67f3922e4f
Phase 1 — Agent & Command Foundation: - Rewrite cs-project-manager agent (55→515 lines, 4 workflows, 6 skill integrations) - Expand cs-product-manager agent (408→684 lines, orchestrates all 8 product skills) - Add 7 slash commands: /rice, /okr, /persona, /user-story, /sprint-health, /project-health, /retro Phase 2 — Script Gap Closure (2,779 lines): - jira-expert: jql_query_builder.py (22 patterns), workflow_validator.py - confluence-expert: space_structure_generator.py, content_audit_analyzer.py - atlassian-admin: permission_audit_tool.py - atlassian-templates: template_scaffolder.py (Confluence XHTML generation) Phase 3 — Reference & Asset Enrichment: - 9 product references (competitive-teardown, landing-page-generator, saas-scaffolder) - 6 PM references (confluence-expert, atlassian-admin, atlassian-templates) - 7 product assets (templates for PRD, RICE, sprint, stories, OKR, research, design system) - 1 PM asset (permission_scheme_template.json) Phase 4 — New Agents: - cs-agile-product-owner, cs-product-strategist, cs-ux-researcher Phase 5 — Integration & Polish: - Related Skills cross-references in 8 SKILL.md files - Updated product-team/CLAUDE.md (5→8 skills, 6→9 tools, 4 agents, 5 commands) - Updated project-management/CLAUDE.md (0→12 scripts, 3 commands) - Regenerated docs site (177 pages), updated homepage and getting-started Quality audit: 31 files reviewed, 29 PASS, 2 fixed (copy-frameworks.md, governance-framework.md) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
204 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
204 lines
6.5 KiB
Markdown
# Competitive Analysis Templates
|
|
|
|
## 1. SWOT Analysis Template
|
|
|
|
### Company/Product: [Competitor Name]
|
|
**Date:** [Analysis Date] | **Analyst:** [Name] | **Version:** [1.0]
|
|
|
|
#### Strengths (Internal Advantages)
|
|
| # | Strength | Evidence | Impact |
|
|
|---|----------|----------|--------|
|
|
| 1 | [e.g., Strong brand recognition] | [Source/data point] | High/Med/Low |
|
|
| 2 | | | |
|
|
| 3 | | | |
|
|
|
|
#### Weaknesses (Internal Limitations)
|
|
| # | Weakness | Evidence | Exploitability |
|
|
|---|----------|----------|---------------|
|
|
| 1 | [e.g., Limited API capabilities] | [Source/data point] | High/Med/Low |
|
|
| 2 | | | |
|
|
| 3 | | | |
|
|
|
|
#### Opportunities (External Favorable)
|
|
| # | Opportunity | Timeframe | Our Advantage |
|
|
|---|------------|-----------|---------------|
|
|
| 1 | [e.g., Competitor slow to adopt AI] | Short/Med/Long | [How we capitalize] |
|
|
| 2 | | | |
|
|
| 3 | | | |
|
|
|
|
#### Threats (External Unfavorable)
|
|
| # | Threat | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|
|
|---|--------|-----------|-----------|
|
|
| 1 | [e.g., Competitor acquired by larger company] | High/Med/Low | [Our response plan] |
|
|
| 2 | | | |
|
|
| 3 | | | |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Porter's Five Forces (Product Application)
|
|
|
|
### Market: [Your Product Category]
|
|
|
|
#### Force 1: Competitive Rivalry (Intensity: High/Med/Low)
|
|
- Number of direct competitors: ___
|
|
- Market growth rate: ___% annually
|
|
- Product differentiation level: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Switching costs for customers: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Exit barriers: High/Med/Low
|
|
- **Assessment:** [Summary of competitive rivalry intensity]
|
|
|
|
#### Force 2: Threat of New Entrants (Intensity: High/Med/Low)
|
|
- Capital requirements: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Technology barriers: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Network effects strength: Strong/Moderate/Weak
|
|
- Regulatory barriers: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Brand loyalty in market: Strong/Moderate/Weak
|
|
- **Assessment:** [Summary of new entrant threat]
|
|
|
|
#### Force 3: Threat of Substitutes (Intensity: High/Med/Low)
|
|
- Alternative solutions: [List substitutes]
|
|
- Price-performance of substitutes: Better/Same/Worse
|
|
- Switching costs to substitutes: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Customer propensity to switch: High/Med/Low
|
|
- **Assessment:** [Summary of substitute threat]
|
|
|
|
#### Force 4: Bargaining Power of Buyers (Power: High/Med/Low)
|
|
- Buyer concentration: Concentrated/Fragmented
|
|
- Price sensitivity: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Information availability: Full/Partial/Limited
|
|
- Switching costs: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Volume of purchases: High/Med/Low
|
|
- **Assessment:** [Summary of buyer power]
|
|
|
|
#### Force 5: Bargaining Power of Suppliers (Power: High/Med/Low)
|
|
- Key technology dependencies: [List]
|
|
- Cloud provider lock-in: High/Med/Low
|
|
- Talent market tightness: Tight/Balanced/Loose
|
|
- Data source dependencies: Critical/Important/Optional
|
|
- **Assessment:** [Summary of supplier power]
|
|
|
|
#### Overall Industry Attractiveness: [Score 1-10]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Competitive Positioning Map
|
|
|
|
### Axis Definitions
|
|
- **X-Axis:** [e.g., Ease of Use] (Low to High)
|
|
- **Y-Axis:** [e.g., Feature Completeness] (Low to High)
|
|
|
|
### Competitor Positions
|
|
|
|
| Competitor | X Score (1-10) | Y Score (1-10) | Quadrant |
|
|
|-----------|---------------|---------------|----------|
|
|
| Your Product | ___ | ___ | ___ |
|
|
| Competitor A | ___ | ___ | ___ |
|
|
| Competitor B | ___ | ___ | ___ |
|
|
| Competitor C | ___ | ___ | ___ |
|
|
| Competitor D | ___ | ___ | ___ |
|
|
|
|
### Quadrant Definitions
|
|
- **Top-Right (Leaders):** High on both axes - market leaders
|
|
- **Top-Left (Feature-Rich):** High features, lower ease of use - complex tools
|
|
- **Bottom-Right (Simple):** Easy to use, fewer features - niche players
|
|
- **Bottom-Left (Laggards):** Low on both axes - disruption candidates
|
|
|
|
### Positioning Insights
|
|
- **White space opportunities:** [Areas with no competitor presence]
|
|
- **Crowded areas:** [Where competition is fiercest]
|
|
- **Our trajectory:** [Direction we're moving on the map]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Win/Loss Analysis Template
|
|
|
|
### Deal: [Opportunity Name]
|
|
**Date:** [Close Date] | **Result:** Won / Lost | **Competitor:** [Name]
|
|
|
|
#### Deal Context
|
|
- **Deal Size:** $___
|
|
- **Sales Cycle:** ___ days
|
|
- **Segment:** SMB / Mid-Market / Enterprise
|
|
- **Industry:** ___
|
|
- **Decision Makers:** [Roles involved]
|
|
- **Evaluation Criteria:** [What mattered most to buyer]
|
|
|
|
#### Competitive Comparison (Buyer Perspective)
|
|
|
|
| Factor | Us (Score 1-5) | Competitor (Score 1-5) | Decisive? |
|
|
|--------|---------------|----------------------|-----------|
|
|
| Product Fit | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Pricing | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Ease of Use | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Support Quality | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Integration | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Brand/Trust | | | Yes/No |
|
|
| Implementation | | | Yes/No |
|
|
|
|
#### Win/Loss Factors
|
|
- **Primary reason for outcome:** [Single most important factor]
|
|
- **Secondary factors:** [Supporting reasons]
|
|
- **Buyer quotes:** ["Direct quotes from debrief"]
|
|
|
|
#### Action Items
|
|
| # | Action | Owner | Due Date |
|
|
|---|--------|-------|----------|
|
|
| 1 | [e.g., Improve onboarding flow] | [Name] | [Date] |
|
|
| 2 | | | |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Battle Card Template
|
|
|
|
### Competitor: [Name]
|
|
**Last Updated:** [Date] | **Confidence:** High/Med/Low
|
|
|
|
#### Quick Facts
|
|
- **Founded:** ___
|
|
- **Funding:** $___
|
|
- **Employees:** ___
|
|
- **Customers:** ___
|
|
- **HQ:** ___
|
|
|
|
#### Elevator Pitch (Their Positioning)
|
|
> [How the competitor describes themselves in one sentence]
|
|
|
|
#### Our Positioning Against Them
|
|
> [How we differentiate - our one-liner against this competitor]
|
|
|
|
#### Where They Win
|
|
| Strength | Our Counter |
|
|
|----------|------------|
|
|
| [e.g., Lower price point] | [e.g., Emphasize TCO including implementation costs] |
|
|
| [e.g., Larger integration marketplace] | [e.g., Highlight quality over quantity, key integrations] |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
#### Where We Win
|
|
| Our Strength | Evidence |
|
|
|-------------|----------|
|
|
| [e.g., Superior onboarding experience] | [Metric or customer quote] |
|
|
| [e.g., Better enterprise security] | [Certification or feature] |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
#### Landmines to Set
|
|
Questions to ask prospects that expose competitor weaknesses:
|
|
1. "Have you evaluated how [specific capability] scales beyond [threshold]?"
|
|
2. "What's their approach to [area where competitor is weak]?"
|
|
3. "Can you share their uptime SLA and historical performance?"
|
|
|
|
#### Objection Handling
|
|
| Objection | Response |
|
|
|-----------|----------|
|
|
| "[Competitor] is cheaper" | [Value-based response] |
|
|
| "[Competitor] has more features" | [Quality/relevance response] |
|
|
| "We already use [Competitor]" | [Migration/coexistence story] |
|
|
|
|
#### Trap Questions They Set
|
|
Questions competitors ask about us, and how to respond:
|
|
1. **Q:** "[Our known weakness]?" **A:** [Honest, redirect response]
|
|
2. **Q:** "[Feature gap]?" **A:** [Roadmap or alternative approach]
|
|
|
|
#### Recent Intel
|
|
- [Date]: [Notable change - pricing, feature, hire, funding]
|
|
- [Date]: [Notable change]
|