Back to Details

swot-analysis

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

SWOT Analysis (Evidence-Cited)

SWOT分析（有证据支撑）

Purpose

目的

Build an evidence-cited SWOT of one company — yours or a competitor's — from the public record: use or gather evidence → four labeled quadrants → crossings → next-step options. Strengths and weaknesses come from documented capability and customer voice; opportunities and threats from market, competitor, and macro signals. Every entry carries a source and a label, and the analysis ends with the S-O and W-T crossings — because a SWOT without "so what" is a parking lot with four sections.
基于公开记录为某家公司（自家或竞品）构建有证据支撑的SWOT分析： 使用或收集证据 → 四个标注象限 → 交叉分析 → 下一步选项。优势与劣势源自已记录的能力和客户反馈；机会与威胁源自市场、竞品及宏观信号。每一项条目都带有来源和标签，分析最终以S-O和W-T交叉分析收尾——因为没有“实际意义”的SWOT就像一个被分成四块的停车场，毫无用处。

Input

输入

Works best with: the company to analyze, the scope (whole company or one product line/market), and the decision this SWOT should support. Also useful: the perspective — theirs, or yours competing with them — and any research already in session (a 
competitive-research-snapshot
, VoC themes, a landscape scan, 
company-intel
 output): the SWOT then synthesizes instead of re-searching.
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 (company + scope, decision, perspective) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.
Example invocation: 
Evidence-cited SWOT on [Competitor A]'s mid-market product line, from our perspective — supports the Q3 positioning refresh. Last month's snapshot is attached.
最佳配合内容：待分析的公司、分析范围（整个公司或某条产品线/市场），以及该SWOT分析需支持的决策。 有用补充内容：分析视角（对方视角，或是我方与竞品竞争的视角），以及已开展的任何研究（如
competitive-research-snapshot
、客户声音（VoC）主题、市场格局扫描、
company-intel
输出）：此时SWOT将进行整合而非重复研究。
调用时提供的内联内容——技能名称后的文本、粘贴的上下文内容，或附加的
ARGUMENTS:
行——视为已给出的答案。可利用这些内容减少提问次数，无需重复询问。
完全没有准备内容也可以。该技能最多会先提出3个问题（公司+范围、决策、视角），若未得到回复，将基于标注的假设继续推进。
调用示例：
Evidence-cited SWOT on [Competitor A]'s mid-market product line, from our perspective — supports the Q3 positioning refresh. Last month's snapshot is attached.

Key Concepts

核心概念

  • Governing protocol: honors the 
    autonomous-investigation
     contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough Mode (max 5 ranked entries per quadrant), stable schema, 4-option Final Step. Disciplines: OSINT + FININT + HUMINT per 
    intelligence-collection-disciplines
    .
  • Quadrant discipline. S and W are internal and current; O and T are external. The most common SWOT error is an "opportunity" that requires the company to act — that's a strategy, not an opportunity. Flag it when you catch it; catching it is half the teaching.
  • Claimed vs. evidenced advantage. Strengths sourced from the company's own marketing are claims; strengths corroborated by customer voice, filings, or independent coverage are evidence. Customer voice weighs heaviest on weaknesses — buyers document weaknesses vendors won't.
  • The crossings are the deliverable. S-O names the attack (which strength unlocks which opportunity); W-T names the exposure (which weakness a threat finds first). SWOT is an input to moves, not a wall poster.
  • Companion, not substitute: 
    porters-five-forces
     reads the industry's structure; this reads one company's position within it. Run both when the decision is market entry.
  • When NOT to use: internal-only SWOT from private knowledge → run it as a team workshop with your evidence; the whole competitor set → snapshot first, SWOT the one or two that matter.
  • Do-not-invent list: financials, customer wins, market share, product claims, roadmap items.
  • 管控协议：遵循
    autonomous-investigation
    协议——最多3个提问、搜索计划审核、事实/推论/假设标签、适度模式（每个象限最多5条排名条目）、固定架构、4选项最终步骤。遵循的准则：基于
    intelligence-collection-disciplines
    的OSINT + FININT + HUMINT。
  • 象限准则：优势（S）与劣势（W）属于内部且当前的情况；机会（O）与威胁（T）属于外部情况。最常见的SWOT错误是将“需要公司采取行动的事项”列为机会——这属于战略，而非机会。一旦发现需标记出来，发现问题本身就是一种指导。
  • 宣称优势 vs 实证优势：源自公司自身营销内容的优势属于宣称；经客户反馈、备案文件或独立报道证实的优势才是实证。客户反馈在劣势评估中权重最高——买家会记录供应商不愿承认的劣势。
  • 交叉分析是核心交付物：S-O明确进攻方向（哪项优势能解锁哪项机会）；W-T明确风险暴露点（哪项劣势会最先受到威胁冲击）。SWOT是行动决策的输入，而非挂在墙上的海报。
  • 互补而非替代：
    porters-five-forces
    用于分析行业结构；本工具用于分析单个公司在行业中的定位。当决策涉及市场进入时，应同时使用这两个工具。
  • 不适场景：基于内部私有信息的SWOT → 应通过团队研讨会结合证据开展；分析所有竞品 → 先做快照分析，再针对1-2家关键竞品做SWOT。
  • 禁止编造内容清单：财务数据、客户成功案例、市场份额、产品宣称、路线图项目。

Application

操作流程

  1. Check session for existing evidence (snapshot, VoC themes, landscape scan, company-intel). Present → synthesize from it; search only gaps and staleness.
  2. Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
    1. Which company, and whole-company or one product line?
    2. What decision should this support?
    3. From whose perspective — theirs, or yours competing with them?
  3. If researching fresh, show the 3-bullet search plan — source sweep (filings, reviews, press, pricing pages, hiring signals), how internal vs. external evidence will be separated, how facts split from inference. Continue unless revised.
  4. Emit the schema below exactly.
  1. 检查会话中的现有证据（快照、VoC主题、市场格局扫描、company-intel输出）。若已有内容→基于其进行整合；仅对信息缺口和过时内容进行搜索。
  2. 认可内联上下文，仅询问未解答的问题（最多3个）：
    1. 待分析的公司是哪家，分析范围是整个公司还是某条产品线？
    2. 该分析需支持哪项决策？
    3. 从哪个视角进行分析——对方视角，或是我方与竞品竞争的视角？
  3. 若需全新研究，展示3条要点的搜索计划——来源扫描（备案文件、评论、新闻、定价页面、招聘信号）、内外部证据的区分方式、事实与推论的拆分方式。除非收到修改意见，否则按计划推进。
  4. 严格输出以下架构。

Output schema (do not reorder)

输出架构（请勿调整顺序）

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

SWOT: [Company / Scope]

SWOT: [公司/范围]

As-of date: | Decision supported: | Perspective:
截至日期: | 支持的决策: | 分析视角:

1. Strengths (internal, evidenced)

1. 优势（内部，有实证）

  • [Entry] — [evidence: URL, date] — [Fact/Inference]
  • [Max 5, ranked by defensibility]
  • [条目] — [证据：URL，日期] — [事实/推论]
  • [最多5条，按防御性排序]

2. Weaknesses (internal, evidenced)

2. 劣势（内部，有实证）

  • [Entry — customer voice weighs heaviest here] — [URL] — [label]
  • [Max 5, ranked by exploitability]
  • [条目——此处客户反馈权重最高] — [URL] — [标签]
  • [最多5条，按可利用性排序]

3. Opportunities (external)

3. 机会（外部）

  • [Entry — market/macro signal] — [URL] — [label]
  • [Max 5, ranked by fit to their strengths]
  • [条目——市场/宏观信号] — [URL] — [标签]
  • [最多5条，按与优势的匹配度排序]

4. Threats (external)

4. 威胁（外部）

  • [Entry — competitor/regulatory/technology signal] — [URL] — [label]
  • [Max 5, ranked by likelihood x damage]
  • [条目——竞品/监管/技术信号] — [URL] — [标签]
  • [最多5条，按可能性×影响程度排序]

5. The Crossings (the "so what")

5. 交叉分析（“实际意义”）

  • S-O (attack): [strength that unlocks which opportunity — 1-2 moves, labeled Inference]
  • W-T (exposure): [weakness a threat will find first — 1-2 risks, labeled Inference]
  • For your decision: [what this SWOT says about the decision named above, in 2 sentences]
  • S-O（进攻）: [解锁机会的优势——1-2项行动，标注为推论]
  • W-T（风险暴露）: [最先受到威胁冲击的劣势——1-2项风险，标注为推论]
  • 针对你的决策: [该SWOT对上述决策的启示，2句话]

Assumptions to Validate

需验证的假设

  • [Assumption 1] / [Assumption 2] / [Assumption 3]

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
  • [假设1] / [假设2] / [假设3]

该架构的可复制填充版本（含质量检查）可在[`template.md`](template.md)中找到。

Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

最终步骤（提供以下4个选项）

  1. Run the W-T exposure into a battle card or risk plan (
    battle-card-builder
    )
  2. SWOT a second company for side-by-side comparison
  3. Feed the crossings into a positioning statement (
    positioning-statement
    )
  4. Schedule-ready version: which entries should a quarterly re-run watch?
Accept 
1
, 
2
, 
3
, 
4
, 
1 and 2
, 
Verbose Mode
, or a custom path.
  1. 将W-T风险暴露内容转化为作战卡片或风险计划（
    battle-card-builder
    ）
  2. 对第二家公司做SWOT分析以进行对比
  3. 将交叉分析内容用于定位声明（
    positioning-statement
    ）
  4. 适配会议版本：季度复盘需重点关注哪些条目？
接受
1
、
2
、
3
、
4
、
1 and 2
、
Verbose Mode
或自定义路径。

Examples

示例

The quadrant discipline catching a disguised strategy (fictional):
Draft opportunity: "expand into the compliance-automation segment." Caught and reclassified — that requires them to act, so it's a candidate strategy, not an opportunity. The underlying opportunity, restated externally: "compliance-automation demand in their install base is growing — Fact ([industry survey, URL]) — and no incumbent serves it." Now the S-O crossing can test whether any documented strength (their services arm, their audit-trail architecture) actually unlocks it — or whether it's a mirage that flatters the roadmap.
Claimed vs. evidenced, side by side:
  • Their site claims "enterprise-grade reliability" — that's a claim, not a strength.
  • Strength as evidenced: "publishes a status page with 26 months of >99.95% uptime — Fact ([status page, URL]) — and reliability praise recurs across independent reviews — Fact ([review site, URL])." Ranked #2 by defensibility: verifiable, sustained, hard to copy quickly.
See 
examples/sample.md
 for a complete worked SWOT (fictional FSM-software market, same scenario as the suite's chain examples) that synthesizes from a snapshot and watch report already in session. 
examples/sample-industrial.md
 runs the same quadrant discipline on an industrial evidence diet, including a fortress-move warning in the S-O crossing.
象限准则识别伪装成机会的战略（虚构案例）：
草稿机会：“拓展至合规自动化领域”。被识别并重新归类——这需要他们采取行动，因此属于候选战略，而非机会。重新梳理后的外部机会：“其客户群对合规自动化的需求正在增长——事实（[行业调研，URL]）——且尚无 incumbent 提供相关服务。”此时S-O交叉分析可验证是否有已记录的优势（其服务团队、审计追踪架构）能真正解锁该机会——或是这只是一个美化路线图的假象。
宣称优势 vs 实证优势，对比示例：
  • 他们官网宣称“企业级可靠性”——这属于宣称，而非优势。
  • 实证优势：“发布的状态页面显示连续26个月正常运行时间>99.95%——事实（[状态页面，URL]）——且独立评论中反复提及可靠性好评——事实（[评论网站，URL]）。”按防御性排序为第2位：可验证、持续稳定、难以快速复制。
完整的SWOT分析示例（虚构FSM软件市场，与套件系列案例场景一致）可查看
examples/sample.md
，该示例基于会话中已有的快照和监测报告进行整合。
examples/sample-industrial.md
则针对工业领域的证据来源执行相同的象限准则，包括在S-O交叉分析中给出堡垒式行动警告。

Common Pitfalls

常见误区

  • The four-box brainstorm. Unsourced entries from a conference room are opinions arranged in quadrants. Evidence per entry is what separates this SWOT from the one nobody trusts.
  • Opportunities that are strategies. "Launch in Europe" is a move; "European demand outpacing local supply" is an opportunity. If the entry needs the company to act, reclassify it.
  • Marketing-sourced strengths. A strengths quadrant built from the company's own website is their positioning statement wearing your logo. Corroborate or label as claim.
  • Skipping the crossings. Four tidy quadrants and no moves. The S-O attack and W-T exposure are why the analysis exists — the decision-support sentence at the end is the test it must pass.
  • Wish-list contamination. Internal hopes ("we'd love better onboarding") placed in W, or fears in T, without evidence. Every quadrant works the public record; wishes go to the roadmap.
  • 四象限头脑风暴：来自会议室的无来源条目只是按象限排列的观点。每条条目都有证据支撑，是本SWOT分析与无人信服的普通SWOT的核心区别。
  • 将战略列为机会：“进军欧洲”是一项行动；“欧洲需求超过本地供应”才是机会。若条目需要公司采取行动，需重新归类。
  • 基于营销内容的优势：仅从公司官网提炼的优势象限，只是换上你方标识的对方定位声明。需进行验证或标注为宣称。
  • 跳过交叉分析：四个规整的象限却没有行动方向。S-O进攻和W-T风险暴露是分析的意义所在——结尾的决策支持语句是检验分析价值的标准。
  • 混入主观愿望：将内部期望（“我们希望优化入职流程”）列为劣势，或毫无证据地将担忧列为威胁。每个象限都基于公开记录；主观愿望应归入路线图。

References

参考资料

  • autonomous-investigation
     (Workflow) — the governing protocol
  • intelligence-collection-disciplines
     (Component) — the evidence channels behind each quadrant
  • porters-five-forces
     (Workflow) — industry structure; run both for market-entry decisions
  • competitive-research-snapshot
     (Workflow) — upstream evidence base
  • voice-of-customer-miner
     (Workflow) — the weaknesses quadrant's best source
  • positioning-statement
     (Component) — consumes the crossings
  • SWOT framework as standard strategy practice; adapted from 
    market-intelligence/swot-analysis-prompt.md
    in the 
    https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts
    repo.
  • autonomous-investigation
    （工作流）——管控协议
  • intelligence-collection-disciplines
    （组件）——各象限背后的证据渠道
  • porters-five-forces
    （工作流）——行业结构分析；市场进入决策时需同时使用
  • competitive-research-snapshot
    （工作流）——上游证据基础
  • voice-of-customer-miner
    （工作流）——劣势象限的最佳数据源
  • positioning-statement
    （组件）——接收交叉分析内容
  • SWOT框架作为标准战略实践；改编自
    https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts
    仓库中的
    market-intelligence/swot-analysis-prompt.md
    。