@monoes/monomindcli 2.15.3 → 2.15.4

package/org-skills/competitive-platform-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+name: competitive-platform-analysis
+description: "Use when scoping a competitive landscape — identifying, categorising, and score-filtering a competitor set before any benchmarking begins. Decides who counts as a competitor, which tier they belong to, and which sources to mine. First step in the three-skill competitive pipeline; precedes benchmark-methodology."
+tags: ["research","marketing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC
+source_path: "skills/competitive-platform-analysis"
+source_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735
+---
+# Competitive Platform Analysis
+
+Use this skill to decide **who to benchmark** and **where to find them** before
+any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
+wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
+defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
+- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
+- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
+- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
+- First step before running benchmark-methodology.
+
+## Client positioning brief (establish first)
+
+Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
+already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do **not**
+invent one and do **not** scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
+
+- **Identity / aesthetic register** — what kind of studio or company this is and
+  how it presents itself.
+- **Offer** — what services or products it delivers.
+- **Target clients** — who it sells to.
+- **Differentiator** — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
+- **Scoping consequence** — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
+  prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
+- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
+  (e.g., memorability × hireability).
+
+**Do not proceed without the positioning brief.** A competitor list scoped
+without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
+particular determines which competitors are *strong* rivals (those that contest
+the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
+
+## Selection criteria
+
+For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
+
+- **Size / model** — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
+  agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
+  head-to-head set.
+- **Niche / specialization** — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
+  the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
+- **Geography / market** — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
+  Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
+- **Pricing & engagement model** — productized sprints, retainer, project,
+  day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
+- **Portfolio style** — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
+  to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
+  distinctiveness.
+- **Technical depth / craft maturity** — relevant if the client's credibility
+  story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
+- **Brand strength** — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
+  is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.
+
+## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across
+
+Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
+generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
+apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
+content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
+most instructive.
+
+1. **Positioning stance** — *brand-led / editorial* (competes on identity,
+   voice, POV) vs *capability-led* (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
+   Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
+2. **Specialization** — *specialist* (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
+   *generalist* (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
+   more direct.
+3. **Size / model** — *solo / micro* vs *boutique* vs *mid-size* vs
+   *enterprise-scale*. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
+   bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
+4. **Engagement format** — *productized* (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
+   vs *bespoke* (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
+5. **Distinctiveness posture** — *conventional / safe* vs *contrarian /
+   manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
+   benchmarking in any niche.
+6. **Evidence / credibility model** — *outcome-led* (metrics, named clients,
+   case depth) vs *aesthetic-led* (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
+   earns trust.
+7. **Brand strength of the operator** — *interchangeable* vs *cult / ownable
+   identity* (including senior independents who prove the "memorable solo brand"
+   model).
+8. **Market / reach** — *local / regional* vs *global-remote*; note whether they
+   win the same clients the client targets.
+
+Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is *direct* when it sits
+near the client on positioning, specialization, size, and market at once.
+
+## Competitive tiers (how the set resolves)
+
+Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the
+report:
+
+- **Direct** — same band, overlapping offer, same client targets. The realistic
+  head-to-head.
+- **Adjacent** — partial overlap (one capability, or a different client size)
+  that pressures at the edges.
+- **Aspirational** — players the client is not competing with today but whose
+  brand or commercial maturity sets the bar to aim at.
+- *(Watch also for substitutes: no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist
+  freelancers — note as a threat vector, not a profiled competitor unless
+  materially relevant.)*
+
+## Data sources (where to look)
+
+Match the source to the dimension you need. The platform *types* below are
+generic; substitute the ones native to the client's niche (e.g. Dribbble/Behance
+for design, showreel/Vimeo for motion, writing samples/published work for copy):
+
+- **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft quality, range, aesthetic register
+  (e.g. Dribbble, Behance, Vimeo, or the niche's equivalent showcase).
+- **Awards / curated showcases** — craft ambition and editorial recognition;
+  over-indexes on flashy, so cross-check commercial credibility (e.g. Awwwards,
+  industry award lists).
+- **Competitor's own site** — primary source for positioning, voice, offer
+  packaging, pricing posture, named clients, manifesto/POV.
+- **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, post cadence, client logos,
+  geography.
+- **Review directories** — reviews, named clients, project sizes, engagement
+  models; strongest signal for commercial credibility and enterprise-readiness
+  (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche's equivalent).
+- **Open / public work** — process repos, published samples, open creative
+  output: depth and craft-transparency evidence.
+- **Conference talks / podcasts / newsletters** — thought-leadership depth and
+  POV ownership.
+
+Always **verify claims across at least two sources** before treating a competitor
+attribute as fact (self-reported site copy ≠ verified outcome). Carry an
+adversarial-verification discipline into every profile.
+
+## Scoring matrix template (selection stage)
+
+A lightweight pre-filter to decide who graduates into full benchmarking. Score
+1–5; keep candidates that score high on **either** distinctiveness **or**
+credibility — the client's strategic tension means both poles are instructive.
+
+| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Tier | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Include? |
+|-----------|--------------------|----------------|-----------|------|---------------------|------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|----------|
+
+Rules of thumb (apply per the client's scoping consequence in the positioning brief):
+
+- High distinctiveness **and** high credibility → must-profile (proves the
+  client's target tension is achievable).
+- High distinctiveness, low credibility → cautionary case (memorable but
+  un-hireable — a potential failure mode to learn from).
+- High credibility, low distinctiveness → "competent but forgettable" mass the
+  client defines itself against.
+- Low on both → drop unless needed for landscape breadth.
+
+## Output of this stage
+
+A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 10–18 candidates → 8–12 profiled),
+each tagged with its axis positions, tier, and source links, ready to hand to
+`benchmark-methodology`.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Scoping without a positioning brief.** A competitor list built without the client's lens is noise. The brief determines what counts as a real rival.
+- **Listing every similar company.** The goal is a defensible 10–18 candidate set, not a census. Breadth without pruning makes benchmarking unmanageable.
+- **Blurring the Direct/Adjacent/Aspirational tiers.** These tiers serve different strategic purposes. Mixing them produces a flat list that can't drive decisions.
+- **Relying on a single source per competitor.** Self-reported site copy is marketing, not fact. Verify attributes across at least two sources.
+- **Jumping straight to scoring.** This skill scopes and tiers the set. Benchmark-methodology handles scoring. Don't conflate the two steps.
+
+## Examples
+
+**Scenario:** A boutique brand-identity studio (2-person, EU-remote, productized
+sprints, contrarian/manifesto-driven aesthetic) wants to scope its competitive
+set before benchmarking. The strategic tension from the positioning brief is
+*memorability × hireability*.
+
+**Step 1 — eight-axis population (sample candidates):**
+
+| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Engagement | Distinctiveness | Evidence model | Brand strength | Market |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Studio A | brand-led / editorial | identity only | micro | productized | contrarian | aesthetic-led | cult | global-remote |
+| Studio B | capability-led | broad DS+motion | boutique | bespoke | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | US |
+| Agency C | capability-led | brand+digital | mid-size | retainer | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | EU |
+| Freelancer D | brand-led | brand voice only | solo | day-rate | editorial | aesthetic-led | ownable | global |
+| Studio E | brand-led | brand strategy | micro | productized | manifesto-driven | outcome-led | cult | EU-remote |
+
+**Step 2 — pre-filter scoring (client scoping consequence: weight distinctiveness
+because the client's moat is POV-first, not capability breadth):**
+
+| Candidate | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Tier | Include? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Studio A | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
+| Studio B | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | Adjacent | ✓ credibility anchor |
+| Agency C | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | Aspirational | ✓ scale reference |
+| Freelancer D | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | Direct | ✓ cautionary case |
+| Studio E | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
+
+**Step 3 — output handed to `benchmark-methodology`:**
+Five candidates (3 Direct, 1 Adjacent, 1 Aspirational), each tagged with
+axis positions, tier, and source links. Studio A and Studio E are the
+sharpest head-to-head rivals; Freelancer D is the "memorable but
+un-hireable" cautionary case to learn from.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `brand-discovery` — use first to establish the positioning brief and strategic tension that scopes the competitor set.
+- `benchmark-methodology` — the next step; takes the tiered set and scores each competitor across nine dimensions.

package/org-skills/competitive-report-structure/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Affaan Mustafa
+
+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.

package/org-skills/competitive-report-structure/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+name: competitive-report-structure
+description: "Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards. Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations, and team alignment trigger questions. Final step in the three-skill competitive pipeline."
+tags: ["research","writing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC
+source_path: "skills/competitive-report-structure"
+source_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735
+---
+# Competitive Report Structure
+
+Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report.
+The report must answer three questions for the client: **who do we compete with,
+how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?** Every section
+earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- All competitor profile cards from benchmark-methodology are complete and ready to assemble.
+- Need to present competitive findings to a founder, leadership team, or board.
+- The report must drive decisions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is) — not just document the landscape.
+- Preparing a client deliverable that must be auditable and defensible.
+
+## Client positioning brief (establish first)
+
+Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It
+supplies:
+
+- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes (e.g., memorability × hireability)
+  that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve
+  back to this tension.
+- **Brand balance** — the intended proportional mix of the client's strategic
+  emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft).
+  Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that
+  would shift it.
+- **Differentiator** — the framing principle for the executive summary and
+  white-space section.
+- **Target quadrant** — where the client intends to sit in the tension map;
+  confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central
+  empirical question.
+
+## Framing principle
+
+The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and
+recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance.
+Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it
+explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm
+intent."
+
+## Report sections
+
+### 1. Executive summary
+3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain
+language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its
+target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only
+this and knows what to do. No methodology here.
+
+### 2. Market landscape & category framing
+Define the category and map it. Use a **multi-axis map** — at minimum a 2×2
+(e.g., *brand-led <-> capability-led* × *boutique <-> enterprise-scale*), and
+ideally the **client's tension plot** from `benchmark-methodology` as the
+headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should
+make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or
+empty) it is.
+
+### 3. Competitor tiers
+Organize the set into **Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational** (from
+`competitive-platform-analysis`). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's
+in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before
+the detail.
+
+### 4. Benchmarking matrix
+The full **competitors × dimensions** table — the quantitative spine. Rows =
+competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note:
+dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
+Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
+represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include
+the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a **heatmap**
+(color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do **not**
+add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias
+controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails.
+
+### 5. Deep dives
+3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards).
+Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension
+(high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but
+forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each
+deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should
+avoid.
+
+### 6. White-space & threats
+The strategic heart. Two parts:
+
+- **White-space:** the position the client can own that rivals don't — argued
+  from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant
+  (from the positioning brief) is genuinely open.
+- **Threats:** who/what pressures the client — a rival closing the gap,
+  substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or
+  category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity
+  reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers).
+
+### 7. Strategic recommendations
+Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates,
+and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership,
+brand sharpening). **Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the
+positioning brief** and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact ×
+effort.
+
+### 8. Sources / methodology appendix
+The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per
+competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the
+report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline
+through.
+
+## How to present data
+
+- **2×2 / positioning maps** — for landscape and the tension plot. Lead with
+  these; they carry the argument faster than prose.
+- **Heatmap matrix** — for the competitors × dimensions comparison (section 4).
+- **Profile cards** — the source unit feeding deep dives (section 5).
+- **Quadrant callouts** — name who sits in each quadrant explicitly, especially
+  the client's target one.
+- Keep tables scannable; push raw evidence and links to the appendix.
+
+## Decision framework (the report must resolve these)
+
+- **Who do we compete with?** — Name the Direct tier specifically; that's the
+  real fight.
+- **How do we compete?** — State the client's differentiator in one sentence,
+  grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns).
+- **Where are our differentiators defensible?** — Identify the
+  dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that
+  are table-stakes.
+
+## Trigger questions for the team alignment session
+
+End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis:
+
+- Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in?
+- Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and
+  what's the counter?
+- Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis
+  shift?
+- Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to
+  deliberately concede?
+- What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness *without* costing
+  hireability / credibility?
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Leading with methodology.** The executive summary opens with the most important finding, not an explanation of how the benchmark was run. Methodology belongs in the appendix.
+- **Presenting scores without the tension plot.** The 2×2 tension map is the headline artefact. A table of numbers without the map buries the strategic insight.
+- **Omitting the decision framework.** The report must resolve the three questions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is). Leaving these unanswered turns the report into a literature review.
+- **Starting before all profile cards are complete.** Benchmark-methodology must finish before assembly begins. Partial data produces gaps that undermine the heatmap and white-space analysis.
+- **Adding a blended total column to the matrix.** Explicitly excluded — it creates a false composite that obscures the asymmetry the client needs to act on.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `benchmark-methodology` — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles.
+- `competitive-platform-analysis` — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3.
+- `brand-discovery` — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/LICENSE.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani
+
+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.

package/org-skills/competitive-teardown/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+---
+name: competitive-teardown
+description: "Analyzes competitor products and companies by synthesizing data from pricing pages, app store reviews, job postings, SEO signals, and social media into structured competitive intelligence. Produces feature comparison matrices scored across 12 dimensions, SWOT analyses, positioning maps, UX audits, pricing model breakdowns, action item roadmaps, and stakeholder presentation templates."
+tags: ["product","research","marketing"]
+tools: []
+license: MIT
+source: https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills
+source_path: "product-team/skills/competitive-teardown"
+source_commit: 19392f7a08264ed00486a251f5b2098321771f94
+---
+# Competitive Teardown
+
+**Tier:** POWERFUL  
+**Category:** Product Team  
+**Domain:** Competitive Intelligence, Product Strategy, Market Analysis
+
+---
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before a product strategy or roadmap session
+- When a competitor launches a major feature or pricing change
+- Quarterly competitive review
+- Before a sales pitch where you need battle card data
+- When entering a new market segment
+
+---
+
+## Teardown Workflow
+
+Follow these steps in sequence to produce a complete teardown:
+
+1. **Define competitors** — List 2–4 competitors to analyze. Confirm which is the primary focus.
+2. **Collect data** — Use `references/data-collection-guide.md` to gather raw signals from at least 3 sources per competitor (website, reviews, job postings, SEO, social).  
+   _Validation checkpoint: Before proceeding, confirm you have pricing data, at least 20 reviews, and job posting counts for each competitor._
+3. **Score using rubric** — Apply the 12-dimension rubric below to produce a numeric scorecard for each competitor and your own product.  
+   _Validation checkpoint: Every dimension should have a score and at least one supporting evidence note._
+4. **Generate outputs** — Populate the templates in `references/analysis-templates.md` (Feature Matrix, Pricing Analysis, SWOT, Positioning Map, UX Audit).
+5. **Build action plan** — Translate findings into the Action Items template (quick wins / medium-term / strategic).
+6. **Package for stakeholders** — Assemble the Stakeholder Presentation using outputs from steps 3–5.
+
+---
+
+## Data Collection Guide
+
+> Full executable scripts for each source are in `references/data-collection-guide.md`. Summaries of what to capture are below.
+
+### 1. Website Analysis
+
+Key things to capture:
+- Pricing tiers and price points
+- Feature lists per tier
+- Primary CTA and messaging
+- Case studies / customer logos (signals ICP)
+- Integration logos
+- Trust signals (certifications, compliance badges)
+
+### 2. App Store Reviews
+
+Review sentiment categories:
+- **Praise** → what users love (defend / strengthen these)
+- **Feature requests** → unmet needs (opportunity gaps)
+- **Bugs** → quality signals
+- **UX complaints** → friction points you can beat them on
+
+**Sample App Store query (iTunes Search API):**
+```
+GET https://itunes.apple.com/search?term=<competitor_name>&entity=software&limit=1
+# Extract trackId, then:
+GET https://itunes.apple.com/rss/customerreviews/id=<trackId>/sortBy=mostRecent/json?l=en&limit=50
+```
+Parse `entry[].content.label` for review text and `entry[].im:rating.label` for star rating.
+
+### 3. Job Postings (Team Size & Tech Stack Signals)
+
+Signals from job postings:
+- **Engineering volume** → scaling vs. consolidating
+- **Specific tech mentions** → stack (React/Vue, Postgres/Mongo, AWS/GCP)
+- **Sales/CS ratio** → product-led vs. sales-led motion
+- **Data/ML roles** → upcoming AI features
+- **Compliance roles** → regulatory expansion
+
+### 4. SEO Analysis
+
+SEO signals to capture:
+- Top 20 organic keywords (intent: informational / navigational / commercial)
+- Domain Authority / backlink count
+- Blog publishing cadence and topics
+- Which pages rank (product pages vs. blog vs. docs)
+
+### 5. Social Media Sentiment
+
+Capture recent mentions via Twitter/X API v2, Reddit, or LinkedIn. Look for recurring praise, complaints, and feature requests. See `references/data-collection-guide.md` for API query examples.
+
+---
+
+## Scoring Rubric (12 Dimensions, 1-5)
+
+| # | Dimension | 1 (Weak) | 3 (Average) | 5 (Best-in-class) |
+|---|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------------|
+| 1 | **Features** | Core only, many gaps | Solid coverage | Comprehensive + unique |
+| 2 | **Pricing** | Confusing / overpriced | Market-rate, clear | Transparent, flexible, fair |
+| 3 | **UX** | Confusing, high friction | Functional | Delightful, minimal friction |
+| 4 | **Performance** | Slow, unreliable | Acceptable | Fast, high uptime |
+| 5 | **Docs** | Sparse, outdated | Decent coverage | Comprehensive, searchable |
+| 6 | **Support** | Email only, slow | Chat + email | 24/7, great response |
+| 7 | **Integrations** | 0-5 integrations | 6-25 | 26+ or deep ecosystem |
+| 8 | **Security** | No mentions | SOC2 claimed | SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001 |
+| 9 | **Scalability** | No enterprise tier | Mid-market ready | Enterprise-grade |
+| 10 | **Brand** | Generic, unmemorable | Decent positioning | Strong, differentiated |
+| 11 | **Community** | None | Forum / Slack | Active, vibrant community |
+| 12 | **Innovation** | No recent releases | Quarterly | Frequent, meaningful |
+
+**Example completed row** (Competitor: Acme Corp, Dimension 3 – UX):
+
+| Dimension | Acme Corp Score | Evidence |
+|-----------|----------------|---------|
+| UX | 2 | App Store reviews cite "confusing navigation" (38 mentions); onboarding requires 7 steps before TTFV; no onboarding wizard; CC required at signup. |
+
+Apply this pattern to all 12 dimensions for each competitor.
+
+---
+
+## Templates
+
+> Full template markdown is in `references/analysis-templates.md`. Abbreviated reference below.
+
+### Feature Comparison Matrix
+
+Rows: core features, pricing tiers, platform capabilities (web, iOS, Android, API).  
+Columns: your product + up to 3 competitors.  
+Score each cell 1–5. Sum to get total out of 60.  
+**Score legend:** 5=Best-in-class, 4=Strong, 3=Average, 2=Below average, 1=Weak/Missing
+
+### Pricing Analysis
+
+Capture per competitor: model type (per-seat / usage-based / flat rate / freemium), entry/mid/enterprise price points, free trial length.  
+Summarize: price leader, value leader, premium positioning, your position, and 2–3 pricing opportunity bullets.
+
+### SWOT Analysis
+
+For each competitor: 3–5 bullets per quadrant (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities for us, Threats to us). Anchor every bullet to a data signal (review quote, job posting count, pricing page, etc.).
+
+### Positioning Map
+
+2x2 axes (e.g., Simple ↔ Complex / Low Value ↔ High Value). Place each competitor and your product. Bubble size = market share or funding. See `references/analysis-templates.md` for ASCII and editable versions.
+
+### UX Audit Checklist
+
+Onboarding: TTFV (minutes), steps to activation, CC-required, onboarding wizard quality.  
+Key workflows: steps, friction points, comparative score (yours vs. theirs).  
+Mobile: iOS/Android ratings, feature parity, top complaint and praise.  
+Navigation: global search, keyboard shortcuts, in-app help.
+
+### Action Items
+
+| Horizon | Effort | Examples |
+|---------|--------|---------|
+| Quick wins (0–4 wks) | Low | Add review badges, publish comparison landing page |
+| Medium-term (1–3 mo) | Moderate | Launch free tier, improve onboarding TTFV, add top-requested integration |
+| Strategic (3–12 mo) | High | Enter new market, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |
+
+### Stakeholder Presentation (7 slides)
+
+1. **Executive Summary** — Threat level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), top strength, top opportunity, recommended action
+2. **Market Position** — 2x2 positioning map
+3. **Feature Scorecard** — 12-dimension radar or table, total scores
+4. **Pricing Analysis** — Comparison table + key insight
+5. **UX Highlights** — What they do better (3 bullets) vs. where we win (3 bullets)
+6. **Voice of Customer** — Top 3 review complaints (quoted or paraphrased)
+7. **Our Action Plan** — Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities; Appendix with raw data
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **Product Strategist** (`product-team/product-strategist/`) — Competitive insights feed OKR and strategy planning
+- **Landing Page Generator** (`product-team/landing-page-generator/`) — Competitive positioning informs landing page messaging