state this clearly, use what's available (job postings, LinkedIn, Crunchbase), and tag all findings as Low confidence.
- If the user wants a full teardown but provides no access to the competitor's product, limit the analysis to publicly observable information and recommend a hands-on trial for UX and feature sections.
- If the scope is too broad ("analyze the entire SaaS market"), narrow to 3–5 most relevant competitors and offer to expand in a follow-up.
- If data is stale (>6 months), flag specific sections that need refreshing and recommend re-running those steps with current data.