---

name: competitor-teardown description: "Produce a structured competitive analysis for any product or market. Use when asked for a competitor analysis, competitive teardown, market comparison, SWOT, or positioning map. Generates a structured teardown with positioning map, feature comparison, messaging gaps, and strategic recommendations. For a full landscape doc with feature matrix and win/loss analysis use competitive-analysis instead."

Competitor Teardown Skill

This skill produces a complete competitive analysis document — structured for use in strategy decks, investor materials, sales enablement, or product planning sessions.

Required Inputs

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).

• Your product (name + one-line description)
• Competitors to analyse (list 2–5 names; if not provided, ask)
• Analysis depth (quick overview / detailed teardown)
• Primary use case for this analysis (e.g. sales enablement, investor deck, internal strategy, product planning)

Deeper Materials

• references/intel-sourcing-guide.md — where competitive facts come from (four source tiers), which source to use per teardown section, the [verified]/[reported]/[assumed] confidence labels, and the ethics line. Apply its labelling to every substantive claim in the output.
• templates/teardown-skeleton.md — a fill-in teardown with the confidence labels and a verification queue built in. Offer it when the user wants to gather the intel themselves.

Output Structure

1. Competitive Landscape Overview

One paragraph summarising the market dynamic: who the key players are, how the market is segmented, and where the white space sits. Keep this under 150 words — it's the exec summary.

2. Positioning Map

Describe a 2x2 positioning map in text form (since you can't render images):

• Define the two axes relevant to this market (e.g. "Ease of Use vs. Depth of Features" or "Price vs. Enterprise Readiness")
• Place each competitor in one quadrant with a one-sentence rationale
• Place the user's product and highlight the strategic implication

3. Feature Comparison Table

Feature / Capability	[Your Product]	[Competitor A]	[Competitor B]	[Competitor C]
[Feature]	✅ / ❌ / 🟡 Partial

Use ✅ (has it), ❌ (doesn't have it), 🟡 (partial/limited). Add a "Strategic Notes" column for features where the difference is a significant selling point or risk.

Include 10–15 rows. If user hasn't provided feature details, note which cells need to be verified.

4. Messaging Analysis

For each competitor, analyse their public-facing messaging (website headline, tagline, primary value prop):

[Competitor Name]

• Their primary claim: [what they say they do]
• Target audience signal: [who they seem to be targeting based on language/imagery]
• Emotional hook: [fear / aspiration / authority / speed / simplicity]
• Gap or weakness in their messaging: [what they don't address that your product could own]

5. SWOT Summary

Produce a clean SWOT for the user's product in the context of this competitive landscape:

• Strengths: [2–3 genuine differentiators]
• Weaknesses: [2–3 honest gaps or vulnerabilities]
• Opportunities: [2–3 market gaps or competitor weaknesses to exploit]
• Threats: [2–3 competitor moves or market shifts to watch]

6. Strategic Recommendations

3–5 actionable recommendations based on the analysis. Frame each as: "Given [observation], [your product] should [action] to [outcome]."

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

Dimension	0	5	10
Map meaningfulness	Axes are generic (price × quality)	Market-specific axes but positions unjustified	Axes capture the real buying tension in this market and every placement is defensible
Comparative depth	Feature table is checkmarks	Features compared with some notes	Differentiators carry strategic notes explaining why the gap matters and to whom
SWOT honesty	Weaknesses/threats softened to niceties	Honest but unprioritized	Weaknesses and threats stated plainly, ranked by how much they should worry you
Recommendation specificity	Generic strategy advice	Actionable but unlinked to findings	Each recommendation follows "given [observation], do [action] to [outcome]" and traces to the analysis

Quality Checks

• Axes on positioning map are meaningful and specific to this market
• Feature table includes strategic notes on key differentiators
• Messaging analysis covers all named competitors
• SWOT is honest — Weaknesses and Threats should not be softened
• Recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic strategy advice

Anti-Patterns

• Do not mark feature presence as equivalent across competitors without noting quality differences — both products may have "reporting" while one's is meaningfully better
• Do not position the user's product in the most favourable quadrant without justification — a self-serving positioning map that ignores real competitive pressure provides no strategic value
• Do not soften Weaknesses or Threats in the SWOT — a SWOT that only celebrates strengths is a marketing document, not a strategy tool
• Do not include unverifiable claims about competitor capabilities without flagging them as assumptions — presenting rumours as facts damages analytical credibility

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Do a competitor analysis of [Product] vs [Competitor A] and [Competitor B]"
• "Tear down [Competitor]'s positioning"
• "Give me a competitive landscape for [market]"
• "Build a SWOT for our product against [competitor]"