Research a competitive landscape with cited snapshots, a comparison matrix, and so-what implications. Use when a product decision needs competitive grounding, not a market report.

Competitive Research Snapshot Purpose Research a company's competitive landscape using a workflow, not a one shot answer: search plan → competitor selection → just enough research → fact/inference labels → real URL citations → next step options. The output is a decision support snapshot, not a market report — and because its schema is stable, downstream skills (battle cards, delta monitors) can consume it and diff it. Because it proceeds on labeled assumptions when questions go unanswered, it can run as an agent task or on a schedule; re run it and diff against the prior snapshot. Input Works best with: the company, product, or segment to research, and the decision this research should support (positioning, roadmap bet, deal support, board prep) — the decision determines what "just enough" means. Also useful: known competitors (or explicit permission to identify them), and any prior snapshot or market landscape scan output in session — the skill builds on evidence already gathered rather than re researching it. Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget; don't re ask. Arriving empty handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (subject, decision, competitors) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered. Example invocation: Competitive research snapshot on our expense automation product — decision: which roadmap bet wins Q1. Competitors: [Competitor A], [Competitor B]; find a third if one matters. Key Concepts Governing protocol: honors the [ autonomous investigation ](../autonomous investigation/SKILL.md) contract in full — question budget of 3, search plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough Mode, stable schema, 4 option Final Step. Discipline mix: OSINT (press, reviews, analyst coverage) + FININT (filings, earnings language) + SIGINT (pricing pages, site changes) — see [ intelligence collection disciplines ](../intelligence collection disciplines/SKILL.md). Decision support snapshot, not market report. Every section earns its place by serving the decision named in Scope. Research value is decision support, not page count. Snapshot as baseline. The schema is a contract with future runs: competitive intel watch diffs the world against this document. Section order never changes. Three or four competitors, not eight. Depth on the players who matter beats coverage of players who don't. Use provided competitors; if none, identify the top 3 (4 only if clearly needed), each with name, why relevant, source URL, and confidence. Do not invent list (this domain's fabrication risks): competitors, features, pricing, market share, customer wins, roadmap items, product claims. When NOT to use: you need market sizing → [ tam sam som calculator ](../tam sam som calculator/SKILL.md); you need deep intel on one company's strategy and executives → [ company research ](../company research/SKILL.md) / [ company intel ](../company intel/SKILL.md); the facts are already gathered → go straight to the battle card. Application 1. Credit inline context , then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3): 1. What company/product/segment? 2. What decision should this support? 3. Known competitors, or should I identify them? If unanswered, proceed with labeled assumptions. 2. Show the 3 bullet search plan — what you'll search, source types, how facts will be separated from inference. Continue unless revised. 3. Select competitors — provided ones, or top 3 identified (4 only if clearly needed). For each: name; why relevant; source URL; confidence. 4. Research in Just Enough Mode with mixed sources: company sites, product/pricing pages, customer stories, press releases, investor materials, credible news, analyst/review sites. 5. Emit the schema below exactly — it is a stable schema for diffing runs over time. Output schema (do not reorder) ~~~markdown Competitive Research Snapshot 1. Scope Company/product: Category: Decision supported: Competitors analyzed: 2. Competitor Snapshots For each competitor, max 5 bullets: Competitor: [Name] Positioning: Relevant capability: Likely strength: Likely weakness: Key source URL: 3. Quick Comparison Dimension Company Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Target customer Core use case Main strength Main weakness Evidence quality 4. So What? 3 product strategy implications 2 competitive risks 2 product opportunities 3 assumptions to validate Each bullet: label, confidence, source URL where relevant. ~~~ A copy/paste fill in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [ template.md ](template.md). Final Step (offer exactly 4 options) 1. Competitive battle card ([ battle card builder ](../battle card builder/SKILL.md)) 2. Executive comparison matrix 3. Product risks/opportunities for the next 2 quarters 4. Discovery questions to validate the assumptions Accept 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 and 2 , Verbose Mode , or a custom path. Examples A competitor snapshot with honest labels (fictional): Competitor: Ledgerline Positioning: "finance automation for mid market CFOs" — Fact ([homepage, Jul 2026](https://example.com)) Relevant capability: approval chain builder shipped in May — Fact ([release notes](https://example.com/changelog)) Likely strength: ERP integrations; 40+ listed, reviewers confirm the top 5 work well — Fact ([G2 reviews](https://example.com/reviews)) Likely weakness: implementation time; complaint cluster across 11 reviews since March — Inference (review mining; no benchmark data) Key source URL: [pricing page](https://example.com/pricing) The "Evidence quality" row doing its job: the comparison matrix rates Comp 3's column low — every claim traces to their own marketing. The So What section then refuses to list Comp 3 as a primary risk: "insufficient independent evidence — Assumption to validate via customer references." That row exists so weak columns can't masquerade as strong ones. See [ examples/sample.md ](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked snapshot (fictional FSM software market) that consumes the market landscape scan example and becomes the baseline the competitive intel watch example diffs against. [ examples/sample industrial.md ](examples/sample industrial.md) shows the same schema on an industrial evidence diet — filings, registries, and honest absence of evidence. Common Pitfalls The market report trap. Twenty pages on industry trends nobody asked for. If a section doesn't serve the decision in Scope, it's padding — Just Enough Mode is the contract. Marketing page credulity. A competitor's claimed capabilities recorded as facts. Their site is a Fact about what they claim ; whether it works is review site territory or an Inference, labeled. Coverage over depth. Eight competitors with two facts each. Select three that matter and go deep — the comparison matrix should be full, not wide. Unlabeled So What. Implications stated with borrowed confidence. The label and confidence on each So What bullet is what makes it usable in a roadmap argument. Regenerating instead of diffing. Re running this skill weekly and re reading the whole output is theater — that's what [ competitive intel watch ](../competitive intel watch/SKILL.md) is for. References [ autonomous investigation ](../autonomous investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — the governing protocol [ intelligence collection disciplines ](../intelligence collection disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — discipline sources and signal chains [ market landscape scan ](../market landscape scan/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — upstream: surfaces which players deserve this snapshot [ competitive intel watch ](../competitive intel watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — downstream: diffs future runs against this baseline [ battle card builder ](../battle card builder/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — downstream: turns the snapshot into a field action card [ company research ](../company research/SKILL.md), [ company intel ](../company intel/SKILL.md) — single company deep dives Adapted from market intelligence/competitive research snapshot prompt.md in the https://github.com/deanpeters/product manager prompts repo.

competitive-research-snapshot