startup-ideation-kit 1.0.0 → 2.0.0

package/skills/sk-competitors/references/research-scaling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Research Scaling Protocol
+
+Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins.
+
+## Complexity Score
+
+Assess three factors from the intake data:
+
+| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) |
+|--------|---------|------------|----------|
+| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players |
+| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified |
+| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region |
+
+**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9)
+
+## Research Depth Tiers
+
+| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description |
+|------|-----------|----------------|-------------|
+| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds |
+| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth |
+| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage |
+
+**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep.
+
+## User Communication
+
+After calculating the score, show this to the user:
+
+```
+## Research Depth
+
+Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity:
+
+| Factor           | Assessment          | Score |
+|------------------|---------------------|-------|
+| Market breadth   | {description}       | {1-3} |
+| Known competitors| {N} identified      | {1-3} |
+| Geographic scope | {description}       | {1-3} |
+
+**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}**
+
+You can override this. Here's what each depth means:
+
+| Depth        | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for                                      |
+|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
+| **Light**    | {N}    | 2-3 rounds         | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions |
+| **Standard** | {N}    | 3-4 rounds         | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed           |
+| **Deep**     | {N}    | 5-6 rounds         | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence |
+
+→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation.
+```
+
+The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below).
+
+## Wave Configuration: startup-competitors
+
+### Light (3-4 score or user override)
+
+**Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing** (1 agent)
+- A1: Competitor Profiles & Pricing (merge A1+A2 into one agent, cover profiles and pricing together)
+
+**Wave 2: Customer Sentiment** (1 agent)
+- B1: Review & Community Mining (merge B1+B2 into one agent, cover reviews and forums together)
+
+**Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals** (1 agent)
+- C1: GTM & Growth Signals (merge C1+C2 into one agent, cover GTM and strategic signals together)
+
+**Total: 3 agents** (vs. 6 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent
+
+### Standard (5-7 score, default)
+
+No changes to current wave structure:
+- Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2)
+- Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2)
+- Wave 3: 2 agents (C1, C2)
+
+**Total: 6 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent
+
+### Deep (8-9 score or user override)
+
+**Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing** (3 agents)
+- A1: Competitor Deep-Dives (unchanged)
+- A2: Pricing Intelligence (unchanged)
+- A3: Adjacent Competitor Profiles (NEW: profile 3-5 adjacent/emerging competitors not in the direct set, including recent launches and stealth startups)
+
+**Wave 2: Customer Sentiment** (3 agents)
+- B1: Review Mining (unchanged)
+- B2: Forum & Community Mining (unchanged)
+- B3: Social Media Sentiment (NEW: mine Twitter/X, LinkedIn, and YouTube for competitor mentions, sentiment patterns, and influencer opinions)
+
+**Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals** (3 agents)
+- C1: Go-to-Market Analysis (unchanged)
+- C2: Strategic & Growth Signals (unchanged)
+- C3: Tech Stack & Product Analysis (NEW: analyze competitors' technology choices, API ecosystems, integration depth, and technical moats)
+
+**Total: 9 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent
+
+## PROGRESS.md
+
+Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md:
+
+```markdown
+- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto})
+```

package/skills/sk-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+# Synthesis & Battle Cards
+
+After ALL waves complete (6 agents), synthesize the raw findings into polished deliverables. This step creates the real analytical value — it connects dots across data sources to surface opportunities that individual research pieces can't reveal on their own.
+
+## Synthesis Protocol
+
+### Before Writing
+
+1. Read ALL raw files in `{project-name}/raw/` before writing anything
+2. Look for patterns across sources — what themes repeat?
+3. Identify contradictions between sources and explain which you trust more
+4. Connect the dots: pricing gaps + customer complaints + hiring signals = opportunities
+
+### Cross-Wave Connections to Look For
+
+These are the high-value insights that come from combining data:
+
+- **Complaint + Pricing = Opportunity:** Customers complain about a feature AND the competitor charges a premium for it → undercut with better value
+- **Hiring + Product Direction = Threat:** Competitor hiring AI engineers + recent AI mentions in changelog → they're coming for that space
+- **Churn Signal + Switching Cost = Wedge:** People want to leave but data portability is hard → build easy migration as a differentiator
+- **Content Gap + Search Volume = Quick Win:** Nobody ranks for a high-volume term → own it early
+- **Review Pattern + Missing Feature = MVP Feature:** Multiple competitors lack something customers want → build it first
+- **Funding + Team Size = Reality Check:** Well-funded competitor with 100+ engineers → don't compete on features, compete on focus
+
+### Confidence Rating
+
+Rate every major claim:
+- **High:** Multiple Tier 1/2 sources agree, recent data
+- **Medium:** Some evidence but gaps, or sources partially disagree
+- **Low:** Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months
+
+---
+
+## Output File: competitors-report.md
+
+Structure:
+
+```markdown
+# Competitive Intelligence Report: {market/product}
+*Skill: startup-competitors | Generated: {date}*
+
+## Executive Summary
+{5 sentences max: market concentration, key finding, biggest opportunity, biggest risk, overall assessment}
+
+## Market Concentration
+- **Structure:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated
+- **Number of active players:** {count}
+- **Funding concentration:** {is money flowing in or drying up?}
+- **Entry barriers:** low / medium / high — {why}
+
+## Key Players at a Glance
+| Competitor | Stage | Funding | Strength | Weakness | Threat |
+|-----------|-------|---------|----------|----------|--------|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | H/M/L |
+
+## Adjacent Solutions & Substitutes
+{Broader platforms, manual alternatives, and tools from neighboring categories that compete for the same budget or job. Include: what job they solve, why buyers consider them, and how they compare to direct competitors.}
+
+## Strategic Opportunities
+For each opportunity:
+### Opportunity: {name}
+- **What:** {description}
+- **Evidence:** {data points from research}
+- **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
+- **How to exploit:** {specific recommendation}
+
+## Strategic Risks
+For each risk:
+### Risk: {name}
+- **What:** {description}
+- **Evidence:** {data points}
+- **Severity:** High / Medium / Low
+- **Mitigation:** {how to protect against it}
+
+## Competitive Moat Assessment
+Evaluate the market on 5 moat dimensions:
+| Moat Type | Present in Market? | Who Has It | Strength |
+|----------|-------------------|-----------|----------|
+| Network effects | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
+| Switching costs | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
+| Data moat | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
+| Brand/trust | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
+| Economies of scale | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
+
+{Paragraph explaining what this means for a new entrant}
+
+## Data Gaps & Research Limitations
+Aggregate all data gaps from raw research files into a single section. For each gap:
+- What data is missing
+- Why it matters for decision-making
+- How to fill it (specific actions the founder can take)
+
+This section is mandatory — every competitive analysis has blind spots. Being explicit about them builds trust and prevents false confidence.
+
+## Red Flags
+- {flag 1 — things that should worry the founder}
+- {flag 2}
+
+## Yellow Flags
+- {flag 1 — things to watch}
+- {flag 2}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output File: competitive-matrix.md
+
+```markdown
+# Competitive Feature Matrix: {market}
+
+## Feature Comparison
+| Feature | {Your Product} | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} |
+|---------|---------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
+| {feature 1} | {rating} | {rating} | ... | ... | ... |
+| {feature 2} | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+Rating scale: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing / Unknown
+
+## Gap Analysis
+Features where no competitor excels (all Weak or Missing):
+- {gap 1} — {opportunity implication}
+- {gap 2} — {opportunity implication}
+
+## Differentiation Opportunities
+Based on the matrix, the clearest paths to differentiation:
+1. {opportunity — what to build and why}
+2. {opportunity}
+3. {opportunity}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output File: pricing-landscape.md
+
+```markdown
+# Pricing Landscape: {market}
+
+## Market Pricing Overview
+- **Dominant value metric:** {what most charge for}
+- **Price range:** {lowest — highest for comparable tiers}
+- **Median price point:** {for standard tier}
+- **Free tier prevalence:** {X of Y competitors offer free}
+
+## Tier-by-Tier Comparison
+| | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} |
+|---|----------|----------|----------|----------|
+| Free tier | {what's included} | ... | ... | ... |
+| Entry tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
+| Mid tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
+| Top tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
+| Enterprise | {custom?} | ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Value Metric Analysis
+| Competitor | Value Metric | Why It Works/Doesn't | Impact on Scaling |
+|-----------|-------------|---------------------|-------------------|
+| ... | per seat | {analysis} | {how costs grow} |
+
+## Pricing Psychology in Use
+| Tactic | Used By | How |
+|--------|---------|-----|
+| Anchoring | {who} | {details} |
+| Decoy tier | {who} | {details} |
+| Charm pricing | {who} | {details} |
+| Annual lock-in | {who} | {discount %} |
+
+## Switching Cost Matrix
+| Competitor | Technical Cost | Contractual Cost | Emotional Cost | Overall |
+|-----------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|---------|
+| ... | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L |
+
+## Pricing Whitespace
+{Where there's room to position on price — underserved segments, untried models, price points nobody occupies}
+
+## Recommendations
+- **If competing on price:** {strategy}
+- **If competing on value:** {strategy}
+- **If competing on model:** {alternative pricing approach that no competitor uses}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Post-Synthesis Verification
+
+After writing all deliverables and battle cards, run the Verification Agent protocol. See `references/verification-agent.md` for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-competitors-specific coherence (battle card vs. report consistency, matrix vs. profiles alignment, pricing landscape vs. profiles consistency, cross-deliverable opportunity/risk traceability).
+
+---
+
+## Output File: battle-cards/{competitor-name}.md
+
+One battle card per competitor. Keep each to ONE page — these are reference tools for quick use, not deep research docs.
+
+```markdown
+# Battle Card: {Competitor Name}
+*Last updated: {date}*
+
+## At a Glance
+- **What they do:** {one sentence}
+- **Founded:** {year} | **Funding:** {total} | **Team:** ~{size}
+- **Price:** {range} | **Model:** {value metric}
+- **Best for:** {their ideal customer}
+
+## Their Strengths (be honest)
+- {strength 1 — with evidence}
+- {strength 2}
+- {strength 3}
+
+## Their Weaknesses (your openings)
+- {weakness 1 — with evidence from reviews/forums}
+- {weakness 2}
+- {weakness 3}
+
+## How to Win Against Them
+Specific talking points when a prospect is evaluating both:
+- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter with evidence}
+- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter}
+- **Lead with:** {your strongest differentiator vs. this specific competitor}
+
+## When They Win Over You
+Be honest about when the competitor is the better choice:
+- {scenario 1 — e.g., "Enterprise teams needing SSO and audit logs"}
+- {scenario 2}
+
+## Their Customers' Top Complaint
+"{verbatim quote from review}" — {source}
+This matters because: {strategic implication}
+
+## Key Vulnerability
+{The single biggest weakness you can exploit — with evidence}
+
+## Churn Signals
+Why their customers leave:
+- {reason 1} — frequency: common / occasional
+- {reason 2}
+
+## Watch For
+{What this competitor is likely to do next based on strategic signals}
+```

package/skills/sk-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+# Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing Intelligence
+
+Read `research-principles.md` first.
+
+---
+
+## Agent A1: Competitor Deep-Dives
+
+```
+Research task: Deep analysis of direct competitors for {product description}
+Context: {product summary from intake}
+Known competitors: {list from intake, if any}
+
+RESEARCH PROTOCOL — identify and profile 5-8 direct competitors:
+
+ROUND 1 — Identify competitors (4-5 searches):
+- "{problem} software/app/tool {current year}"
+- "best {product category} tools {current year}"
+- "{known competitor 1} vs alternatives"
+- "G2 {product category} grid"
+- "{product category} Product Hunt"
+- "top {product category} startups"
+- "{problem} solutions" OR "how do {customer type} currently handle {problem}"
+  (this catches adjacent solutions — inventory tools, platforms with overlapping features, manual/offline alternatives that compete for the same budget)
+
+ROUND 2 — Deep-dive each competitor (2-3 searches per competitor):
+- Visit their website: capture positioning, features, messaging, social proof
+- "{competitor name} review G2 Capterra"
+- "{competitor name} crunchbase funding"
+- "{competitor name} linkedin employees" (team size signals)
+- "{competitor name} changelog" or "{competitor name} updates {current year}"
+
+ROUND 3 — Competitive dynamics (2-3 searches):
+- "{product category} market share"
+- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" comparison articles
+- "{product category} landscape {current year}"
+
+For EACH competitor, build a complete profile:
+
+## {Competitor Name}
+- **Website:** {url}
+- **Founded:** {year}
+- **Headquarters:** {location}
+- **Team size:** {estimate from LinkedIn/Crunchbase}
+- **Funding:** {total raised, last round, lead investors}
+- **Stage:** bootstrapped / seed / Series A / Series B+ / public
+- **Estimated revenue:** {if available, or proxy estimate}
+
+### Product
+- **Tagline:** {their actual tagline/positioning statement}
+- **Core offering:** {what they sell in one sentence}
+- **Key features:** {top 5-8 features}
+- **Tech stack signals:** {any public info}
+- **Integrations:** {key integrations}
+- **Platform:** {web / mobile / desktop / API}
+
+### Market Position
+- **Target customer:** {who they serve — be specific}
+- **Positioning:** {how they describe themselves}
+- **Key differentiator:** {what they claim makes them unique}
+- **Social proof:** {notable customers, case studies, logos}
+
+### Traction Signals
+- **G2/Capterra:** {review count and average rating}
+- **Product Hunt:** {launch date, upvotes}
+- **Social media:** {follower counts, engagement level}
+- **Job postings:** {number and type}
+- **Web traffic signals:** {if available from Similarweb/press mentions}
+- **Notable customers:** {logos or case studies}
+
+### Strengths
+- {strength 1 — based on evidence, not speculation}
+- {strength 2}
+- {strength 3}
+
+### Weaknesses
+- {weakness 1 — based on reviews, gaps, complaints}
+- {weakness 2}
+- {weakness 3}
+
+### Threat Level: Low / Medium / High
+- {why — with evidence}
+
+---
+
+After all profiles:
+
+## Landscape Summary
+- **Total competitors identified:** {number profiled + number found but not profiled}
+- **Market concentration:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated by 1-2 players
+- **Average funding level:** {across profiled competitors}
+- **Common positioning themes:** {what most competitors emphasize}
+- **Gaps in the market:** {what no competitor does well}
+
+## Adjacent Solutions
+Products that aren't direct competitors but compete for the same budget or solve an overlapping problem. These matter because customers often choose "good enough" adjacent tools over a dedicated solution.
+- {adjacent solution 1} — what it does, how it overlaps, why someone might pick it instead
+- {adjacent solution 2}
+Include: broader platforms with partial feature overlap, manual/offline alternatives, tools from adjacent categories that could expand into this space.
+
+## Data Gaps
+- [What you couldn't find and why it matters]
+
+Save to: {project-name}/raw/competitor-profiles.md
+```
+
+---
+
+## Agent A2: Pricing Intelligence
+
+```
+Research task: Pricing reverse-engineering for competitors in {product category}
+Context: {product summary from intake}
+Competitors to analyze: {list from A1 if available, otherwise discover during research}
+
+RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
+
+ROUND 1 — Capture pricing pages (1 search per competitor):
+- Visit each competitor's pricing page directly
+- Screenshot or capture: tiers, prices, feature lists, CTAs
+- Note: annual vs monthly pricing, currency, any free tier
+
+ROUND 2 — Deep pricing analysis (2-3 searches):
+- "{competitor name} pricing" (for third-party breakdowns)
+- "{competitor name} pricing changes" (for pricing history)
+- "{product category} pricing comparison {current year}"
+- "{competitor name} enterprise pricing" (often hidden)
+
+ROUND 3 — Value metric analysis (1-2 searches):
+- "{product category} pricing model" (per-seat vs usage vs flat)
+- "how much does {competitor name} cost" (real user discussions)
+
+For EACH competitor, analyze:
+
+## {Competitor Name} — Pricing Breakdown
+
+### Pricing Model
+- **Value metric:** {what they charge for — per seat / per usage / flat / hybrid}
+- **Why this metric:** {how it aligns with value delivered}
+- **How it scales:** {does price grow linearly with usage? Are there volume discounts?}
+
+### Tier Structure
+| | {Tier 1} | {Tier 2} | {Tier 3} | {Enterprise} |
+|---|----------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| Price (monthly) | | | | |
+| Price (annual) | | | | |
+| Annual discount | | | | |
+| {Key feature 1} | | | | |
+| {Key feature 2} | | | | |
+| {Key feature 3} | | | | |
+| {Key limit 1} | | | | |
+| Target persona | | | | |
+
+### Pricing Psychology
+- **Anchoring:** {do they use a high-price tier to make mid-tier attractive?}
+- **Decoy effect:** {is there a tier designed to push people to a specific plan?}
+- **Charm pricing:** {$49 vs $50? $99 vs $100?}
+- **Social proof on pricing:** {which tier is "most popular"?}
+- **Free tier strategy:** {what's free and what's gated?}
+- **Annual lock-in:** {discount size, refund policy}
+
+### Switching Costs
+- **Technical:** {data export? API migration? Integration rewiring?}
+- **Contractual:** {annual contracts? Cancellation penalties?}
+- **Emotional:** {brand loyalty? Learning curve for alternatives?}
+- **Data portability:** {can you export your data easily?}
+
+---
+
+After all competitors:
+
+## Pricing Landscape Summary
+- **Dominant value metric:** {what most charge for}
+- **Price range:** {lowest to highest for comparable tiers}
+- **Median price point:** {for the most common tier}
+- **Free tier prevalence:** {how many offer free plans}
+- **Annual discount range:** {typical discounts}
+- **Pricing whitespace:** {where there's room to position — underserved price points or models}
+- **Switching cost patterns:** {are switching costs high or low in this market?}
+
+## Data Gaps
+- [Competitors with hidden/custom pricing]
+- [Enterprise pricing that couldn't be found]
+
+Save to: {project-name}/raw/pricing-intelligence.md
+```