competitive-intel
Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-10-28
- Stars
- ★ 0
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- competitive-intel
- license
- MIT
- metadata
- { "author": "Alireza Rezvani", "domain": "competitive-strategy", "updated": 1772668800000, "version": "1.0.0", "category": "c-level", "frameworks": "ci-playbook, battlecard-template" }
- description
- Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning.
02 资源文件 13
- 资产文件assets/BOND-template.md1.5 KB
- 资产文件assets/CREED-template.md4.0 KB
- 资产文件assets/INDEX-template.md568 B
- 资产文件assets/MEMORY-template.md569 B
- 资产文件assets/PERSONA-template.md1.2 KB
- 参考文档references/ci-playbook.md9.7 KB
- 参考文档references/dispatch.md1.9 KB
- 参考文档references/first-breath.md3.7 KB
- 参考文档references/memory-guidance.md2.2 KB
- 参考文档references/orient.md2.6 KB
- 参考文档references/partner.md2.8 KB
- 脚本scripts/init-sanctum.py6.8 KB
- 参考文档templates/battlecard-template.md3.5 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Competitive Intelligence
Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession — intelligence that drives real decisions.
Keywords
competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy
Quick Start
Ask in natural language for the deliverable you need:
"Map our competitive landscape" — direct, indirect, and future competitors "Build a battlecard for [competitor]" — sales-ready battlecard "Run a win/loss analysis" — recent wins and losses by reason "What did [competitor] do recently?" — competitor update tracking "Build a competitive positioning map" — 2x2 positioning map
Framework: 5-Layer Intelligence System
Layer 1: Competitor Identification
Direct competitors: Same ICP, same problem, comparable solution, similar price point. Indirect competitors: Same budget, different solution (including "do nothing" and "build in-house"). Future competitors: Well-funded startups in adjacent space; large incumbents with stated roadmap overlap.
The 2x2 Threat Matrix:
| Same ICP | Different ICP | |
|---|---|---|
| Same problem | Direct threat | Adjacent (watch) |
| Different problem | Displacement risk | Ignore for now |
Update this quarterly. Who's moved quadrants?
Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions
Track these 8 dimensions per competitor:
| Dimension | Sources | Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Product moves | Changelog, G2/Capterra reviews, Twitter/LinkedIn | Monthly |
| Pricing changes | Pricing page, sales call intel, customer feedback | Triggered |
| Funding | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered |
| Hiring signals | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed | Monthly |
| Partnerships | Press releases, co-marketing | Triggered |
| Customer wins | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly |
| Customer losses | Win/loss interviews, churned accounts | Ongoing |
| Messaging shifts | Homepage, ads (Facebook/Google Ad Library) | Quarterly |
Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks
SWOT per Competitor:
- Strengths: What do they do well? Where do they win?
- Weaknesses: Where do they lose? What do customers complain about?
- Opportunities: What could they do that would threaten you?
- Threats: What's their existential risk?
Competitive Positioning Map (2 axis): Choose axes that matter for your buyers:
- Common: Price vs Feature Depth; Enterprise-ready vs SMB-ready; Easy to implement vs Configurable
- Pick axes that show YOUR differentiation clearly
Feature Gap Analysis:
| Feature | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Your advantage |
| [Feature] | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Gap — roadmap? |
| [Feature] | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | Moat |
| [Feature] | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Competitor B only |
Layer 4: Output Formats
For Sales (CRO): Battlecards — one page per competitor, designed for pre-call prep.
See templates/battlecard-template.md
For Marketing (CMO): Positioning update — message shifts, new differentiators, claims to stop or start making.
For Product (CPO): Feature gap summary — what customers ask for that we don't have, what competitors ship, what to reprioritize.
For CEO/Board: Monthly competitive summary — 1-page: who moved, what it means, recommended responses.
Layer 5: Intelligence Cadence
Monthly (scheduled):
- Review all tier-1 competitors (direct threats, top 3)
- Update battlecards with new intel
- Publish 1-page summary to leadership
Triggered (event-based):
- Competitor raises funding → assess implications within 48 hours
- Competitor launches major feature → product + sales response within 1 week
- Competitor poaches key customer → win/loss interview within 2 weeks
- Competitor changes pricing → analyze and respond within 1 week
Quarterly:
- Full competitive landscape review
- Update positioning map
- Refresh ICP competitive threat assessment
- Add/remove companies from tracking list
Win/Loss Analysis
This is the highest-signal competitive data you have. Most companies do it too rarely.
When to interview:
- Every lost deal >$50K ACV
- Every churn >6 months tenure
- Every competitive win (learn why — it may not be what you think)
Who conducts it:
- NOT the AE who worked the deal (too close, prospect won't be candid)
- Customer success, product team, or external researcher
Question structure:
- "Walk me through your evaluation process"
- "Who else were you considering?"
- "What were the top 3 criteria in your decision?"
- "Where did [our product] fall short?"
- "What was the deciding factor?"
- "What would have changed your decision?"
Aggregate findings monthly:
- Win reasons (rank by frequency)
- Loss reasons (rank by frequency)
- Competitor win rates (by competitor, by segment)
- Patterns over time
The Balance: Intelligence Without Obsession
Signs you're over-tracking competitors:
- Roadmap decisions are primarily driven by "they just shipped X"
- Team morale drops when competitors fundraise
- You're shipping features you don't believe in to match their checklist
- Pricing discussions always start with "well, they charge X"
Signs you're under-tracking:
- Your AEs get blindsided on calls
- Prospects know more about competitors than your team does
- You missed a major product launch until customers told you
- Your positioning hasn't changed in 12+ months despite market moves
The right posture:
- Know competitors well enough to win against them
- Don't let them set your agenda
- Your roadmap is led by customer problems, informed by competitive gaps
Distributing Intelligence
| Audience | Format | Cadence | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AEs + SDRs | Updated battlecards in CRM | Monthly + triggered | CRO |
| Product | Feature gap analysis | Quarterly | CPO |
| Marketing | Positioning brief | Quarterly | CMO |
| Leadership | 1-page competitive summary | Monthly | CEO/COO |
| Board | Competitive landscape slide | Quarterly | CEO |
One source of truth: All competitive intel lives in one place (Notion, Confluence, Salesforce). Avoid Slack-only distribution — it disappears.
Red Flags in Competitive Intelligence
| Signal | What it means |
|---|---|
| Competitor's win rate >50% in your core segment | Fundamental positioning problem, not sales problem |
| Same objection from 5+ deals: "competitor has X" | Feature gap that's real, not just optics |
| Competitor hired 10 engineers in your domain | Major product investment incoming |
| Competitor raised >$20M and targets your ICP | 12-month runway for them to compete hard |
| Prospects evaluate you to justify competitor decision | You're the "check box" — fix perception or segment |
Integration with C-Suite Roles
| Intelligence Type | Feeds To | Output Format |
|---|---|---|
| Product moves | CPO | Roadmap input, feature gap analysis |
| Pricing changes | CRO, CFO | Pricing response recommendations |
| Funding rounds | CEO, CFO | Strategic positioning update |
| Hiring signals | CHRO, CTO | Talent market intelligence |
| Customer wins/losses | CRO, CMO | Battlecard updates, positioning shifts |
| Marketing campaigns | CMO | Counter-positioning, channel intelligence |
References
references/ci-playbook.md— OSINT sources, win/loss framework, positioning map constructiontemplates/battlecard-template.md— sales battlecard template
04 同仓库更多 Skills
syllabus
Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search. Grill-me intake (syllabus input format + course audience + year range) plus a grouping forcing-options checkpoint before any search runs — so the reading list matches the course's level and recency need. Parses the syllabus to extract topics and learning outcomes, searches Consensus for recent peer-reviewed papers per topic, and produces a professionally formatted .docx with clickable Consensus links, plain-language summaries calibrated to audience level, and Bloom-higher-order discussion questions tied to course learning goals. Use when the user uploads a syllabus, course outline, or curriculum document and wants supplementary readings (e.g., 'create a reading list from this syllabus', 'find recent papers for my course') — even casual mentions with a syllabus attached should trigger this skill.
pulse
Multi-source recency research skill that takes the pulse of any topic across Reddit, Hacker News, the open web, and optionally X/Twitter within a configurable recent window (default 30 days). Forcing intake clarifies topic specificity, angle (trend/sentiment/problems/opportunities/comparison), time window, and platform scope before searching. Returns a synthesized briefing with citations, engagement metrics, and cross-platform pattern analysis. Use when the user requests multi-source recency intelligence on a topic (e.g., 'pulse on [topic]', 'what's happening with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'current conversation about [topic]', 'take the pulse of [topic]', 'trending: [topic]', 'find me info on [topic]'), and for competitor research, trend discovery, tool comparisons, and audience sentiment analysis.
patent
Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'). Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.
notebooklm
Browser automation skill for controlling Google's NotebookLM. Use when the user wants anything done in NotebookLM (e.g., 'open NotebookLM', 'check my [name] notebook', 'ask my notebook about X', 'add [source] to NotebookLM', 'generate a Video Overview from my notebook', 'use NotebookLM Studio'). Handles reading and querying notebooks, adding sources (URLs, text, files, YouTube links, synthesized content), generating Studio outputs (Audio/Video Overviews, Mind Maps, Reports incl. Briefing Doc/Study Guide/FAQ, Flashcards, Quiz, slide decks, infographics — discover the exact set from the live Studio panel; the UI evolves fast), and creating new notebooks. Requires browser automation environment — fails gracefully when unavailable.
litreview
Academic literature orientation skill that searches papers via free keyless APIs (PubMed E-utilities + OpenAlex) by default — with the Consensus MCP as an optional enhancement lane when connected — builds a strategic search plan using PICO (default) or SPIDER / Decomposition / hybrid as fallbacks, and synthesizes findings into a formatted Word (.docx) research guide. Grill-me intake (research question specificity + framework hint + tentative depth) before the recon search; a second forcing checkpoint after Phase 2 confirms framework + sub-areas + depth before searches consume budget. Configurable depth (5/10/20 queries) controls coverage vs. speed. Output is a 'launching pad' — an orientation guide that lets a researcher dive in confidently, not a finished review. Use when the user starts literature-oriented research (e.g., 'litreview on [topic]', 'literature review on [topic]', 'I'm starting a literature review on X', 'I'm writing a paper on X', 'help me research X', 'I'm doing research on X', 'can you help me research X'). Do NOT use for single one-off paper searches wanting a quick list — that's a plain PubMed/OpenAlex (or Consensus) query.
grants
NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.