competitive-analysis-process

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Competitive Analysis Process

竞争分析流程

Purpose

目的

Orchestrate rigorous, repeatable competitive analysis across six analytical steps, producing four actionable output types (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning counter-moves, threat assessments). This is the umbrella: each step names its purpose, its frameworks, and the skill that does the work — the way

discovery-process

orchestrates the discovery skills. Run all six for a strategy cycle; run one when a specific question walks in the door. The steps build on each other, but the sequence bends to the decision.

统筹涵盖六个分析步骤的严谨、可重复的竞争分析，产出四种可落地的输出类型（竞品对战卡片、对比矩阵、定位应对策略、威胁评估）。这是一个总领性流程：每个步骤都明确其目标、所用框架以及执行任务的skill——就像

discovery-process

统筹发现类skill的方式。完整运行六个步骤可支撑一轮战略周期；当有特定问题出现时，可单独运行某一个步骤。各步骤相互依存，但顺序可根据决策需求灵活调整。

Input

输入

Works best with: the market or competitor set in scope, and the decision this analysis supports — a roadmap bet, a positioning refresh, a market entry, deal defense. The decision determines which steps get depth and which get a pass. Also useful: any existing intelligence — a prior landscape scan, snapshots, battle cards, or

company-intel

output — so steps consume rather than repeat 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; don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The workflow opens by asking what decision is on the table and what you already know, then recommends which steps to run and in what order.

Example invocation:

Run the competitive analysis process on the mid-market payroll space — decision: whether we defend down-market or push up. We have last quarter's landscape scan.

最佳搭配： 明确范围内的市场或竞品集合，以及本次分析所支撑的决策——比如路线图规划、定位更新、市场进入、客户留存。决策将决定哪些步骤需要深入执行，哪些步骤可简化处理。 额外有用信息： 任何现有情报——过往的市场格局扫描、快照、竞品对战卡片，或

company-intel

的输出——这样各步骤可直接复用信息，无需重复工作。

在调用时提供的输入——skill名称后的文本、粘贴的上下文内容，或附加的

ARGUMENTS:

行——均视为已提供的答案。请直接使用，无需再次询问。

没有任何前置信息？也没问题。 工作流启动时会先询问当前待决策事项以及您已掌握的信息，然后推荐需要运行的步骤及顺序。

调用示例：

Run the competitive analysis process on the mid-market payroll space — decision: whether we defend down-market or push up. We have last quarter's landscape scan.

Key Concepts

核心概念

Six steps, four outputs. The steps are analytical lenses; the outputs (battle cards, comparison matrices, positioning moves, threat assessments) are what sales, execs, and roadmap owners actually consume. A step that doesn't feed an output is a detour.
Steps delegate; this skill orchestrates. Each step below names the skill that does the work. This file holds the sequence, the frameworks, and the decision points — not the research mechanics.
Evidence discipline throughout. Every step honors the
```
autonomous-investigation
```
protocol (Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, real URLs, confidence stacking), drawing signals from the channels in
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
.
Named frameworks, cited. Each step stands on published strategy work — Porter's Five Forces, the Kano model, Jobs-to-be-Done, the Business Model Canvas, Ries & Trout positioning, Hamel & Prahalad strategic intent. The frameworks are defined where used; agents shouldn't assume prior knowledge.
Present ≠ future. Steps 1-5 read where competitors are; Step 6 reads where they're going — and it's the step most teams skip, which is why they're perpetually surprised.

六步流程，四类输出。步骤是分析视角；输出（竞品对战卡片、对比矩阵、定位策略、威胁评估）是销售、高管和路线图负责人实际使用的内容。无法产出输出的步骤均为冗余环节。
步骤执行委托，本skill统筹协调。下文每个步骤都会指明执行任务的skill。本文件仅定义流程顺序、框架和决策节点——不涉及具体调研操作。
全程遵循证据规范。每个步骤都遵守
```
autonomous-investigation
```
协议（标注事实/推论/假设、真实URL、可信度分层），从
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
中定义的渠道获取信号。
明确引用框架。每个步骤都基于已发表的战略研究成果——波特五力模型（Porter's Five Forces）、卡诺模型（Kano model）、用户待办任务（Jobs-to-be-Done）、商业模式画布（Business Model Canvas）、里斯&特劳特定位理论（Ries & Trout positioning）、哈默尔&普拉哈拉德战略意图（Hamel & Prahalad strategic intent）。框架会在使用时进行定义，Agent无需预设用户已有相关知识。
现状≠未来。步骤1-5分析竞品当前状态；步骤6分析竞品未来走向——这是大多数团队会跳过的步骤，也是他们总是措手不及的原因。

Application

应用

Step 0 — Scope. Confirm the decision, the competitor set (or run

market-landscape-scan

to find it), and which steps matter. Offer the six steps as a numbered menu; recommend a subset when the decision doesn't need all six.

步骤0——范围界定。确认待决策事项、竞品集合（或运行

market-landscape-scan

来确定集合），以及哪些步骤是关键。将六个步骤作为编号菜单提供；当决策无需全部步骤时，推荐子集。

Step 1: Overview of the Competitive Landscape

步骤1：竞争格局概述

Who's in the game, where, and how they operate — market saturation, fragmentation, disruptive entrants.

Frameworks: Porter's Five Forces (industry structure); strategic group mapping (clustering competitors by GTM model, innovation pattern, or regional depth); market fragmentation indexing.
Run:
```
market-landscape-scan
```
— segments, player map, dynamics, whitespace with the dead-zone test.
Decision point: which 2-4 players deserve depth? Everything downstream narrows to them.

明确市场参与者、布局及运营模式——市场饱和度、碎片化程度、颠覆性新进入者。

框架： 波特五力模型（行业结构）；战略群体映射（按GTM模式、创新模式或区域覆盖深度对竞品进行聚类）；市场碎片化指数。
执行： 运行
```
market-landscape-scan
```
——产出细分市场、玩家图谱、市场动态、通过死区测试识别的空白市场。
决策节点： 确定2-4个值得深入分析的玩家？后续所有步骤都会聚焦这些玩家。

Step 2: Comparisons at the Product Level

步骤2：产品层面对比

Beyond feature lists: value delivery, architecture, interoperability, lifecycle maturity.

Frameworks: Kano model (which features delight vs. merely satisfy); Geoffrey Moore's Whole Product model (core product vs. the ring of services and integrations deals actually hinge on); JTBD-based capability maps (compare by customer job, not by feature name).
Run:
```
competitive-research-snapshot
```
on the selected players — its comparison matrix is this step's artifact.
Watch for: feature parity theater. A capability map by job-to-be-done exposes what a feature checklist hides: two "identical" features serving different jobs badly.

超越功能列表：价值交付、架构、互操作性、生命周期成熟度。

框架： 卡诺模型（区分令人愉悦的功能与仅满足基本需求的功能）；杰弗里·摩尔的完整产品模型（核心产品 vs 交易真正依赖的服务与集成圈层）；基于JTBD的能力图谱（按客户任务而非功能名称进行对比）。
执行： 对选定玩家运行
```
competitive-research-snapshot
```
——其产出的对比矩阵即为本步骤的成果。
注意： 功能同质化假象。基于用户待办任务的能力图谱能暴露功能清单隐藏的问题：两个“相同”的功能可能在服务不同任务时表现糟糕。

Step 3: Ability to Fulfill Customer Needs

步骤3：客户需求满足能力

How well they serve real customers — outcomes, support quality, ecosystem benefits — not tech specs.

Frameworks: Outcome-Driven Innovation (score against customer-defined outcomes); Value Proposition Canvas (their promise vs. the jobs/pains/gains that matter).
Run:
```
voice-of-customer-miner
```
across the sources your buyer reads — need themes, quoted verbatims, competitor weak points, and switching triggers, each with a source-bias note.
Watch for: vendor-authored "reviews" and case studies. Independent complaint clusters are the signal; curated success stories are marketing.

竞品对真实客户的服务质量——成果、支持水平、生态系统收益——而非技术规格。

框架： 成果驱动创新（按客户定义的成果评分）；价值主张画布（竞品承诺 vs 客户关注的任务/痛点/收益）。
执行： 在目标买家关注的渠道运行
```
voice-of-customer-miner
```
——产出需求主题、客户原话引用、竞品弱点、转换触发因素，每项均标注来源偏差说明。
注意： 厂商自编的“评测”和案例研究。独立的投诉集群是有效信号；精心策划的成功案例只是营销内容。

Step 4: Compilation of Business Information

步骤4：商业信息整合

The financial, organizational, and market baseline: structure, revenue streams, growth levers, channels.

Frameworks: Business Model Canvas (how the whole machine fits together); revenue stream breakdown; sales channel profiling (direct vs. OEM vs. VAR vs. platform).
Run:
```
company-intel
```
per deep-dive competitor — its eleven-section output (financials, offers, org signals) is this step's artifact; FININT sources per
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
do the heavy lifting.
Watch for: press-release accounting. Filings and earnings calls outrank announcements — companies lie less where lying is a felony.

财务、组织与市场基准：结构、收入来源、增长杠杆、渠道。

框架： 商业模式画布（整体业务逻辑）；收入来源细分；销售渠道分析（直销 vs OEM vs VAR vs 平台）。
执行： 对深度分析的竞品运行
```
company-intel
```
——其产出的11部分内容（财务、产品、组织信号）即为本步骤的成果；
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
中定义的FININT来源承担核心调研工作。
注意： 新闻稿式会计手法。 filings和财报电话会议的优先级高于公告——在这些场合撒谎属于重罪，企业会更谨慎。

Step 5: Perception and Relative Positioning

步骤5：认知与相对定位

How buyers perceive you versus them — in promise, emotion, and mental association, not capability.

Frameworks: Ries & Trout positioning theory (the battle is for the buyer's mind); perceptual mapping (price vs. value-perception plots; find the uncontested space); Blue Ocean strategy canvas.
Run: contrast their stated positioning (Step 2 snapshots) against customer language (Step 3 review mining); draft or revise with
```
positioning-statement
```
.
Watch for: the promise-delivery gap — where a competitor's marketing writes checks their reviews say they don't cash. That gap is a positioning counter-move waiting to be claimed.

买家对您与竞品的认知差异——承诺、情感、心智联想，而非能力。

框架： 里斯&特劳特定位理论（竞争是对买家心智的争夺）；感知映射（价格 vs 价值感知图表，寻找无竞争空间）；蓝海战略画布。
执行： 将竞品的宣称定位（步骤2的快照）与客户语言（步骤3的评测挖掘）进行对比；使用
```
positioning-statement
```
起草或修订定位。
注意： 承诺与交付的差距——竞品营销宣传的内容与其评测反馈不符的地方。这个差距正是可抢占的定位应对机会。

Step 6: Competitors' Strategic Direction

步骤6：竞品战略方向

Where they're going, not where they are — the step that lets you preempt instead of react.

Frameworks: Hamel & Prahalad's strategic intent (read the ambition behind the moves); the Innovation Ambition Matrix (core/adjacent/transformational mix of their bets).
Run: the forward-looking disciplines in
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
— TECHINT (patent clusters, trademark filings, preprints), HUMINT (hiring surges, leadership moves), FININT (earnings language, M&A themes), MASINT (supply chain, facility buildout) — fused via the confidence-stacking rule.
```
competitive-intel-watch
```
keeps this step running on a cadence after the initial pass.
Watch for: single-signal panic. One patent is exploration; a cluster plus a hiring surge plus a subdomain cert is a committed bet. Stack before you brief.

竞品的未来走向，而非当前状态——这一步能让您先发制人，而非被动应对。

框架： 哈默尔&普拉哈拉德的战略意图（解读行动背后的野心）；创新野心矩阵（竞品在核心/相邻/转型领域的投注组合）。
执行： 使用
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
中的前瞻性方法——TECHINT（专利集群、商标申请、预印本）、HUMINT（招聘激增、领导层变动）、FININT（财报措辞、并购主题）、MASINT（供应链、设施扩建）——通过可信度分层规则整合信息。初始分析完成后，可通过
```
competitive-intel-watch
```
按周期持续运行本步骤。
注意： 单一信号引发的恐慌。一项专利只是探索；专利集群+招聘激增+子域名认证才是明确的投注。在汇报前先整合多信号验证。

Step 7: Produce the Outputs

步骤7：产出最终成果

Close by building what the audience consumes — offer as a numbered menu:

Battle cards for the field —
```
battle-card-builder
```
Executive comparison matrix — from Step 2's snapshot
Positioning counter-moves — from Step 5's gap analysis
Threat assessment brief — Step 6's fused signals, with confidence levels and recommended responses

Then set the maintenance cadence:

competitive-intel-watch

on the schedule the artifact mapping in

intelligence-collection-disciplines

prescribes (weekly SIGINT layer for cards, quarterly deep passes for direction).

A copy/paste engagement tracker for all seven steps lives in

template.md

最后生成受众所需的内容——提供编号菜单：

面向一线的竞品对战卡片——
```
battle-card-builder
```
高管版对比矩阵——来自步骤2的快照
定位应对策略——来自步骤5的差距分析
威胁评估简报——步骤6整合的信号，包含可信度等级及建议应对方案

然后设定维护周期：按照

intelligence-collection-disciplines

中定义的成果更新频率，运行

competitive-intel-watch

（对战卡片每周更新SIGINT层，战略方向每季度深度分析）。

所有七个步骤的复制粘贴式进度追踪器可在

template.md

中找到。

Examples

示例

Scoping to the decision (fictional): the decision is deal defense against one rival in enterprise deals. The right subset is Steps 2, 3, and 5 on that one competitor, straight into a battle card — Steps 1, 4, and 6 add days, not win-rate. The orchestrator's value is permission to skip: "Based on your decision, I recommend Steps 2→3→5 only. Run the full six?

Yes, deal defense scope (2, 3, 5 → battle card)
Add Step 6 — they've been acquiring lately and I want the direction read
Full six-step pass
Something else"

Step 6 catching what Steps 1-5 missed: the present-state read shows a competitor stable and mid-pack. The direction pass finds a patent cluster in a new classification, four platform-engineer postings, and an earnings call where the CFO declined to break out R&D — three disciplines, one story: a platform pivot in progress. The threat assessment brief re-ranks them from "monitor" to "act," a quarter before their announcement would have forced a reactive scramble.

See

examples/sample.md

for a complete worked engagement (fictional FSM-software market) showing the orchestration decisions — scoping menu, recorded skips, and step-to-step compounding — with links into the delegated skills' own worked artifacts.

examples/sample-industrial.md

shows the umbrella bending — steps merged, one run out of order, cadence slowed — with each call's reasoning stated.

根据决策调整范围（虚构案例）： 决策是针对企业客户交易中的单一竞品进行客户留存。合适的步骤子集是针对该竞品运行步骤2、3、5，直接生成对战卡片——步骤1、4、6只会增加时间成本，不会提升胜率。统筹流程的价值在于允许跳过非必要步骤：“基于您的决策，我建议仅运行步骤2→3→5。是否运行完整六步？

是，按客户留存范围执行（2、3、5 → 对战卡片）
添加步骤6——他们近期一直在收购，我想了解其战略方向
完整运行六步
其他需求”

步骤6发现步骤1-5遗漏的信息： 现状分析显示某竞品稳定处于中游水平。方向分析发现其在新分类下的专利集群、4个平台工程师招聘岗位，以及CFO在财报电话会议中拒绝披露研发支出——三个渠道指向同一个结论：该竞品正在进行平台转型。威胁评估简报将其从“监控”等级提升至“行动”等级，比其正式公告提前一个季度，避免了被动应对的慌乱。

完整的虚构案例（FSM软件市场）可查看

examples/sample.md

，展示了统筹决策——范围菜单、记录跳过的步骤、步骤间的联动——并链接到委托skill的成果示例。

examples/sample-industrial.md

展示了流程的灵活性——步骤合并、顺序调整、周期放缓——并说明了每一步决策的理由。

Common Pitfalls

常见误区

Running all six on autopilot. The steps are a menu, not a mandate. Scope to the decision or the analysis ships after the decision got made without it.
Skipping Step 6. Present-state analysis ages the moment it ships; direction analysis is what buys you a quarter of lead time. Teams that skip it are perpetually surprised on launch day.
Framework name-dropping. Citing Five Forces without rating the forces, or Kano without classifying a single feature. A framework earns its mention by producing a judgment.
Analysis without outputs. Six beautiful steps and no battle card, no matrix, no brief. Step 7 isn't optional — research is only done when it names the artifact it changes.
One-time heroics. A grand annual analysis that's stale by month three. The process ends by installing the watch cadence, or it didn't end — it just stopped.

自动运行全部六步。步骤是菜单，而非强制要求。根据决策调整范围，否则分析完成时决策可能已经做出。
跳过步骤6。现状分析在产出时就已过时；方向分析能为您争取一个季度的领先时间。跳过这一步的团队总会在竞品发布时措手不及。
仅提及框架名称。引用五力模型却不对各力进行评级，或提及卡诺模型却未对任何功能进行分类。只有产出判断的框架才值得被引用。
只做分析不产出成果。完成六个完美的步骤却没有对战卡片、矩阵或简报。步骤7并非可选——只有产出可落地成果的调研才算完成。
一次性突击分析。年度大型分析在第三个月就已过时。流程结束时必须设定监控周期，否则不能视为完成——只是停止了而已。

References

参考资料

```
market-landscape-scan
```
(Workflow) — Step 1
```
competitive-research-snapshot
```
(Workflow) — Step 2
```
voice-of-customer-miner
```
(Workflow) — Step 3
```
company-intel
```
(Workflow) — Step 4
```
positioning-statement
```
(Component) — Step 5
```
competitive-intel-watch
```
(Workflow) — Step 6 cadence + maintenance
```
battle-card-builder
```
(Workflow) — Step 7 output
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
(Component) — signal channels throughout
```
autonomous-investigation
```
(Workflow) — evidence discipline throughout
External frameworks: Porter, How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy (HBR, 1979); Kano, attractive quality theory; Moore, Crossing the Chasm (Whole Product); Ulwick, Outcome-Driven Innovation; Osterwalder & Pigneur, Business Model Generation; Ries & Trout, Positioning; Hamel & Prahalad, Competing for the Future (HBR, 1994); Nagji & Tuff, Managing Your Innovation Portfolio (HBR, 2012)
Adapted from practitioner experience running structured competitive analyses.

```
market-landscape-scan
```
（工作流）——步骤1
```
competitive-research-snapshot
```
（工作流）——步骤2
```
voice-of-customer-miner
```
（工作流）——步骤3
```
company-intel
```
（工作流）——步骤4
```
positioning-statement
```
（组件）——步骤5
```
competitive-intel-watch
```
（工作流）——步骤6周期维护
```
battle-card-builder
```
（工作流）——步骤7产出
```
intelligence-collection-disciplines
```
（组件）——全程信号渠道
```
autonomous-investigation
```
（工作流）——全程证据规范
外部框架：Porter, How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy (HBR, 1979); Kano, attractive quality theory; Moore, Crossing the Chasm (Whole Product); Ulwick, Outcome-Driven Innovation; Osterwalder & Pigneur, Business Model Generation; Ries & Trout, Positioning; Hamel & Prahalad, Competing for the Future (HBR, 1994); Nagji & Tuff, Managing Your Innovation Portfolio (HBR, 2012)
改编自结构化竞争分析的从业者经验。