claude-code-arcane 1.0.0

package/skills/competitive-intel/references/ci-playbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+# Competitive Intelligence Playbook
+
+## OSINT Sources for Competitor Tracking
+
+### Free, Reliable Sources
+
+**Company & Product:**
+- **Their website** — pricing page (archive.org for history), product changelog, careers page
+- **G2 / Capterra / Trustpilot** — customer reviews; filter by recency; read 1-star reviews carefully
+- **LinkedIn** — job postings signal roadmap; company page for headcount trend; employees for leaks
+- **GitHub** — open source activity; what they're building; engineering team size; tech stack
+- **Crunchbase / PitchBook** (free tier) — funding history, investors, team changes
+- **BuiltWith** — tech stack they use; signals about infrastructure maturity
+
+**Messaging & Positioning:**
+- **Facebook Ad Library** — see their current ad copy and creative; what messages they're testing
+- **Google Keyword Planner** — which keywords they're bidding on
+- **SEMrush / Ahrefs** (free trial or limited) — their organic keywords, backlink profile
+- **Wayback Machine** — homepage evolution over time; when positioning shifted
+- **Their blog** — content strategy reveals priorities and ICP assumptions
+
+**News & Events:**
+- **TechCrunch, VentureBeat** — funding announcements, major launches
+- **Twitter/X / LinkedIn** — CEO + founders; direct signals about strategy
+- **Podcast appearances** — founders talk more openly on podcasts than press releases
+- **Job descriptions** — "Senior Engineer - Payments" means they're building payments
+
+### Paid (Worth It for Tier-1 Competitors)
+- **G2 Buyer Intent** — which prospects are researching your competitor right now
+- **Bombora** — intent data for account-level research signals
+- **PitchBook** — funding, investors, valuation estimates
+- **Klue / Crayon / Kompyte** — dedicated CI platforms that aggregate automatically
+
+### Primary Research (Best Signal)
+- **Win/loss interviews** — the single highest-signal source (see below)
+- **Talk to churned customers** — why did they switch? To whom?
+- **Talk to their customers** — LinkedIn outreach; honest conversations
+- **Industry events** — competitor presentations reveal roadmap; talk to attendees
+- **Former employees** — LinkedIn; respectful outreach; no NDA violations
+
+---
+
+## Competitive Battlecard Format
+
+A battlecard is a 1-page (or single screen) document for sales reps to reference before and during calls.
+
+**Design principles:**
+- Written for a rep with 2 minutes to prep, not a product manager
+- Action-oriented: tells reps what to SAY, not just what to know
+- Updated monthly at minimum; never more than 90 days old
+
+### Battlecard Structure
+
+```
+COMPETITOR: [Name]
+Last updated: [Date] | Owner: [Name]
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+THE 30-SECOND SUMMARY
+[One paragraph. Who they are, who they sell to, why they win.]
+
+THEIR STRENGTHS (know these — don't dismiss them)
+• [Strength 1] — what customers actually love about them
+• [Strength 2]
+• [Strength 3]
+
+THEIR REAL WEAKNESSES (from win/loss data, not assumptions)
+• [Weakness 1] — source: [customer quote / win/loss theme]
+• [Weakness 2]
+• [Weakness 3]
+
+OUR DIFFERENTIATED ADVANTAGES
+• [Advantage 1] — proof point: [metric/customer/case study]
+• [Advantage 2] — proof point:
+• [Advantage 3] — proof point:
+
+COMMON OBJECTIONS + RESPONSES
+"They have [feature] and you don't."
+→ [Response. Acknowledge, reframe, redirect.]
+
+"They're cheaper."
+→ [Response with ROI angle or TCO comparison.]
+
+"They're more established / bigger."
+→ [Response. Size isn't always advantage; use to your benefit.]
+
+TRAP-SETTING QUESTIONS (ask these early to shift the eval criteria)
+• "How important is [your differentiator] to your team?"
+• "Have you looked at [pain point they create]?"
+• "What happens to your workflow when [their known limitation occurs]?"
+
+WHEN WE WIN
+• [Segment or scenario where we almost always beat them]
+• [Use case where we're clearly stronger]
+
+WHEN WE LOSE (be honest)
+• [Scenario where they're genuinely better — don't fight these battles]
+• [Segment where they have structural advantages]
+
+DO NOT SAY
+• Don't claim [X] — it's not true and they'll call it out
+• Don't say [Y] — prospect will already know it and it sounds desperate
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+---
+
+## Win/Loss Analysis Framework
+
+### Why Most Companies Do This Wrong
+- They survey instead of interview (surveys get polite answers)
+- The AE conducts it (too emotionally invested; prospect won't be candid)
+- They do it 6 months after the decision (memory fades)
+- They look for confirmation of what they believe
+
+### The Right Process
+
+**Timing:** Within 30 days of deal closed/lost/churned.
+**Interviewer:** Customer success, product, or external researcher. Never the AE.
+**Duration:** 30 minutes (budget 45).
+**Incentive:** $100 gift card gets you 80% acceptance. Worth it.
+
+**Interview Guide:**
+
+*Opening:*
+"I'm [name] from [company]. I'm not in sales — I'm trying to understand what drove your decision so we can improve. There's nothing you can say that will change the outcome. I just want honest feedback."
+
+*Core questions:*
+1. "Can you walk me through your evaluation process from the beginning?"
+2. "Who were the key stakeholders involved in the decision?"
+3. "What were the 3 most important criteria you were evaluating against?"
+4. "Which vendors did you seriously consider?"
+5. "Where did [company] fall short of your expectations?" (For losses)
+   OR "What tipped the decision in [company]'s favor?" (For wins)
+6. "Was price a factor? How significant?"
+7. "What would have had to be different for you to choose [us / the other option]?"
+8. "Any advice for our team on how we handled the process?"
+
+**Data aggregation:**
+- Tag every response: [criterion], [competitor mentioned], [product gap], [sales process], [price], [trust/credibility]
+- Monthly rollup: top 5 win reasons, top 5 loss reasons, competitor win rate
+- Share with: CEO, CRO, CPO, CMO — not just sales
+
+---
+
+## Competitive Positioning Map Construction
+
+A positioning map shows where you sit relative to competitors on 2 dimensions that BUYERS care about.
+
+### Step 1: Choose Your Axes
+- Pick dimensions that actually drive purchase decisions in your segment
+- At least one axis should be where you win
+- Avoid generic axes ("feature-rich vs. simple" tells you nothing)
+
+**Good axis pairs:**
+- Implementation time (days vs. months) × Customization depth
+- Price point × Enterprise readiness
+- Automation level × Human-in-the-loop control
+- Time-to-value × Total cost of ownership
+
+**Bad axes:**
+- Quality (too vague)
+- "Innovation" (unmeasurable)
+- Any axis where all competitors cluster in the same spot
+
+### Step 2: Place Competitors Objectively
+- Use customer quotes and win/loss data to justify placement
+- Don't place competitors where you WANT them — where they ACTUALLY are
+- If you're unsure, ask 5 customers to place them
+
+### Step 3: Find and Name Your White Space
+- Where is there a position no competitor holds?
+- Is that white space there because it's valuable (opportunity) or worthless (avoid)?
+- Can you credibly occupy it?
+
+### Step 4: Test Your Positioning
+- Show the map to 5 prospects: "Does this match your perception?"
+- Show it to 5 lost prospects: "Where would you place [the winner] and us?"
+- Adjust until map matches buyer reality, not internal perception
+
+---
+
+## Intelligence Sharing Across Roles
+
+### What Each Role Needs and When
+
+**CRO (Sales):**
+- Needs: Battlecards, win rates by competitor, competitor objections + responses
+- Cadence: Updated battlecards monthly; triggered updates on major competitor moves
+- Format: 1-pager per competitor in CRM, linked from deal record
+
+**CMO (Marketing):**
+- Needs: Messaging shifts, new claims, ad spend signals, keyword battles
+- Cadence: Quarterly positioning review, triggered on major launches
+- Format: Positioning brief with recommended response to messaging shifts
+
+**CPO (Product):**
+- Needs: Feature gap analysis, competitor roadmap signals (job postings, changelog), what we lose to
+- Cadence: Monthly feature gap update, triggered on major launches
+- Format: Feature comparison matrix + gap prioritization recommendation
+
+**CTO (Engineering):**
+- Needs: Tech stack signals, infrastructure approaches, scale they've achieved
+- Cadence: Quarterly
+- Format: Technical comparison notes, relevant for architectural decisions
+
+**CEO:**
+- Needs: Summary of threat landscape, recommended responses, board-level narrative
+- Cadence: Monthly 1-pager + quarterly deep dive
+- Format: 1-page brief: who moved, what it means, what we do
+
+### The Single Source of Truth Rule
+All competitive intel in one place. Suggest:
+- Notion database per competitor: profile, battlecard, changelog, win/loss notes
+- Slack channel: `#competitive-intel` for real-time triggered alerts
+- Monthly digest email to leadership
+
+If it lives only in Slack, it disappears. If it lives only in a wiki that nobody reads, it doesn't matter. Combine both.
+
+---
+
+## How to Track Without Obsessing
+
+**Set up the system, then let it run:**
+- Google Alerts for competitor names + CEO names
+- LinkedIn Saved Searches for their job postings
+- Klue/Crayon if budget allows (automated aggregation)
+- Monthly 60-minute competitive review meeting (not 4 hours)
+
+**What to do when competitor makes a big move:**
+1. Read the announcement objectively
+2. Talk to 3 customers: "Did you see this? What do you think?"
+3. Assess: does this change any buying criteria in your deals?
+4. If yes: update battlecard and positioning within 1 week
+5. If no: log it, move on
+
+**The test:** After reviewing a competitor move, do you feel urgency to ship something? If yes, you're reacting. The right feeling is "noted — let's see if customers care."

package/skills/competitive-intel/templates/battlecard-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# Sales Battlecard Template
+
+**COMPETITOR:** [Name]
+**Last updated:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Owner:** [Name]
+**Win rate vs this competitor:** [X]% | **Deals tracked:** [N]
+
+---
+
+## 30-Second Summary
+[Who they are. Who they target. Why they win. What they're known for. 3-4 sentences max.]
+
+---
+
+## Their Strengths
+*Know these. Don't dismiss them. Prospects have already heard their pitch.*
+
+- **[Strength]:** [What customers genuinely love; source if available]
+- **[Strength]:** [Specific capability or trait]
+- **[Strength]:** [Brand, market position, or ecosystem advantage]
+
+---
+
+## Their Real Weaknesses
+*From win/loss data only — not wishful thinking.*
+
+- **[Weakness]:** "[Customer quote]" — seen in [N] deals
+- **[Weakness]:** [Documented limitation with evidence]
+- **[Weakness]:** [Implementation, support, or pricing issue]
+
+---
+
+## Our Differentiated Advantages
+*Must be real and provable. Each needs a proof point.*
+
+- **[Advantage]:** [Proof: metric / customer quote / case study]
+- **[Advantage]:** [Proof]
+- **[Advantage]:** [Proof]
+
+---
+
+## Common Objections + Responses
+
+**"They have [feature X] and you don't."**
+> [Acknowledge. Reframe to your strength. Redirect to outcome.
+> "You're right that they have X. What we've found is that customers who care most about X tend to also care about [Y], where we're significantly stronger. Can I show you [specific example]?"]
+
+**"They're cheaper."**
+> [Don't fight on price. Reframe to TCO or ROI.
+> "They are lower in initial cost. Most customers find the total cost over 12 months is actually comparable when you factor in [implementation time / support costs / integrations]. Want to walk through that?"]
+
+**"They've been around longer / they're more established."**
+> [Reframe tenure as potential liability or irrelevance.
+> "Their longevity means they have a lot of technical debt and a big customer base that pulls their roadmap in every direction. Our customers tell us that's exactly why they chose us — we move faster and we're laser-focused on [their specific use case]."]
+
+**"[Competitor] is already used by [big customer they respect]."**
+> [Name-drop your wins in their segment.
+> "We work with [comparable logo]. Want me to connect you with their [role] to ask how they made the decision?"]
+
+---
+
+## Trap-Setting Questions
+*Ask early in discovery to establish criteria that favor you.*
+
+- "How important is [your key differentiator] to your workflow?"
+- "What happens when [their known limitation] occurs? Has that been an issue before?"
+- "How long does your team typically take to onboard a new tool?"
+- "Who manages the integration work — do you have dedicated engineering resources for that?"
+- "What does your current vendor do when you need support?"
+
+---
+
+## When We Win
+- [Scenario or segment where we consistently beat them]
+- [Use case that plays to our strengths]
+- [Buyer profile that prefers us]
+
+## When We Lose (Be Honest)
+- [Scenario where they genuinely win — don't fight here]
+- [Segment where their strengths matter more than ours]
+
+---
+
+## Do NOT Say
+- ❌ Don't claim [X] — it's not accurate and they'll check
+- ❌ Don't attack [Y] — it backfires and makes us look insecure
+- ❌ Don't say "we're better" without specifics — be concrete
+
+---
+
+## Recent Intel
+*Last 90 days only. Older than 90 days: archive.*
+
+- [Date]: [What happened — funding, product launch, pricing change, key hire]
+- [Date]: [Customer feedback from win/loss interview]
+- [Date]: [Any notable market move]
+
+---
+
+*Battlecards are only useful if current. If this is >90 days old, flag to [owner] for update.*

package/skills/competitive-teardown/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+---
+name: competitive-teardown
+description: "Analyzes competitor products by synthesizing pricing, reviews, job postings, SEO, and social data into structured competitive intelligence with scoring, SWOT, and action roadmaps."
+argument-hint: ""
+category: "agile"
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+# Competitive Teardown
+
+## 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