code-ai-installer 4.0.0 → 4.0.1-a

package/domains/analytics/locales/en/.agents/skills/competitive-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -1,395 +1,413 @@
----
-name: competitive-analysis
-description: Competitor benchmarking — features, pricing, positioning, competitive advantages
----
-# Competitive Analysis — Competitor Benchmarking
-
-## When to use
-- When entering a new market — to understand the competitive landscape.
-- When developing a positioning strategy — differentiation from competitors.
-- When pricing — benchmarking competitors' prices and packages.
-- When discovering new competitors or due to changes in competitive dynamics.
-
-## Input
-
-| Field | Required | Description |
-|------|:-----------:|----------|
-| Product / service | ✅ | What we are analyzing in a competitive context |
-| Market / niche | ✅ | Which category we are competing in |
-| Known competitors | ⬚ | List, if available; otherwise they will be determined |
-| Key product features | ⬚ | To build a comparison matrix |
-| Current pricing | ⬚ | Current pricing model for the benchmark |
-| Target audience | ⬚ | From `$icp-buyer-persona`, if available |
-| Analysis focus | ⬚ | Features / Pricing / Positioning / Full |
-
-> If mandatory fields are not provided — **ask the user** before starting the analysis. Do not guess.
-
-## Data Sources
-1. **Web search** — competitor websites, reviews, ratings (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, Product Hunt).
-2. **Financial data** — public reports, funding rounds (Crunchbase, PitchBook).
-3. **Marketing materials** — competitor landing pages, blogs, case studies.
-4. **Social signals** — customer reviews, discussions on Reddit, HN, professional forums.
-5. **Analytical reports** — Gartner Magic Quadrant, Forrester Wave, industry overviews.
-
-> For each competitor — at least 2 independent sources of information. Every fact — indicating the source and date. Data older than 12 months — mark with ⚠️ and verify via `web-research`.
-
-### Connection with other skills
-| Skill | What we take | When to call |
-|------|-----------|----------------|
-| `web-research` | Data on competitors, pricing, features, reviews (steps 1-6) | Main collection tool — call at every step |
-| `swot-analysis` | Strengths/weaknesses of our product for comparison (step 5) | If there is no internal S/W assessment |
-| `tam-sam-som` | Market size, shares for assessing competitor scale (step 1) | If the market size is unknown |
-| `blue-ocean-strategy` | Unoccupied positions, ERRC for differentiation (steps 4, 7) | If the analysis reveals an overcrowded zone |
-| `icp-buyer-persona` | Target personas to assess competitive overlap | If there is no data on the target audience |
-
-## Protocol
-
-### Step 0 — Context collection
-1. Check the availability of mandatory input data.
-2. Determine the focus of the analysis:
-
-   | Focus | Depth | Steps |
-   |-------|---------|------|
-   | Features | Feature matrix + implementation quality | 0-2, 5, 7 |
-   | Pricing | Tiers + model + hidden costs | 0-1, 3, 7 |
-   | Positioning | Map + messaging + audience | 0-1, 4, 7 |
-   | Full | All of the above | 0-7 |
-
-3. Request missing data from the user.
-4. Determine the horizon: current snapshot + dynamics over the last 12 months.
-
-### Step 1 — Identification of competitors
-1. Classify competitors into three categories:
-   - **Direct** — solve the same problem for the same segment in the same way (3-5).
-   - **Indirect** — solve the same problem in a different way or for a different segment (2-3).
-   - **Aspirational** — market leaders to look up to (1-2).
-2. For each competitor, assemble a profile card:
-
-   | Field | Description |
-   |------|----------|
-   | Name | Legal entity / brand |
-   | Type | Direct / Indirect / Aspirational |
-   | Year founded | Maturity |
-   | Size | Employees, revenue (if public) |
-   | Funding | Rounds, investors (if startup) |
-   | Target segment | Who they sell to |
-   | Key feature | Main differentiation |
-   | Dynamics (12 mo) | Growing ↗ / Stable → / Declining ↘ |
-
-### Step 2 — Feature matrix
-1. Define 10-20 key features / criteria.
-2. Group by categories (Core, Advanced, Integrations, Support).
-3. Evaluate each competitor on the implementation quality scale:
-
-   | Rating | Meaning |
-   |:------:|----------|
-   | ★★★ | Best in class — competitive advantage |
-   | ★★ | Good implementation — at the market level |
-   | ★ | Basic implementation — exists, but weak |
-   | — | Missing |
-
-4. Calculate the score: ★★★ = 3, ★★ = 2, ★ = 1, — = 0. Total for each competitor.
-5. Highlight unique features of each competitor (found only in one).
-6. Define table stakes — features that everyone has (mandatory minimum).
-
-### Step 3 — Pricing analysis
-1. Collect the public pricing tiers of all competitors.
-2. Bring to a unified model for comparison:
-
-   | Competitor | Model | $/mo (entry) | $/mo (average) | $/mo (enterprise) | Free tier | Strategy |
-   |-----------|--------|:-----------------:|:---------------:|:-----------------:|:---------:|-----------|
-   | [A] | Per seat | $XX | $XX | On request | Yes / No | Premium |
-
-3. Determine pricing strategies: premium / value / freemium / usage-based.
-4. Identify hidden costs (onboarding, support, integrations, minimum contract).
-5. Calculate the pricing index: `our price / average of competitors × 100`.
-
-### Step 4 — Positioning map
-1. Choose axes based on market priorities:
-
-   | Popular axis pairs | When to use |
-   |---------------------|--------------------|
-   | Price × Features | Classic value vs features comparison |
-   | Simplicity × Power | For products with different UX approaches |
-   | Verticalization × Horizontality | Niche vs universal solutions |
-   | Self-serve × Sales-led | Distribution model |
-
-2. Place all competitors on the map (score 1-10 on each axis).
-3. Identify clusters of competitors (concentration zones).
-4. Identify empty zones (unoccupied positions — potential for differentiation).
-5. Determine the recommended position for our product.
-
-### Step 5 — Strengths and weaknesses
-For each competitor:
-
-| Aspect | Strengths | Weaknesses | Source |
-|--------|----------------|----------------|----------|
-| Technology | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-| UX / design | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-| Brand / reputation | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-| Price / value | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-| Ecosystem / integrations | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-| Support / service | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
-
-> Support each thesis with data: review, rating, fact. Not "good UX", but "4.7/5 on G2 (234 reviews), +0.3 vs category average".
-
-### Step 6 — Competitive Moats and threats
-1. Identify the sustainable advantages of each competitor:
-
-   | Moat type | Description | Examples |
-   |---------|----------|---------|
-   | Network effects | Value grows with the number of users | Marketplaces, social networks |
-   | Switching costs | High migration cost | ERP, CRM with deep integration |
-   | Brand | Awareness and trust | Enterprise brands |
-   | Technological barrier | Patents, unique technology | AI models, proprietary data |
-   | Economies of scale | Cost drops with growth | Infrastructure products |
-   | Ecosystem | Lock-in through integrations and plugins | Platforms with app store |
-
-2. Evaluate moat strength: weak / medium / strong.
-3. **Threat score** — rank competitors by aggregate threat:
-
-   | Criterion | Weight | Scale |
-   |----------|:---:|:-----:|
-   | Audience overlap | 0.25 | 1-10 |
-   | Feature overlap | 0.20 | 1-10 |
-   | Moat strength | 0.20 | 1-10 |
-   | Growth dynamics | 0.20 | 1-10 |
-   | Resources (funding, team) | 0.15 | 1-10 |
-
-   `Threat Score = Σ(weight × score)`. Rank: **≥ 7.0 High**, **4.0-6.9 Medium**, **< 4.0 Low**.
-
-### Step 7 — Dynamics and trends (12 months)
-1. For each key competitor, record changes over the last 12 months:
-
-   | Competitor | Feature changes | Price changes | New segments | Funding | Strategic pivot |
-   |-----------|:-------------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:--------------:|:----------------------:|
-   | [A] | +3 major features | 15% increase | Entry into enterprise | Series C, $50M | No |
-
-2. Identify trends: where the market as a whole is heading.
-3. Identify potential new threats: startups, big tech, adjacent markets.
-
-### Step 8 — Strategic recommendations
-Based on the analysis:
-1. **Positioning** — recommended position on the map, messaging.
-2. **Table stakes** — features mandatory for competition (possessed by all direct competitors).
-3. **Differentiation** — a unique advantage based on the weaknesses of competitors and empty zones.
-4. **Pricing** — recommended strategy and level relative to the market.
-5. **Risky bets** — what competitors can copy / improve, what to bet on.
-6. **Recommended actions:**
-
-   | # | Action | Purpose | Against whom | Priority | Deadline |
-   |---|----------|------|-------------|:---------:|------|
-   | 1 | [What to do] | [What effect] | [Competitor] | P1/P2/P3 | [When] |
-
-## Example — CRM for the SMB segment
-
-**Context:** A new CRM platform for small business, the Russian market. Pricing model: per seat. Focus: full analysis.
-
-### Competitive landscape
-
-| Competitor | Type | Segment | Year | Size | Dynamics |
-|-----------|-----|---------|-----|--------|:--------:|
-| amoCRM | Direct | SMB-Mid | 2009 | ~600 emp. | → |
-| Bitrix24 | Direct | SMB-Ent | 2012 | ~1500 emp. | ↗ |
-| Megaplan | Direct | SMB | 2008 | ~200 emp. | ↘ |
-| HubSpot | Aspirational | SMB-Ent (global) | 2006 | 7000+ emp. | ↗ |
-| Notion | Indirect | SMB (PM→CRM) | 2013 | ~500 emp. | ↗ |
-
-### Feature matrix (fragment)
-
-| Criterion | Our product | amoCRM | Bitrix24 | Megaplan | HubSpot |
-|----------|:-----------:|:------:|:---------:|:--------:|:-------:|
-| Sales funnel | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
-| Email integration | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
-| Telephony | ★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★ |
-| AI assistant | ★★★ | — | ★ | — | ★★ |
-| Mobile app | ★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★★★ |
-| Automations | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
-| **Score** | **12** | **12** | **11** | **6** | **15** |
-
-**Table stakes:** sales funnel, email, mobile app.
-**Our unique feature:** AI assistant (★★★, only we have it at this level).
-
-### Threat Score
-
-| Competitor | Audience overlap | Feature overlap | Moat | Dynamics | Resources | **Score** | **Rank** |
-|-----------|:-----------------:|:-----------:|:---:|:--------:|:-------:|:---------:|:--------:|
-| amoCRM | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 | **7.2** | 🔴 High |
-| Bitrix24 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | **7.3** | 🔴 High |
-| Megaplan | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | **4.8** | 🟡 Medium |
-| HubSpot | 4 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | **7.6** | 🔴 High |
-| Notion | 3 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 7 | **4.9** | 🟡 Medium |
-
-**Main threats:** HubSpot (score 7.6, strong moat + resources), Bitrix24 (7.3, ecosystem), amoCRM (7.2, maximum overlap).
-
-### Recommendations
-
-| # | Action | Against whom | Priority |
-|---|----------|-------------|:---------:|
-| 1 | Strengthen the AI assistant as the main differentiator | amoCRM, Bitrix24 (no AI) | P1 |
-| 2 | Pricing strategy: value (lower than amoCRM, higher than Megaplan) | amoCRM | P1 |
-| 3 | 1C integration (table stakes in RF, we don't have it yet) | Bitrix24 | P2 |
-| 4 | Positioning: "AI-first CRM for small businesses" | All | P1 |
-
-## Validation (Quality Gate)
-
-- [ ] Identified at least 3 direct + 2 indirect competitors with profile cards
-- [ ] Feature matrix contains at least 10 criteria with quality score (★/★★/★★★)
-- [ ] Table stakes and unique features explicitly identified
-- [ ] Pricing brought to a unified model for comparison
-- [ ] Positioning map built along 2 axes with clusters and empty zones
-- [ ] Strengths and weaknesses provided for each competitor with sources and dates
-- [ ] Competitive moats identified for key competitors with a strength rating
-- [ ] Threat score calculated, competitors ranked by threat level
-- [ ] 12 mo dynamics recorded: changes in features, prices, strategy
-- [ ] Recommendations are specific, prioritized, and linked to competitors
-- [ ] For each competitor — at least 2 independent sources
-- [ ] Data sources indicated; data older than 12 mo marked with ⚠️
-
-> If validation fails — rework until passing, do not pass further.
-
-## Handoff
-The output of `$competitive-analysis` is input for:
-- **Strategist / Mediator** — competitive landscape for strategic decisions.
-- **`tam-sam-som`** — competitor market shares for assessing SOM.
-- **`bcg-matrix`** — relative market share (our share / leader's share) for BU classification.
-- **`blue-ocean-strategy`** — competition factors for the AS-IS strategy canvas.
-- **`ansoff-matrix`** — entry barriers in new markets (step 2, market development).
-- **`icp-buyer-persona`** — positioning affects the choice of target personas.
-- **`jtbd-analysis`** — competing solutions for each Job.
-
-Handoff format: competitive landscape + feature matrix + threat score + key recommendations. When handing off — use `$handoff`.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-| Mistake | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
-|--------|-------------|---------------|
-| Only direct competitors | Missing threats from adjacent markets | Include indirect and aspirational competitors |
-| Copying the leader's features | "Feature race" without a strategy | Differentiate, do not copy; focus on the weaknesses of competitors |
-| Analysis without sources | Subjective assessments without evidence | Every thesis — with data: rating, review, fact |
-| Outdated prices | Competitors change pricing often | Verify on the competitor's site, mark ⚠️ if >6 mo |
-| Focus only on features | Features are not the only axis of competition | Analyze UX, brand, ecosystem, support, moats |
-| Too many competitors | Loss of focus, superficial analysis | 5-8 key ones, the rest — a brief overview |
-| Without recommendations | Analysis for the sake of analysis | Conclude with an actionable strategy with priorities |
-| Binary feature matrix (✅/⬚) | Quality is invisible: "exists" is not "well implemented" | ★/★★/★★★ scale with score |
-| Static snapshot | Cannot see where competitors are moving | 12 mo dynamics: features, prices, funding, strategy |
-
-## Output Template
-
-```markdown
-### Competitive Analysis — [Product / Service]
-
-**Market:** [niche]
-**Geography:** [regions]
-**Focus:** [Features / Pricing / Positioning / Full]
-**Analysis Date:** [date]
-
----
-
-#### Competitive Landscape
-
-| Competitor | Type | Segment | Year | Size | Funding | Key Feature | Dynamics (12 mo) |
-|-----------|-----|---------|-----|--------|---------------|---------------|:-----------------:|
-| [A] | Direct | [segment] | [year] | [size] | [round / —] | [feature] | ↗ / → / ↘ |
-
----
-
-#### Feature Matrix
-
-| Category | Criterion | Our Product | [A] | [B] | [C] |
-|-----------|----------|:-----------:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
-| Core | [Feature 1] | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ |
-| Core | [Feature 2] | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ | — |
-| Advanced | [Feature 3] | ★ | — | ★★ | ★★★ |
-| | **Score** | **XX** | **XX** | **XX** | **XX** |
-
-Scale: ★★★ = best in class (3) | ★★ = market level (2) | ★ = basic implementation (1) | — = missing (0)
-
-**Table stakes:** [features mandatory for competition]
-**Unique features:** [our product: X], [competitor A: Y], [competitor B: Z]
-
----
-
-#### Pricing
-
-| Competitor | Model | Entry Price | Average Plan | Enterprise | Free Tier | Hidden Costs | Strategy |
-|-----------|--------|:--------------:|:------------:|:----------:|:---------:|-----------------|-----------|
-| [A] | [model] | $XX/mo | $XX/mo | On request | Yes / No | [what] | [strategy] |
-
-**Pricing index:** our price / average = [X]% (lower / on par / higher market)
-
----
-
-#### Positioning Map
-
-**Axes:** [Axis X] × [Axis Y]
-
-| Competitor | [Axis X] (1-10) | [Axis Y] (1-10) | Cluster |
-|-----------|:--------------:|:--------------:|---------|
-| [A] | X | X | [Premium / Value / Niche] |
-| **Our Product** | X | X | [Recommended position] |
-
-**Clusters:** [cluster descriptions]
-**Unoccupied zones:** [description of empty positions — differentiation opportunities]
-
----
-
-#### Strengths and Weaknesses
-
-| Competitor | Strengths | Weaknesses | Source |
-|-----------|----------------|----------------|----------|
-| [A] | [+ with data: rating, fact] | [- with data] | [Source, date] |
-
----
-
-#### Competitive Moats
-
-| Competitor | Moat Type | Description | Strength |
-|-----------|---------|----------|:---------:|
-| [A] | [Type] | [Details] | Strong / Medium / Weak |
-
----
-
-#### Threat Score
-
-| Competitor | Aud. overlap (0.25) | Feat. overlap (0.20) | Moat (0.20) | Dynamics (0.20) | Resources (0.15) | **Score** | **Rank** |
-|-----------|:--------------------:|:-------------------:|:----------:|:---------------:|:--------------:|:---------:|:--------:|
-| [A] | X | X | X | X | X | **X.X** | 🔴/🟡/🟢 |
-
-Rank: 🔴 High (≥7.0) | 🟡 Medium (4.0-6.9) | 🟢 Low (<4.0)
-
----
-
-#### Dynamics (12 months)
-
-| Competitor | Feature changes | Price changes | New segments | Funding | Strategic Pivot |
-|-----------|:-------------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:--------------:|:-----------------:|
-| [A] | [What was added] | [±X%] | [Where to] | [Round, $XM] | [Yes / No] |
-
-**Market trends:** [where the market is heading overall]
-**Potential new threats:** [startups, big tech, adjacent markets]
-
----
-
-#### Strategic Recommendations
-
-1. **Positioning:** [recommended position + messaging]
-2. **Table stakes (mandatory features):** [list]
-3. **Differentiation:** [unique advantage + justification]
-4. **Pricing:** [strategy + level]
-5. **Risky bets:** [what competitors might copy, window of opportunity]
-
-| # | Action | Purpose | Against whom | Priority | Deadline |
-|---|----------|------|-------------|:---------:|------|
-| 1 | [What to do] | [Effect] | [Competitor] | P1 | [When] |
-
----
-
-#### Sources and Assumptions
-
-| # | Competitor | Fact / assumption | Source | Date | Reliability |
-|---|-----------|-------------------|----------|------|:-------------:|
-| 1 | [A] | [Fact] | [Source] | [Date] | ✅ / ⚠️ / 🔮 |
-
-Legend: ✅ Verified (2+ sources) | ⚠️ Estimated (1 source) | 🔮 Assumed (expert assessment)
-```
+---
+name: competitive-analysis
+description: Competitor benchmarking — features, pricing, positioning, competitive advantages
+type: triggered
+domain: analytics
+owners:
+  - strategist
+  - mediator
+gates:
+  - STRATEGIST
+  - MEDIATOR
+tech: []
+topic: []
+triggers:
+  - "competitive-analysis"
+  - "конкурентный анализ"
+  - "бенчмаркинг"
+  - "competitor analysis"
+related: []
+budget_lines: 413
+schema_version: 1
+---
+# Competitive Analysis — Competitor Benchmarking
+
+## When to use
+- When entering a new market — to understand the competitive landscape.
+- When developing a positioning strategy — differentiation from competitors.
+- When pricing — benchmarking competitors' prices and packages.
+- When discovering new competitors or due to changes in competitive dynamics.
+
+## Input
+
+| Field | Required | Description |
+|------|:-----------:|----------|
+| Product / service | ✅ | What we are analyzing in a competitive context |
+| Market / niche | ✅ | Which category we are competing in |
+| Known competitors | ⬚ | List, if available; otherwise they will be determined |
+| Key product features | ⬚ | To build a comparison matrix |
+| Current pricing | ⬚ | Current pricing model for the benchmark |
+| Target audience | ⬚ | From `$icp-buyer-persona`, if available |
+| Analysis focus | ⬚ | Features / Pricing / Positioning / Full |
+
+> If mandatory fields are not provided — **ask the user** before starting the analysis. Do not guess.
+
+## Data Sources
+1. **Web search** — competitor websites, reviews, ratings (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, Product Hunt).
+2. **Financial data** — public reports, funding rounds (Crunchbase, PitchBook).
+3. **Marketing materials** — competitor landing pages, blogs, case studies.
+4. **Social signals** — customer reviews, discussions on Reddit, HN, professional forums.
+5. **Analytical reports** — Gartner Magic Quadrant, Forrester Wave, industry overviews.
+
+> For each competitor — at least 2 independent sources of information. Every fact — indicating the source and date. Data older than 12 months — mark with ⚠️ and verify via `web-research`.
+
+### Connection with other skills
+| Skill | What we take | When to call |
+|------|-----------|----------------|
+| `web-research` | Data on competitors, pricing, features, reviews (steps 1-6) | Main collection tool — call at every step |
+| `swot-analysis` | Strengths/weaknesses of our product for comparison (step 5) | If there is no internal S/W assessment |
+| `tam-sam-som` | Market size, shares for assessing competitor scale (step 1) | If the market size is unknown |
+| `blue-ocean-strategy` | Unoccupied positions, ERRC for differentiation (steps 4, 7) | If the analysis reveals an overcrowded zone |
+| `icp-buyer-persona` | Target personas to assess competitive overlap | If there is no data on the target audience |
+
+## Protocol
+
+### Step 0 — Context collection
+1. Check the availability of mandatory input data.
+2. Determine the focus of the analysis:
+
+   | Focus | Depth | Steps |
+   |-------|---------|------|
+   | Features | Feature matrix + implementation quality | 0-2, 5, 7 |
+   | Pricing | Tiers + model + hidden costs | 0-1, 3, 7 |
+   | Positioning | Map + messaging + audience | 0-1, 4, 7 |
+   | Full | All of the above | 0-7 |
+
+3. Request missing data from the user.
+4. Determine the horizon: current snapshot + dynamics over the last 12 months.
+
+### Step 1 — Identification of competitors
+1. Classify competitors into three categories:
+   - **Direct** — solve the same problem for the same segment in the same way (3-5).
+   - **Indirect** — solve the same problem in a different way or for a different segment (2-3).
+   - **Aspirational** — market leaders to look up to (1-2).
+2. For each competitor, assemble a profile card:
+
+   | Field | Description |
+   |------|----------|
+   | Name | Legal entity / brand |
+   | Type | Direct / Indirect / Aspirational |
+   | Year founded | Maturity |
+   | Size | Employees, revenue (if public) |
+   | Funding | Rounds, investors (if startup) |
+   | Target segment | Who they sell to |
+   | Key feature | Main differentiation |
+   | Dynamics (12 mo) | Growing ↗ / Stable → / Declining ↘ |
+
+### Step 2 — Feature matrix
+1. Define 10-20 key features / criteria.
+2. Group by categories (Core, Advanced, Integrations, Support).
+3. Evaluate each competitor on the implementation quality scale:
+
+   | Rating | Meaning |
+   |:------:|----------|
+   | ★★★ | Best in class — competitive advantage |
+   | ★★ | Good implementation — at the market level |
+   | ★ | Basic implementation — exists, but weak |
+   | — | Missing |
+
+4. Calculate the score: ★★★ = 3, ★★ = 2, ★ = 1, — = 0. Total for each competitor.
+5. Highlight unique features of each competitor (found only in one).
+6. Define table stakes — features that everyone has (mandatory minimum).
+
+### Step 3 — Pricing analysis
+1. Collect the public pricing tiers of all competitors.
+2. Bring to a unified model for comparison:
+
+   | Competitor | Model | $/mo (entry) | $/mo (average) | $/mo (enterprise) | Free tier | Strategy |
+   |-----------|--------|:-----------------:|:---------------:|:-----------------:|:---------:|-----------|
+   | [A] | Per seat | $XX | $XX | On request | Yes / No | Premium |
+
+3. Determine pricing strategies: premium / value / freemium / usage-based.
+4. Identify hidden costs (onboarding, support, integrations, minimum contract).
+5. Calculate the pricing index: `our price / average of competitors × 100`.
+
+### Step 4 — Positioning map
+1. Choose axes based on market priorities:
+
+   | Popular axis pairs | When to use |
+   |---------------------|--------------------|
+   | Price × Features | Classic value vs features comparison |
+   | Simplicity × Power | For products with different UX approaches |
+   | Verticalization × Horizontality | Niche vs universal solutions |
+   | Self-serve × Sales-led | Distribution model |
+
+2. Place all competitors on the map (score 1-10 on each axis).
+3. Identify clusters of competitors (concentration zones).
+4. Identify empty zones (unoccupied positions — potential for differentiation).
+5. Determine the recommended position for our product.
+
+### Step 5 — Strengths and weaknesses
+For each competitor:
+
+| Aspect | Strengths | Weaknesses | Source |
+|--------|----------------|----------------|----------|
+| Technology | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+| UX / design | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+| Brand / reputation | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+| Price / value | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+| Ecosystem / integrations | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+| Support / service | [+] | [-] | [Source, date] |
+
+> Support each thesis with data: review, rating, fact. Not "good UX", but "4.7/5 on G2 (234 reviews), +0.3 vs category average".
+
+### Step 6 — Competitive Moats and threats
+1. Identify the sustainable advantages of each competitor:
+
+   | Moat type | Description | Examples |
+   |---------|----------|---------|
+   | Network effects | Value grows with the number of users | Marketplaces, social networks |
+   | Switching costs | High migration cost | ERP, CRM with deep integration |
+   | Brand | Awareness and trust | Enterprise brands |
+   | Technological barrier | Patents, unique technology | AI models, proprietary data |
+   | Economies of scale | Cost drops with growth | Infrastructure products |
+   | Ecosystem | Lock-in through integrations and plugins | Platforms with app store |
+
+2. Evaluate moat strength: weak / medium / strong.
+3. **Threat score** — rank competitors by aggregate threat:
+
+   | Criterion | Weight | Scale |
+   |----------|:---:|:-----:|
+   | Audience overlap | 0.25 | 1-10 |
+   | Feature overlap | 0.20 | 1-10 |
+   | Moat strength | 0.20 | 1-10 |
+   | Growth dynamics | 0.20 | 1-10 |
+   | Resources (funding, team) | 0.15 | 1-10 |
+
+   `Threat Score = Σ(weight × score)`. Rank: **≥ 7.0 High**, **4.0-6.9 Medium**, **< 4.0 Low**.
+
+### Step 7 — Dynamics and trends (12 months)
+1. For each key competitor, record changes over the last 12 months:
+
+   | Competitor | Feature changes | Price changes | New segments | Funding | Strategic pivot |
+   |-----------|:-------------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:--------------:|:----------------------:|
+   | [A] | +3 major features | 15% increase | Entry into enterprise | Series C, $50M | No |
+
+2. Identify trends: where the market as a whole is heading.
+3. Identify potential new threats: startups, big tech, adjacent markets.
+
+### Step 8 — Strategic recommendations
+Based on the analysis:
+1. **Positioning** — recommended position on the map, messaging.
+2. **Table stakes** — features mandatory for competition (possessed by all direct competitors).
+3. **Differentiation** — a unique advantage based on the weaknesses of competitors and empty zones.
+4. **Pricing** — recommended strategy and level relative to the market.
+5. **Risky bets** — what competitors can copy / improve, what to bet on.
+6. **Recommended actions:**
+
+   | # | Action | Purpose | Against whom | Priority | Deadline |
+   |---|----------|------|-------------|:---------:|------|
+   | 1 | [What to do] | [What effect] | [Competitor] | P1/P2/P3 | [When] |
+
+## Example — CRM for the SMB segment
+
+**Context:** A new CRM platform for small business, the Russian market. Pricing model: per seat. Focus: full analysis.
+
+### Competitive landscape
+
+| Competitor | Type | Segment | Year | Size | Dynamics |
+|-----------|-----|---------|-----|--------|:--------:|
+| amoCRM | Direct | SMB-Mid | 2009 | ~600 emp. | → |
+| Bitrix24 | Direct | SMB-Ent | 2012 | ~1500 emp. | ↗ |
+| Megaplan | Direct | SMB | 2008 | ~200 emp. | ↘ |
+| HubSpot | Aspirational | SMB-Ent (global) | 2006 | 7000+ emp. | ↗ |
+| Notion | Indirect | SMB (PM→CRM) | 2013 | ~500 emp. | ↗ |
+
+### Feature matrix (fragment)
+
+| Criterion | Our product | amoCRM | Bitrix24 | Megaplan | HubSpot |
+|----------|:-----------:|:------:|:---------:|:--------:|:-------:|
+| Sales funnel | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
+| Email integration | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
+| Telephony | ★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★ |
+| AI assistant | ★★★ | — | ★ | — | ★★ |
+| Mobile app | ★★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★★★ |
+| Automations | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ★ | ★★★ |
+| **Score** | **12** | **12** | **11** | **6** | **15** |
+
+**Table stakes:** sales funnel, email, mobile app.
+**Our unique feature:** AI assistant (★★★, only we have it at this level).
+
+### Threat Score
+
+| Competitor | Audience overlap | Feature overlap | Moat | Dynamics | Resources | **Score** | **Rank** |
+|-----------|:-----------------:|:-----------:|:---:|:--------:|:-------:|:---------:|:--------:|
+| amoCRM | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 | **7.2** | 🔴 High |
+| Bitrix24 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | **7.3** | 🔴 High |
+| Megaplan | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | **4.8** | 🟡 Medium |
+| HubSpot | 4 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | **7.6** | 🔴 High |
+| Notion | 3 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 7 | **4.9** | 🟡 Medium |
+
+**Main threats:** HubSpot (score 7.6, strong moat + resources), Bitrix24 (7.3, ecosystem), amoCRM (7.2, maximum overlap).
+
+### Recommendations
+
+| # | Action | Against whom | Priority |
+|---|----------|-------------|:---------:|
+| 1 | Strengthen the AI assistant as the main differentiator | amoCRM, Bitrix24 (no AI) | P1 |
+| 2 | Pricing strategy: value (lower than amoCRM, higher than Megaplan) | amoCRM | P1 |
+| 3 | 1C integration (table stakes in RF, we don't have it yet) | Bitrix24 | P2 |
+| 4 | Positioning: "AI-first CRM for small businesses" | All | P1 |
+
+## Validation (Quality Gate)
+
+- [ ] Identified at least 3 direct + 2 indirect competitors with profile cards
+- [ ] Feature matrix contains at least 10 criteria with quality score (★/★★/★★★)
+- [ ] Table stakes and unique features explicitly identified
+- [ ] Pricing brought to a unified model for comparison
+- [ ] Positioning map built along 2 axes with clusters and empty zones
+- [ ] Strengths and weaknesses provided for each competitor with sources and dates
+- [ ] Competitive moats identified for key competitors with a strength rating
+- [ ] Threat score calculated, competitors ranked by threat level
+- [ ] 12 mo dynamics recorded: changes in features, prices, strategy
+- [ ] Recommendations are specific, prioritized, and linked to competitors
+- [ ] For each competitor — at least 2 independent sources
+- [ ] Data sources indicated; data older than 12 mo marked with ⚠️
+
+> If validation fails — rework until passing, do not pass further.
+
+## Handoff
+The output of `$competitive-analysis` is input for:
+- **Strategist / Mediator** — competitive landscape for strategic decisions.
+- **`tam-sam-som`** — competitor market shares for assessing SOM.
+- **`bcg-matrix`** — relative market share (our share / leader's share) for BU classification.
+- **`blue-ocean-strategy`** — competition factors for the AS-IS strategy canvas.
+- **`ansoff-matrix`** — entry barriers in new markets (step 2, market development).
+- **`icp-buyer-persona`** — positioning affects the choice of target personas.
+- **`jtbd-analysis`** — competing solutions for each Job.
+
+Handoff format: competitive landscape + feature matrix + threat score + key recommendations. When handing off — use `$handoff`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Mistake | Why it's bad | How to do it right |
+|--------|-------------|---------------|
+| Only direct competitors | Missing threats from adjacent markets | Include indirect and aspirational competitors |
+| Copying the leader's features | "Feature race" without a strategy | Differentiate, do not copy; focus on the weaknesses of competitors |
+| Analysis without sources | Subjective assessments without evidence | Every thesis — with data: rating, review, fact |
+| Outdated prices | Competitors change pricing often | Verify on the competitor's site, mark ⚠️ if >6 mo |
+| Focus only on features | Features are not the only axis of competition | Analyze UX, brand, ecosystem, support, moats |
+| Too many competitors | Loss of focus, superficial analysis | 5-8 key ones, the rest — a brief overview |
+| Without recommendations | Analysis for the sake of analysis | Conclude with an actionable strategy with priorities |
+| Binary feature matrix (✅/⬚) | Quality is invisible: "exists" is not "well implemented" | ★/★★/★★★ scale with score |
+| Static snapshot | Cannot see where competitors are moving | 12 mo dynamics: features, prices, funding, strategy |
+
+## Output Template
+
+```markdown
+### Competitive Analysis — [Product / Service]
+
+**Market:** [niche]
+**Geography:** [regions]
+**Focus:** [Features / Pricing / Positioning / Full]
+**Analysis Date:** [date]
+
+---
+
+#### Competitive Landscape
+
+| Competitor | Type | Segment | Year | Size | Funding | Key Feature | Dynamics (12 mo) |
+|-----------|-----|---------|-----|--------|---------------|---------------|:-----------------:|
+| [A] | Direct | [segment] | [year] | [size] | [round / —] | [feature] | ↗ / → / ↘ |
+
+---
+
+#### Feature Matrix
+
+| Category | Criterion | Our Product | [A] | [B] | [C] |
+|-----------|----------|:-----------:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
+| Core | [Feature 1] | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ |
+| Core | [Feature 2] | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ | — |
+| Advanced | [Feature 3] | ★ | — | ★★ | ★★★ |
+| | **Score** | **XX** | **XX** | **XX** | **XX** |
+
+Scale: ★★★ = best in class (3) | ★★ = market level (2) | ★ = basic implementation (1) | — = missing (0)
+
+**Table stakes:** [features mandatory for competition]
+**Unique features:** [our product: X], [competitor A: Y], [competitor B: Z]
+
+---
+
+#### Pricing
+
+| Competitor | Model | Entry Price | Average Plan | Enterprise | Free Tier | Hidden Costs | Strategy |
+|-----------|--------|:--------------:|:------------:|:----------:|:---------:|-----------------|-----------|
+| [A] | [model] | $XX/mo | $XX/mo | On request | Yes / No | [what] | [strategy] |
+
+**Pricing index:** our price / average = [X]% (lower / on par / higher market)
+
+---
+
+#### Positioning Map
+
+**Axes:** [Axis X] × [Axis Y]
+
+| Competitor | [Axis X] (1-10) | [Axis Y] (1-10) | Cluster |
+|-----------|:--------------:|:--------------:|---------|
+| [A] | X | X | [Premium / Value / Niche] |
+| **Our Product** | X | X | [Recommended position] |
+
+**Clusters:** [cluster descriptions]
+**Unoccupied zones:** [description of empty positions — differentiation opportunities]
+
+---
+
+#### Strengths and Weaknesses
+
+| Competitor | Strengths | Weaknesses | Source |
+|-----------|----------------|----------------|----------|
+| [A] | [+ with data: rating, fact] | [- with data] | [Source, date] |
+
+---
+
+#### Competitive Moats
+
+| Competitor | Moat Type | Description | Strength |
+|-----------|---------|----------|:---------:|
+| [A] | [Type] | [Details] | Strong / Medium / Weak |
+
+---
+
+#### Threat Score
+
+| Competitor | Aud. overlap (0.25) | Feat. overlap (0.20) | Moat (0.20) | Dynamics (0.20) | Resources (0.15) | **Score** | **Rank** |
+|-----------|:--------------------:|:-------------------:|:----------:|:---------------:|:--------------:|:---------:|:--------:|
+| [A] | X | X | X | X | X | **X.X** | 🔴/🟡/🟢 |
+
+Rank: 🔴 High (≥7.0) | 🟡 Medium (4.0-6.9) | 🟢 Low (<4.0)
+
+---
+
+#### Dynamics (12 months)
+
+| Competitor | Feature changes | Price changes | New segments | Funding | Strategic Pivot |
+|-----------|:-------------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:--------------:|:-----------------:|
+| [A] | [What was added] | [±X%] | [Where to] | [Round, $XM] | [Yes / No] |
+
+**Market trends:** [where the market is heading overall]
+**Potential new threats:** [startups, big tech, adjacent markets]
+
+---
+
+#### Strategic Recommendations
+
+1. **Positioning:** [recommended position + messaging]
+2. **Table stakes (mandatory features):** [list]
+3. **Differentiation:** [unique advantage + justification]
+4. **Pricing:** [strategy + level]
+5. **Risky bets:** [what competitors might copy, window of opportunity]
+
+| # | Action | Purpose | Against whom | Priority | Deadline |
+|---|----------|------|-------------|:---------:|------|
+| 1 | [What to do] | [Effect] | [Competitor] | P1 | [When] |
+
+---
+
+#### Sources and Assumptions
+
+| # | Competitor | Fact / assumption | Source | Date | Reliability |
+|---|-----------|-------------------|----------|------|:-------------:|
+| 1 | [A] | [Fact] | [Source] | [Date] | ✅ / ⚠️ / 🔮 |
+
+Legend: ✅ Verified (2+ sources) | ⚠️ Estimated (1 source) | 🔮 Assumed (expert assessment)
+```