@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.2 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/references/analysis-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+# 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]

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/references/competitive-analysis-frameworks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Competitive Analysis Frameworks
+
+This reference provides practical frameworks for evaluating competitors and positioning decisions.
+
+## Porter's Five Forces
+
+Assess the competitive intensity of your market:
+
+1. Threat of new entrants
+- Barriers to entry (capital, regulation, network effects)
+- Speed of competitor replication
+
+2. Bargaining power of suppliers
+- Dependency on core infrastructure vendors
+- Concentration of key technical providers
+
+3. Bargaining power of buyers
+- Customer switching costs
+- Procurement complexity and contract leverage
+
+4. Threat of substitutes
+- Adjacent alternatives solving the same job
+- DIY and internal build options
+
+5. Rivalry among existing competitors
+- Number and similarity of competitors
+- Price competition and differentiation pressure
+
+### Five Forces Template
+
+| Force | Current Pressure (Low/Med/High) | Evidence | Strategic Response |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| New Entrants |  |  |  |
+| Supplier Power |  |  |  |
+| Buyer Power |  |  |  |
+| Substitutes |  |  |  |
+| Rivalry |  |  |  |
+
+## SWOT Analysis
+
+Use SWOT to map internal and external context quickly.
+
+### SWOT Template
+
+| Strengths (Internal) | Weaknesses (Internal) |
+|---|---|
+| What we do better than alternatives | Where competitors outperform us |
+| Unique capabilities or assets | Known product or go-to-market gaps |
+
+| Opportunities (External) | Threats (External) |
+|---|---|
+| Market trends we can exploit | Competitor moves or macro risks |
+| Unserved segments and use cases | Regulatory, platform, or pricing pressure |
+
+### SWOT Quality Checklist
+
+- Base every point on evidence, not assumptions.
+- Separate observations from conclusions.
+- Prioritize top 3 items per quadrant.
+
+## Feature Comparison Matrix
+
+Compare products on meaningful buying criteria, not vanity features.
+
+### Feature Matrix Template
+
+| Dimension | Weight | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Notes |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
+| Core workflow coverage | 25% |  |  |  |  |
+| Ease of implementation | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Performance / reliability | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Integrations / ecosystem | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Security / compliance | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+| Pricing / TCO | 15% |  |  |  |  |
+
+Scoring scale recommendation: 1-5 (weak to strong).
+
+## Competitive Positioning Map
+
+Create a 2-axis map showing market whitespace and crowding.
+
+### Positioning Map Steps
+
+1. Select two high-signal dimensions customers care about.
+2. Place each competitor based on evidence (pricing pages, reviews, demos).
+3. Mark clusters where products are undifferentiated.
+4. Identify white space where demand exists but options are weak.
+
+Example axes:
+- X-axis: Ease of use
+- Y-axis: Enterprise readiness
+
+## Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas
+
+Use a strategy canvas to decide where to raise, reduce, eliminate, or create factors.
+
+### ERRC Grid (Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create)
+
+| Eliminate | Reduce | Raise | Create |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Commodity table-stakes not valued by target users | Costly features with weak adoption | Differentiators tied to target job-to-be-done | New value dimensions competitors ignore |
+
+### Strategy Canvas Checklist
+
+- Compare value curves between your product and top competitors.
+- Ensure target segment is explicit.
+- Tie every strategic choice to measurable outcome.

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/references/data-collection-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Competitive Data Collection Guide
+
+## Overview
+
+This guide outlines systematic approaches for gathering competitive intelligence from publicly available sources. All methods described here are ethical and rely on information that competitors have made publicly accessible.
+
+## Public Data Sources
+
+### Review Platforms
+- **G2**: Enterprise software reviews, feature comparisons, satisfaction scores
+- **Capterra**: SMB-focused reviews, pricing transparency, deployment details
+- **TrustRadius**: In-depth reviews with verified users, TrustMaps
+- **Product Hunt**: Launch positioning, early adopter sentiment, feature highlights
+- **App Store / Google Play**: Mobile app ratings, review themes, update frequency
+
+### Company Publications
+- **Pricing Pages**: Tier structure, feature gating, enterprise vs self-serve
+- **Changelogs / Release Notes**: Development velocity, feature priorities, tech direction
+- **Blog Posts**: Strategic messaging, thought leadership topics, market positioning
+- **Case Studies**: Target customer profiles, value propositions, success metrics
+- **Help Documentation**: Feature depth, API capabilities, integration ecosystem
+
+### Talent & Organization Signals
+- **Job Postings**: Technology stack, team growth areas, strategic initiatives
+- **LinkedIn**: Team size, org structure, key hires, department ratios
+- **Glassdoor**: Company culture, internal challenges, growth trajectory
+
+### Financial & Legal
+- **Patent Filings**: Innovation direction, defensive IP, technology differentiation
+- **SEC Filings (public companies)**: Revenue, growth rate, customer count, churn
+- **Crunchbase / PitchBook**: Funding rounds, investors, valuation trends
+
+### Technical Intelligence
+- **BuiltWith / Wappalyzer**: Technology stack detection
+- **GitHub**: Open-source contributions, SDK quality, developer engagement
+- **API Documentation**: Integration capabilities, rate limits, data models
+- **Status Pages**: Uptime history, incident frequency, infrastructure maturity
+
+## Data Points to Collect Per Competitor
+
+### Product
+- Core features and capabilities (feature-by-feature matrix)
+- Unique differentiators and proprietary technology
+- Platform support (web, mobile, desktop, API)
+- Integration ecosystem (number and quality of integrations)
+- Performance benchmarks (if available from reviews)
+
+### Business
+- Pricing tiers and per-seat/usage costs
+- Target customer segments (SMB, mid-market, enterprise)
+- Estimated customer count and notable logos
+- Geographic focus and localization
+- Go-to-market model (PLG, sales-led, hybrid)
+
+### Team & Technology
+- Estimated team size and engineering ratio
+- Technology stack and infrastructure choices
+- Development velocity (release frequency)
+- Open-source involvement and developer relations
+
+### Market Position
+- Market share estimates
+- Brand perception and NPS (from reviews)
+- Analyst coverage (Gartner, Forrester positioning)
+- Partnership and channel strategy
+
+## Ethical Guidelines
+
+1. **Use only public information** - Never access private systems, NDA-protected content, or internal documents
+2. **No deception** - Do not misrepresent yourself to obtain information (e.g., fake sales inquiries)
+3. **Respect terms of service** - Follow scraping policies and API usage terms
+4. **Attribute sources** - Document where each data point came from for verification
+5. **No employee poaching for intelligence** - Hiring decisions should be talent-driven, not intelligence-driven
+6. **Legal compliance** - Ensure data collection complies with local regulations
+
+## Update Cadence Recommendations
+
+| Data Type | Frequency | Trigger Events |
+|-----------|-----------|---------------|
+| Pricing | Monthly | Competitor pricing page changes |
+| Features | Bi-weekly | Changelog updates, product launches |
+| Reviews | Monthly | Batch review analysis |
+| Job Postings | Monthly | Hiring surge detection |
+| Financials | Quarterly | Earnings reports, funding rounds |
+| Tech Stack | Quarterly | Major platform changes |
+| Full Teardown | Quarterly | Strategic planning cycles |
+
+## Collection Workflow
+
+1. **Set up monitoring** - Google Alerts, competitor RSS feeds, social listening
+2. **Schedule regular sweeps** - Calendar recurring data collection tasks
+3. **Centralize data** - Use a shared competitive intelligence database or spreadsheet
+4. **Validate findings** - Cross-reference multiple sources for accuracy
+5. **Tag and categorize** - Apply consistent taxonomy for easy retrieval
+6. **Share insights** - Distribute relevant findings to product, sales, and marketing teams
+7. **Archive versions** - Maintain historical snapshots for trend analysis
+
+## Tools for Automation
+
+- **Google Alerts**: Free monitoring for competitor mentions
+- **Visualping**: Website change detection (pricing pages, feature pages)
+- **Feedly**: RSS aggregation for competitor blogs and news
+- **SimilarWeb**: Traffic estimates and audience overlap
+- **SEMrush / Ahrefs**: SEO positioning and content strategy analysis

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/references/scoring-rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# Competitive Scoring Rubric
+
+## Overview
+
+This rubric provides a standardized framework for evaluating competitors across key dimensions. Consistent scoring enables meaningful comparisons and tracks competitive position changes over time.
+
+## Scoring Scale (1-10)
+
+| Score | Label | Definition |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 1-2 | Poor | Significant gaps, major usability issues, or missing capability |
+| 3-4 | Below Average | Basic functionality with notable limitations |
+| 5-6 | Average | Meets market expectations, no standout qualities |
+| 7-8 | Above Average | Strong execution with clear advantages |
+| 9-10 | Exceptional | Industry-leading, sets the standard for others |
+
+## Dimension Categories
+
+### 1. User Experience (UX) - Weight: 20%
+- **Onboarding**: Time to first value, setup complexity, guided flows
+- **Navigation**: Information architecture, discoverability, consistency
+- **Visual Design**: Modern aesthetics, brand coherence, accessibility
+- **Performance**: Page load times, responsiveness, offline capability
+- **Mobile Experience**: Native app quality, responsive design, feature parity
+
+### 2. Feature Completeness - Weight: 25%
+- **Core Features**: Coverage of essential use cases
+- **Advanced Features**: Power user capabilities, automation, customization
+- **Workflow Support**: End-to-end process coverage without workarounds
+- **API & Extensibility**: API coverage, webhook support, SDK quality
+- **Innovation**: Unique capabilities not found in competitors
+
+### 3. Pricing & Value - Weight: 15%
+- **Transparency**: Clear pricing without hidden costs
+- **Flexibility**: Plan options matching different customer sizes
+- **Value-to-Cost Ratio**: Feature access relative to price point
+- **Free Tier / Trial**: Quality of free offering for evaluation
+- **Contract Terms**: Lock-in requirements, cancellation ease
+
+### 4. Integrations - Weight: 10%
+- **Native Integrations**: Number and quality of built-in connectors
+- **Marketplace**: Third-party app ecosystem breadth
+- **API Quality**: Documentation, reliability, rate limits
+- **Data Import/Export**: Migration ease, format support
+- **Workflow Automation**: Zapier, Make, native automation support
+
+### 5. Support & Documentation - Weight: 10%
+- **Documentation Quality**: Completeness, searchability, freshness
+- **Support Channels**: Chat, email, phone, community availability
+- **Response Time**: SLA adherence, resolution speed
+- **Self-Service**: Knowledge base, video tutorials, community forums
+- **Onboarding Support**: Dedicated CSM, implementation assistance
+
+### 6. Performance & Reliability - Weight: 10%
+- **Uptime**: Historical availability, SLA commitments
+- **Speed**: Application responsiveness under normal load
+- **Scalability**: Performance at high volume, enterprise readiness
+- **Data Handling**: Large dataset support, bulk operations
+- **Global Performance**: CDN, regional deployments, latency
+
+### 7. Security & Compliance - Weight: 10%
+- **Authentication**: SSO, MFA, RBAC granularity
+- **Data Protection**: Encryption at rest and in transit, data residency
+- **Certifications**: SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA compliance
+- **Audit Trail**: Activity logging, access monitoring
+- **Privacy Controls**: Data retention policies, right to deletion
+
+## Weighting Guidelines
+
+Default weights above suit most B2B SaaS evaluations. Adjust based on:
+
+- **Enterprise buyers**: Increase Security (15%), Support (15%), reduce Pricing (10%)
+- **Developer tools**: Increase Integrations (20%), Features (30%), reduce UX (10%)
+- **SMB products**: Increase Pricing (25%), UX (25%), reduce Security (5%)
+- **Regulated industries**: Increase Security (25%), reduce Features (15%)
+
+## Calibration Process
+
+1. **Anchor scoring** - Score your own product first to establish baseline
+2. **Multiple scorers** - Have 2-3 team members score independently
+3. **Discuss outliers** - Reconcile scores that differ by more than 2 points
+4. **Document evidence** - Record specific examples justifying each score
+5. **Normalize quarterly** - Re-calibrate as market expectations evolve
+
+## Bias Mitigation
+
+- **Avoid halo effect** - Score each dimension independently, not influenced by overall impression
+- **Use evidence, not feelings** - Every score must link to observable data points
+- **Include competitor strengths** - Resist tendency to under-score competitors
+- **Rotate scorers** - Different team members bring fresh perspectives
+- **Blind scoring** - When possible, evaluate features without knowing which competitor
+- **Customer validation** - Compare internal scores against user review sentiment
+
+## Composite Score Calculation
+
+```
+Weighted Score = SUM(Dimension Score x Dimension Weight)
+
+Example:
+UX(8) x 0.20 = 1.60
+Features(7) x 0.25 = 1.75
+Pricing(6) x 0.15 = 0.90
+Integrations(8) x 0.10 = 0.80
+Support(7) x 0.10 = 0.70
+Performance(9) x 0.10 = 0.90
+Security(8) x 0.10 = 0.80
+---
+Total = 7.45 / 10
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+Present results as a comparison matrix with color coding:
+- Green (8-10): Competitive advantage
+- Yellow (5-7): Market parity
+- Red (1-4): Competitive gap

package/org-skills/competitor-comparison-pages/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Corey Haines
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.