code-ai-installer 2.5.0 → 4.0.0

package/domains/analytics/locales/en/.agents/skills/porters-five-forces/SKILL.md

@@ -1,361 +1,361 @@
----
-name: porters-five-forces
-description: Industry competitive forces analysis — threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, threat of substitutes, and industry rivalry
----
-# Porter's Five Forces — Industry Competitive Forces Analysis
-
-## When to Use
-- When evaluating **industry attractiveness** for entry or investment.
-- When developing a **competitive strategy** — understanding the balance of power in the market.
-- When analyzing **industry changes** — how new trends alter the balance of power.
-- When preparing **M&A decisions** — evaluating the competitive environment of a target industry.
-
-## Input
-
-| Field | Required | Description |
-|------|:-----------:|----------|
-| Industry / Segment | ✅ | Clear definition of the analyzed industry and its boundaries |
-| Geographical Focus | ✅ | Country / region / global market |
-| Company Position | ⬚ | Current or planned role in the industry |
-| Key Competitors | ⬚ | List of main players for context |
-| Analysis Horizon | ⬚ | Assessment period (default — current state + 2-3 years) |
-| Analysis Goal | ⬚ | Market entry, strategy, investment, M&A |
-
-> If mandatory fields are not provided — **request them from the user** before starting the analysis. Do not make assumptions.
-
-## Data Sources
-1. Industry reports — IBISWorld, Statista, industry associations.
-2. Financial statements — annual reports of players, SEC filings.
-3. Competitive intelligence — market shares, pricing, product lines.
-4. Supplier and buyer data — concentration, switching costs.
-5. Regulatory databases — barriers to entry, licensing, patents.
-
-> Every fact must include a source and date. Data older than 12 months should be marked ⚠️ and verified via `web-research`.
-
-### Relationship with Other Skills
-| Skill | What We Take | When to Call |
-|------|-----------|----------------|
-| `competitive-analysis` | Competitor data, market shares, moats (step 5) | If there is no data on the competitive landscape |
-| `pest-analysis` | Macro factors affecting the forces: regulatory barriers, technological trends (steps 1, 4) | If macro-environment context is needed |
-| `tam-sam-som` | Market size and growth to evaluate rivalry (step 5) | If there is no data on the industry growth rate |
-| `blue-ocean-strategy` | Strategy beyond the 5 forces, if the industry is unattractive (step 7) | If the average score is ≥ 3.5 — consider Blue Ocean |
-| `web-research` | Verification of industry data, fresh reports | If data is missing or outdated (>12 months) |
-| `swot-analysis` | 5 forces → Threats and Opportunities for SWOT | After the analysis — for strategy integration |
-
-## Protocol
-
-### Step 0 — Context Preparation
-1. Clearly define the industry boundaries:
-
-   | Parameter | Definition |
-   |----------|-------------|
-   | Product Boundaries | [What is included in the industry, what is not] |
-   | Geographical Boundaries | [Country / region / globally] |
-   | Price Segment | [Premium / Mid / Value / All] |
-   | Lifecycle Phase | Growth / Maturity / Decline |
-
-2. Identify key players: leaders, challengers, niche players.
-3. Record the analysis goal and horizon.
-
-### Step 1 — Threat of New Entrants (Threat of New Entrants)
-Evaluate each sub-factor on a scale of 1-5 (1 = high barrier / low threat, 5 = low barrier / high threat):
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Economies of Scale | X | [Minimum efficient scale] | [Source] |
-| Capital Requirements | X | [Volume of initial investments] | [Source] |
-| Access to Distribution Channels | X | [Difficulty of getting on a shelf/platform] | [Source] |
-| Patents and IP | X | [Presence of protection] | [Source] |
-| Regulatory Barriers | X | [Licenses, certifications] | [Source] |
-| Learning Curve Effect | X | [Experience curve of existing players] | [Source] |
-
-**Final force score = average of sub-factors**, rounded to 0.5.
-
-Additionally: the probability of new players appearing on the analysis horizon, expected reaction of incumbents.
-
-### Step 2 — Bargaining Power of Suppliers (Supplier Power)
-Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak power, 5 = high power):
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Supplier Concentration | X | [N suppliers vs N buyers] | [Source] |
-| Resource Uniqueness | X | [Replaceable or not] | [Source] |
-| Switching Costs | X | [Cost of changing supplier] | [Source] |
-| Threat of Forward Integration | X | [Supplier → competitor] | [Source] |
-| Availability of Resource Substitutes | X | [Alternative resources] | [Source] |
-
-**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
-
-### Step 3 — Bargaining Power of Buyers (Buyer Power)
-Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak power, 5 = high power):
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Buyer Concentration | X | [Share of TOP-10 clients in revenue] | [Source] |
-| Buyer Switching Costs | X | [Cost of switching to a competitor] | [Source] |
-| Price Sensitivity | X | [How much price = the main criterion] | [Source] |
-| Buyer Information | X | [Do they know prices and alternatives] | [Source] |
-| Threat of Backward Integration | X | [Buyer manufactures themselves] | [Source] |
-| Product Standardization | X | [Commodity vs differentiation] | [Source] |
-
-**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
-
-### Step 4 — Threat of Substitutes (Threat of Substitutes)
-Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = low threat, 5 = high threat):
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Availability of Substitutes from Other Industries | X | [Which ones, how many] | [Source] |
-| Price/Performance Ratio of Substitute | X | [Better/worse/equal] | [Source] |
-| Switching Costs to Substitute | X | [Easy to switch?] | [Source] |
-| Buyer Propensity to Substitute | X | [Are they ready to change] | [Source] |
-| Technological Trends | X | [Are they creating new substitutes] | [Source] |
-
-> **Important:** substitutes are products **from another industry** solving **the same need**. Uber and taxis = competitors (same industry). Zoom and airlines for business meetings = substitutes (different industries, same need).
-
-**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
-
-### Step 5 — Industry Rivalry (Industry Rivalry)
-Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak rivalry, 5 = intense rivalry):
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Number and Size of Competitors | X | [Fragmentation vs concentration] | [Source] |
-| Industry Growth Rate | X | [Stagnation = tougher] | [Source] |
-| Product Differentiation | X | [Commodity vs uniqueness] | [Source] |
-| Fixed Costs / Excess Capacity | X | [Pressure on prices] | [Source] |
-| Exit Barriers | X | [Reasons to stay in an unprofitable industry] | [Source] |
-| Strategic Stakes | X | [Are players ready to fight for the market] | [Source] |
-
-**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
-
-### Step 6 — Overall Industry Attractiveness
-1. Calculate the average score across the 5 forces.
-2. Determine the dominant force — the one that most strongly affects profitability.
-3. Evaluate attractiveness:
-
-   | Average Score | Attractiveness | Recommendation |
-   |:------------:|-------------------|-------------|
-   | 1.0-2.0 | 🟢 High | Enter / invest |
-   | 2.1-3.0 | 🟡 Medium | Enter with a clear differentiation strategy |
-   | 3.1-3.5 | 🟠 Low | Enter only with a strong competitive advantage |
-   | 3.6-5.0 | 🔴 Unattractive | Do not enter, or consider `$blue-ocean-strategy` |
-
-### Step 7 — Force Dynamics and Scenarios
-1. For each force, forecast the change over a 2-3 year horizon:
-
-   | Force | Now | In 2-3 years | Δ | Driver of Change |
-   |------|:------:|:--------------:|:-:|-------------------|
-   | New Entrants | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-   | Suppliers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-   | Buyers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-   | Substitutes | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-   | Rivalry | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-   | **Average** | **X.X** | **X.X** | **±X.X** | |
-
-2. Determine whether industry attractiveness is improving or deteriorating.
-3. Record trigger points: under what conditions attractiveness will change sharply.
-
-### Step 8 — Strategic Recommendations
-1. For each force — a specific action:
-
-   | Force | Score | Strategic Action | Priority |
-   |------|:----:|------------------------|:---------:|
-   | [Force] | X.X | [What to do to strengthen position] | P1/P2/P3 |
-
-2. Identify the Key Success Factors (KSF) in the industry.
-3. Formulate the verdict: enter / invest / defend / exit / create Blue Ocean.
-
-## Example — SaaS CRM for SMB, IT Market
-
-**Context:** SaaS CRM market for small and medium businesses, IT, 2026-2029 horizon. Goal: evaluating attractiveness for entry.
-
-### Sub-factor Scoring
-
-**1. Threat of New Entrants — 3.7/5**
-
-| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
-|-----------|:------:|-------------|
-| Economies of Scale | 3 | Medium threshold: cloud infrastructure scales |
-| Capital Requirements | 2 | Low: MVP for $200K-500K, cloud |
-| Access to Channels | 4 | Hard: marketplace is overcrowded, SEO is competitive |
-| Patents and IP | 5 | None: SaaS CRM is not protected by patents |
-| Regulatory Barriers | 2 | Low: GDPR (personal data), but standard |
-| Learning Curve Effect | 4 | Medium: HubSpot and Salesforce = 10+ years on the market |
-
-**2. Bargaining Power of Suppliers — 2.0/5**
-
-| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
-|-----------|:------:|-------------|
-| Concentration | 2 | Low: AWS/GCP/Azure — 3+ providers |
-| Uniqueness | 1 | Cloud infrastructure = commodity |
-| Switching Costs | 3 | Medium: migration between clouds takes ~2-4 weeks |
-| Forward Integration | 2 | Low: cloud providers do not make CRMs |
-| Resource Substitutes | 2 | Yes: on-premise as an alternative |
-
-**3. Bargaining Power of Buyers — 3.8/5**
-
-| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
-|-----------|:------:|-------------|
-| Concentration | 2 | Low: thousands of SMBs, none > 1% of revenue |
-| Switching Costs | 4 | Low: CRM migration in 1-2 weeks, data is exportable |
-| Price Sensitivity | 5 | High: SMB counts every dollar |
-| Buyer Information | 4 | High: G2, reviews, comparisons are easily accessible |
-| Backward Integration | 1 | No: SMB will not write their own CRM |
-| Standardization | 4 | High: basic CRM = commodity |
-
-**4. Threat of Substitutes — 3.4/5**
-
-| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
-|-----------|:------:|-------------|
-| Availability | 4 | Notion, Excel, Telegram bots, Google Sheets |
-| Price/Performance | 3 | Worse in functionality, but free |
-| Switching Costs | 4 | Low: from Excel to CRM and back is easy |
-| Propensity | 3 | Medium: SMBs are used to the "free" option |
-| Tech Trends | 3 | AI assistants may replace part of CRM functions |
-
-**5. Rivalry — 4.2/5**
-
-| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
-|-----------|:------:|-------------|
-| Competitor Count | 5 | HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Notion + 20 minor ones |
-| Industry Growth | 3 | Moderate: +12% YoY (not enough for everyone) |
-| Differentiation | 3 | Medium: basic features are the same, differentiation via UX/AI |
-| Fixed Costs | 4 | High R&D, pressure on prices |
-| Exit Barriers | 4 | High: client base, reputation, team |
-| Strategic Stakes | 5 | High: CRM = ecosystem core for all players |
-
-### Summary
-
-| Force | Score | Trend (2-3y) | Driver |
-|------|:----:|:------------:|---------|
-| New Entrants | 3.7 | ↑ 4.0 | AI lowers MVP cost |
-| Suppliers | 2.0 | → 2.0 | Cloud market is stable |
-| Buyers | 3.8 | ↑ 4.0 | Growing awareness, more alternatives |
-| Substitutes | 3.4 | ↑ 3.8 | AI assistants are coming |
-| Rivalry | 4.2 | → 4.2 | Consolidation offsets growth |
-| **Average** | **3.4** | **3.6** | |
-
-**Attractiveness:** 🟠 Low (3.4). In 2-3 years: 🔴 Unattractive (3.6).
-**Dominant Force:** Rivalry (4.2) — intense competition, 5+ serious players.
-
-### Recommendations
-
-| Force | Action | Priority |
-|------|----------|:---------:|
-| Rivalry (4.2) | Differentiation via AI — the only unoccupied factor | P1 |
-| Buyers (3.8) | Increase switching costs: deep integrations, custom workflows | P1 |
-| Substitutes (3.4) | Position CRM as "more than Excel": analytics, automation | P2 |
-| New Entrants (3.7) | Build brand and community — a barrier you can't buy | P2 |
-
-**Verdict:** Enter only with strong differentiation (AI-first CRM). Without a unique advantage, the market is too competitive. Consider `$blue-ocean-strategy` to find unoccupied space.
-
-## Validation (Quality Gate)
-
-- [ ] All 5 forces are analyzed with sub-factors (minimum 5 per force)
-- [ ] Each sub-factor is evaluated 1-5 with justification and a source
-- [ ] Final force score = average of sub-factors (not subjective)
-- [ ] Industry boundaries are clearly defined (product, geo, segment, phase)
-- [ ] Overall attractiveness is calculated, dominant force is identified
-- [ ] Dynamics of forces on a 2-3 year horizon with drivers and trigger points
-- [ ] Substitutes are from another industry (do not confuse with competitors)
-- [ ] Strategic recommendations are tied to specific forces and prioritized
-- [ ] Verdict: enter / invest / defend / exit / Blue Ocean
-- [ ] Data sources are specified; data older than 12 months is marked ⚠️
-
-## Handoff
-The output of `$porters-five-forces` is an input for:
-- **Strategist / Mediator** — competitive environment for strategic decisions.
-- **`competitive-analysis`** — rivalry data for detailed competitive analysis.
-- **`swot-analysis`** — 5 forces → Threats (high forces) and Opportunities (low forces).
-- **`blue-ocean-strategy`** — if the industry is unattractive (≥ 3.5) — search for Blue Ocean.
-- **`ansoff-matrix`** — attractiveness of current vs new industries for growth strategy.
-
-Handoff format: summary table of forces with scores + sub-factors + dynamics + recommendations. When transferring — use `$handoff`.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
-|--------|-------------|---------------|
-| Excessively wide boundaries | "Tech industry" — 100 different markets | Specific segment: "SaaS CRM for SMB in the US" |
-| Force score "by eye" | Subjective evaluation, not reproducible | Score = average of sub-factors (each 1-5 with justification) |
-| Ignoring dynamics | Static analysis becomes obsolete | Forecast for each force for 2-3 years + trigger points |
-| Confusing competitors / substitutes | Uber and taxis = competitors; Zoom and airlines = substitutes | Substitutes — different industry, same need |
-| Lack of strategic implications | Analysis for the sake of analysis | Each force → specific strategic action |
-| Equal scores for all forces | No differentiation | Full 1-5 scale, dominant force |
-| Sub-factors without data | Evaluations hang in the air | Each sub-factor — with a source |
-| Attractiveness without a verdict | A number without a recommendation is useless | Clear verdict: enter / defend / Blue Ocean |
-
-## Output Template
-
-```markdown
-## Porter's Five Forces: [Industry / Segment]
-**Region:** [Geography]  |  **Horizon:** [Period]  |  **Goal:** [Entry / Strategy / M&A]  |  **Date:** [Date]
-
-### Industry Boundaries
-
-| Parameter | Definition |
-|----------|-------------|
-| Product | [What is included, what is not] |
-| Geography | [Country / region] |
-| Price Segment | [Premium / Mid / Value] |
-| Lifecycle Phase | [Growth / Maturity / Decline] |
-
-### Competitive Forces Summary Table
-
-| # | Force | Score (1-5) | Trend (2-3y) | Δ | Dominant Sub-factor |
-|---|------|:----------:|:------------:|:-:|----------------------|
-| 1 | Threat of New Entrants | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
-| 2 | Bargaining Power of Suppliers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
-| 3 | Bargaining Power of Buyers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
-| 4 | Threat of Substitutes | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
-| 5 | Industry Rivalry | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
-| — | **Average Score** | **X.X** | **X.X** | **±X.X** | |
-
-### Attractiveness Evaluation
-
-| Parameter | Value |
-|----------|---------|
-| Average Score | X.X out of 5.0 |
-| Attractiveness | 🟢 High / 🟡 Medium / 🟠 Low / 🔴 Unattractive |
-| Dominant Force | [Name] (X.X) |
-| Dynamics (2-3 years) | Improvement / Stability / Deterioration (X.X → X.X) |
-
-### Detailed Force Analysis
-
-#### 1. Threat of New Entrants — X.X/5
-
-| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
-|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
-| Economies of Scale | X | [Explanation] | [Source] |
-| Capital Requirements | X | [Explanation] | [Source] |
-
-[Similarly for the other 4 forces]
-
-### Force Dynamics (2-3 years)
-
-| Force | Now | Forecast | Δ | Driver of Change |
-|------|:------:|:-------:|:-:|-------------------|
-| [Force] | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
-
-**Trigger points:** [Under what condition attractiveness will change sharply]
-
-### Strategic Recommendations
-
-| Force | Score | Strategic Action | Priority |
-|------|:----:|------------------------|:---------:|
-| [Force] | X.X | [What to do] | P1/P2/P3 |
-
-**Key Success Factors (KSF):** [3-5 factors]
-
-### Verdict
-[1-2 paragraphs: overall evaluation of attractiveness, dominant force, recommendation on entry/strategy, link to Blue Ocean if unattractive]
-
-### Sources and Assumptions
-
-| # | Fact / Assumption | Source | Date | Reliability |
-|---|-------------------|----------|------|:-------------:|
-| 1 | [Fact] | [Source] | [Date] | ✅ / ⚠️ / 🔮 |
-
-Legend: ✅ Verified (2+ sources) | ⚠️ Estimated (1 source) | 🔮 Assumed (expert evaluation)
-```
+---
+name: porters-five-forces
+description: Industry competitive forces analysis — threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, threat of substitutes, industry rivalry
+---
+# Porter's Five Forces — Industry Competitive Forces Analysis
+
+## When to Use
+- When evaluating **industry attractiveness** for entry or investment.
+- When developing a **competitive strategy** — understanding the balance of power in the market.
+- When analyzing **industry changes** — how new trends alter the balance of power.
+- When preparing **M&A decisions** — evaluating the competitive environment of a target industry.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|------|:-----------:|----------|
+| Industry / Segment | ✅ | Clear definition of the analyzed industry and its boundaries |
+| Geographical Focus | ✅ | Country / region / global market |
+| Company Position | ⬚ | Current or planned role in the industry |
+| Key Competitors | ⬚ | List of main players for context |
+| Analysis Horizon | ⬚ | Assessment period (default — current state + 2-3 years) |
+| Analysis Goal | ⬚ | Market entry, strategy, investment, M&A |
+
+> If mandatory fields are not provided — **request them from the user** before starting the analysis. Do not make assumptions.
+
+## Data Sources
+1. Industry reports — IBISWorld, Statista, industry associations.
+2. Financial statements — annual reports of players, SEC filings.
+3. Competitive intelligence — market shares, pricing, product lines.
+4. Supplier and buyer data — concentration, switching costs.
+5. Regulatory databases — barriers to entry, licensing, patents.
+
+> Every fact must include a source and date. Data older than 12 months should be marked ⚠️ and verified via `web-research`.
+
+### Relationship with Other Skills
+| Skill | What We Take | When to Call |
+|------|-----------|----------------|
+| `competitive-analysis` | Competitor data, market shares, moats (step 5) | If there is no data on the competitive landscape |
+| `pest-analysis` | Macro factors affecting the forces: regulatory barriers, technological trends (steps 1, 4) | If macro-environment context is needed |
+| `tam-sam-som` | Market size and growth to evaluate rivalry (step 5) | If there is no data on the industry growth rate |
+| `blue-ocean-strategy` | Strategy beyond the 5 forces, if the industry is unattractive (step 7) | If the average score is ≥ 3.5 — consider Blue Ocean |
+| `web-research` | Verification of industry data, fresh reports | If data is missing or outdated (>12 months) |
+| `swot-analysis` | 5 forces → Threats and Opportunities for SWOT | After the analysis — for strategy integration |
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 0 — Context Preparation
+1. Clearly define the industry boundaries:
+
+   | Parameter | Definition |
+   |----------|-------------|
+   | Product Boundaries | [What is included in the industry, what is not] |
+   | Geographical Boundaries | [Country / region / globally] |
+   | Price Segment | [Premium / Mid / Value / All] |
+   | Lifecycle Phase | Growth / Maturity / Decline |
+
+2. Identify key players: leaders, challengers, niche players.
+3. Record the analysis goal and horizon.
+
+### Step 1 — Threat of New Entrants (Threat of New Entrants)
+Evaluate each sub-factor on a scale of 1-5 (1 = high barrier / low threat, 5 = low barrier / high threat):
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Economies of Scale | X | [Minimum efficient scale] | [Source] |
+| Capital Requirements | X | [Volume of initial investments] | [Source] |
+| Access to Distribution Channels | X | [Difficulty of getting on a shelf/platform] | [Source] |
+| Patents and IP | X | [Presence of protection] | [Source] |
+| Regulatory Barriers | X | [Licenses, certifications] | [Source] |
+| Learning Curve Effect | X | [Experience curve of existing players] | [Source] |
+
+**Final force score = average of sub-factors**, rounded to 0.5.
+
+Additionally: the probability of new players appearing on the analysis horizon, expected reaction of incumbents.
+
+### Step 2 — Bargaining Power of Suppliers (Supplier Power)
+Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak power, 5 = high power):
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Supplier Concentration | X | [N suppliers vs N buyers] | [Source] |
+| Resource Uniqueness | X | [Replaceable or not] | [Source] |
+| Switching Costs | X | [Cost of changing supplier] | [Source] |
+| Threat of Forward Integration | X | [Supplier → competitor] | [Source] |
+| Availability of Resource Substitutes | X | [Alternative resources] | [Source] |
+
+**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
+
+### Step 3 — Bargaining Power of Buyers (Buyer Power)
+Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak power, 5 = high power):
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Buyer Concentration | X | [Share of TOP-10 clients in revenue] | [Source] |
+| Buyer Switching Costs | X | [Cost of switching to a competitor] | [Source] |
+| Price Sensitivity | X | [How much price = the main criterion] | [Source] |
+| Buyer Information | X | [Do they know prices and alternatives] | [Source] |
+| Threat of Backward Integration | X | [Buyer manufactures themselves] | [Source] |
+| Product Standardization | X | [Commodity vs differentiation] | [Source] |
+
+**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
+
+### Step 4 — Threat of Substitutes (Threat of Substitutes)
+Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = low threat, 5 = high threat):
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Availability of Substitutes from Other Industries | X | [Which ones, how many] | [Source] |
+| Price/Performance Ratio of Substitute | X | [Better/worse/equal] | [Source] |
+| Switching Costs to Substitute | X | [Easy to switch?] | [Source] |
+| Buyer Propensity to Substitute | X | [Are they ready to change] | [Source] |
+| Technological Trends | X | [Are they creating new substitutes] | [Source] |
+
+> **Important:** substitutes are products **from another industry** solving **the same need**. Uber and taxis = competitors (same industry). Zoom and airlines for business meetings = substitutes (different industries, same need).
+
+**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
+
+### Step 5 — Industry Rivalry (Industry Rivalry)
+Evaluate each sub-factor (1 = weak rivalry, 5 = intense rivalry):
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Number and Size of Competitors | X | [Fragmentation vs concentration] | [Source] |
+| Industry Growth Rate | X | [Stagnation = tougher] | [Source] |
+| Product Differentiation | X | [Commodity vs uniqueness] | [Source] |
+| Fixed Costs / Excess Capacity | X | [Pressure on prices] | [Source] |
+| Exit Barriers | X | [Reasons to stay in an unprofitable industry] | [Source] |
+| Strategic Stakes | X | [Are players ready to fight for the market] | [Source] |
+
+**Final score = average of sub-factors.**
+
+### Step 6 — Overall Industry Attractiveness
+1. Calculate the average score across the 5 forces.
+2. Determine the dominant force — the one that most strongly affects profitability.
+3. Evaluate attractiveness:
+
+   | Average Score | Attractiveness | Recommendation |
+   |:------------:|-------------------|-------------|
+   | 1.0-2.0 | 🟢 High | Enter / invest |
+   | 2.1-3.0 | 🟡 Medium | Enter with a clear differentiation strategy |
+   | 3.1-3.5 | 🟠 Low | Enter only with a strong competitive advantage |
+   | 3.6-5.0 | 🔴 Unattractive | Do not enter, or consider `$blue-ocean-strategy` |
+
+### Step 7 — Force Dynamics and Scenarios
+1. For each force, forecast the change over a 2-3 year horizon:
+
+   | Force | Now | In 2-3 years | Δ | Driver of Change |
+   |------|:------:|:--------------:|:-:|-------------------|
+   | New Entrants | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+   | Suppliers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+   | Buyers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+   | Substitutes | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+   | Rivalry | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+   | **Average** | **X.X** | **X.X** | **±X.X** | |
+
+2. Determine whether industry attractiveness is improving or deteriorating.
+3. Record trigger points: under what conditions attractiveness will change sharply.
+
+### Step 8 — Strategic Recommendations
+1. For each force — a specific action:
+
+   | Force | Score | Strategic Action | Priority |
+   |------|:----:|------------------------|:---------:|
+   | [Force] | X.X | [What to do to strengthen position] | P1/P2/P3 |
+
+2. Identify the Key Success Factors (KSF) in the industry.
+3. Formulate the verdict: enter / invest / defend / exit / create Blue Ocean.
+
+## Example — SaaS CRM for SMB, IT Market
+
+**Context:** SaaS CRM market for small and medium businesses, IT, 2026-2029 horizon. Goal: evaluating attractiveness for entry.
+
+### Sub-factor Scoring
+
+**1. Threat of New Entrants — 3.7/5**
+
+| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|:------:|-------------|
+| Economies of Scale | 3 | Medium threshold: cloud infrastructure scales |
+| Capital Requirements | 2 | Low: MVP for $200K-500K, cloud |
+| Access to Channels | 4 | Hard: marketplace is overcrowded, SEO is competitive |
+| Patents and IP | 5 | None: SaaS CRM is not protected by patents |
+| Regulatory Barriers | 2 | Low: GDPR (personal data), but standard |
+| Learning Curve Effect | 4 | Medium: HubSpot and Salesforce = 10+ years on the market |
+
+**2. Bargaining Power of Suppliers — 2.0/5**
+
+| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|:------:|-------------|
+| Concentration | 2 | Low: AWS/GCP/Azure — 3+ providers |
+| Uniqueness | 1 | Cloud infrastructure = commodity |
+| Switching Costs | 3 | Medium: migration between clouds takes ~2-4 weeks |
+| Forward Integration | 2 | Low: cloud providers do not make CRMs |
+| Resource Substitutes | 2 | Yes: on-premise as an alternative |
+
+**3. Bargaining Power of Buyers — 3.8/5**
+
+| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|:------:|-------------|
+| Concentration | 2 | Low: thousands of SMBs, none > 1% of revenue |
+| Switching Costs | 4 | Low: CRM migration in 1-2 weeks, data is exportable |
+| Price Sensitivity | 5 | High: SMB counts every dollar |
+| Buyer Information | 4 | High: G2, reviews, comparisons are easily accessible |
+| Backward Integration | 1 | No: SMB will not write their own CRM |
+| Standardization | 4 | High: basic CRM = commodity |
+
+**4. Threat of Substitutes — 3.4/5**
+
+| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|:------:|-------------|
+| Availability | 4 | Notion, Excel, Telegram bots, Google Sheets |
+| Price/Performance | 3 | Worse in functionality, but free |
+| Switching Costs | 4 | Low: from Excel to CRM and back is easy |
+| Propensity | 3 | Medium: SMBs are used to the "free" option |
+| Tech Trends | 3 | AI assistants may replace part of CRM functions |
+
+**5. Rivalry — 4.2/5**
+
+| Sub-factor | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|:------:|-------------|
+| Competitor Count | 5 | HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Notion + 20 minor ones |
+| Industry Growth | 3 | Moderate: +12% YoY (not enough for everyone) |
+| Differentiation | 3 | Medium: basic features are the same, differentiation via UX/AI |
+| Fixed Costs | 4 | High R&D, pressure on prices |
+| Exit Barriers | 4 | High: client base, reputation, team |
+| Strategic Stakes | 5 | High: CRM = ecosystem core for all players |
+
+### Summary
+
+| Force | Score | Trend (2-3y) | Driver |
+|------|:----:|:------------:|---------|
+| New Entrants | 3.7 | ↑ 4.0 | AI lowers MVP cost |
+| Suppliers | 2.0 | → 2.0 | Cloud market is stable |
+| Buyers | 3.8 | ↑ 4.0 | Growing awareness, more alternatives |
+| Substitutes | 3.4 | ↑ 3.8 | AI assistants are coming |
+| Rivalry | 4.2 | → 4.2 | Consolidation offsets growth |
+| **Average** | **3.4** | **3.6** | |
+
+**Attractiveness:** 🟠 Low (3.4). In 2-3 years: 🔴 Unattractive (3.6).
+**Dominant Force:** Rivalry (4.2) — intense competition, 5+ serious players.
+
+### Recommendations
+
+| Force | Action | Priority |
+|------|----------|:---------:|
+| Rivalry (4.2) | Differentiation via AI — the only unoccupied factor | P1 |
+| Buyers (3.8) | Increase switching costs: deep integrations, custom workflows | P1 |
+| Substitutes (3.4) | Position CRM as "more than Excel": analytics, automation | P2 |
+| New Entrants (3.7) | Build brand and community — a barrier you can't buy | P2 |
+
+**Verdict:** Enter only with strong differentiation (AI-first CRM). Without a unique advantage, the market is too competitive. Consider `$blue-ocean-strategy` to find unoccupied space.
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] All 5 forces are analyzed with sub-factors (minimum 5 per force)
+- [ ] Each sub-factor is evaluated 1-5 with justification and a source
+- [ ] Final force score = average of sub-factors (not subjective)
+- [ ] Industry boundaries are clearly defined (product, geo, segment, phase)
+- [ ] Overall attractiveness is calculated, dominant force is identified
+- [ ] Dynamics of forces on a 2-3 year horizon with drivers and trigger points
+- [ ] Substitutes are from another industry (do not confuse with competitors)
+- [ ] Strategic recommendations are tied to specific forces and prioritized
+- [ ] Verdict: enter / invest / defend / exit / Blue Ocean
+- [ ] Data sources are specified; data older than 12 months is marked ⚠️
+
+## Handoff
+The output of `$porters-five-forces` is an input for:
+- **Strategist / Mediator** — competitive environment for strategic decisions.
+- **`competitive-analysis`** — rivalry data for detailed competitive analysis.
+- **`swot-analysis`** — 5 forces → Threats (high forces) and Opportunities (low forces).
+- **`blue-ocean-strategy`** — if the industry is unattractive (≥ 3.5) — search for Blue Ocean.
+- **`ansoff-matrix`** — attractiveness of current vs new industries for growth strategy.
+
+Handoff format: summary table of forces with scores + sub-factors + dynamics + recommendations. When transferring — use `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Error | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| Excessively wide boundaries | "Tech industry" — 100 different markets | Specific segment: "SaaS CRM for SMB in the US" |
+| Force score "by eye" | Subjective evaluation, not reproducible | Score = average of sub-factors (each 1-5 with justification) |
+| Ignoring dynamics | Static analysis becomes obsolete | Forecast for each force for 2-3 years + trigger points |
+| Confusing competitors / substitutes | Uber and taxis = competitors; Zoom and airlines = substitutes | Substitutes — different industry, same need |
+| Lack of strategic implications | Analysis for the sake of analysis | Each force → specific strategic action |
+| Equal scores for all forces | No differentiation | Full 1-5 scale, dominant force |
+| Sub-factors without data | Evaluations hang in the air | Each sub-factor — with a source |
+| Attractiveness without a verdict | A number without a recommendation is useless | Clear verdict: enter / defend / Blue Ocean |
+
+## Output Template
+
+```markdown
+## Porter's Five Forces: [Industry / Segment]
+**Region:** [Geography]  |  **Horizon:** [Period]  |  **Goal:** [Entry / Strategy / M&A]  |  **Date:** [Date]
+
+### Industry Boundaries
+
+| Parameter | Definition |
+|----------|-------------|
+| Product | [What is included, what is not] |
+| Geography | [Country / region] |
+| Price Segment | [Premium / Mid / Value] |
+| Lifecycle Phase | [Growth / Maturity / Decline] |
+
+### Competitive Forces Summary Table
+
+| # | Force | Score (1-5) | Trend (2-3y) | Δ | Dominant Sub-factor |
+|---|------|:----------:|:------------:|:-:|----------------------|
+| 1 | Threat of New Entrants | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
+| 2 | Bargaining Power of Suppliers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
+| 3 | Bargaining Power of Buyers | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
+| 4 | Threat of Substitutes | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
+| 5 | Industry Rivalry | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [Sub-factor] |
+| — | **Average Score** | **X.X** | **X.X** | **±X.X** | |
+
+### Attractiveness Evaluation
+
+| Parameter | Value |
+|----------|---------|
+| Average Score | X.X out of 5.0 |
+| Attractiveness | 🟢 High / 🟡 Medium / 🟠 Low / 🔴 Unattractive |
+| Dominant Force | [Name] (X.X) |
+| Dynamics (2-3 years) | Improvement / Stability / Deterioration (X.X → X.X) |
+
+### Detailed Force Analysis
+
+#### 1. Threat of New Entrants — X.X/5
+
+| Sub-factor | Score (1-5) | Justification | Source |
+|-----------|:------------:|-------------|----------|
+| Economies of Scale | X | [Explanation] | [Source] |
+| Capital Requirements | X | [Explanation] | [Source] |
+
+[Similarly for the other 4 forces]
+
+### Force Dynamics (2-3 years)
+
+| Force | Now | Forecast | Δ | Driver of Change |
+|------|:------:|:-------:|:-:|-------------------|
+| [Force] | X.X | X.X | ±X.X | [What will change] |
+
+**Trigger points:** [Under what condition attractiveness will change sharply]
+
+### Strategic Recommendations
+
+| Force | Score | Strategic Action | Priority |
+|------|:----:|------------------------|:---------:|
+| [Force] | X.X | [What to do] | P1/P2/P3 |
+
+**Key Success Factors (KSF):** [3-5 factors]
+
+### Verdict
+[1-2 paragraphs: overall evaluation of attractiveness, dominant force, recommendation on entry/strategy, link to Blue Ocean if unattractive]
+
+### Sources and Assumptions
+
+| # | Fact / Assumption | Source | Date | Reliability |
+|---|-------------------|----------|------|:-------------:|
+| 1 | [Fact] | [Source] | [Date] | ✅ / ⚠️ / 🔮 |
+
+Legend: ✅ Verified (2+ sources) | ⚠️ Estimated (1 source) | 🔮 Assumed (expert evaluation)
+```