Competitive Research Snapshot Template

Copy this to record a competitive research snapshot. The section order is a contract: competitive-intel-watch diffs future runs against this document, and battle-card-builder consumes it as an evidence base. Do not reorder or rename sections.

Label every claim Fact (cited, verifiable), Inference (reasoned from facts, basis shown), or Assumption (unverified, needs validation). Three or four competitors, not eight — depth on the players who matter beats coverage of players who don't.

Template

# Competitive Research Snapshot

## 1. Scope
**Company/product:** [yours — the perspective this snapshot is written from]
**Category:** [in buyer language]
**Decision supported:** [positioning / roadmap bet / deal support / board prep — determines what "just enough" means]
**Competitors analyzed:** [3, max 4 — each chosen for a stated reason]
**As-of date:** [YYYY-MM-DD — the watch diffs against this]

## 2. Competitor Snapshots
_Max 5 bullets per competitor. Their marketing site is a Fact about what they CLAIM;
whether it works is review-site territory or a labeled Inference._

### Competitor: [Name]
- **Positioning:** [their words, quoted or close — label + URL]
- **Relevant capability:** [the one that matters for the decision in Scope — label + URL]
- **Likely strength:** [with independent evidence where possible — label + URL]
- **Likely weakness:** [label + basis; "Likely" is in the heading for a reason]
- **Key source URL:** [the page you'd send a skeptic to]

## 3. Quick Comparison
| Dimension | [Your product] | [Comp 1] | [Comp 2] | [Comp 3] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target customer | | | | |
| Core use case | | | | |
| Main strength | | | | |
| Main weakness | | | | |
| Evidence quality | | | | |

_The Evidence quality row exists so a weak column can't masquerade as a strong one — rate it
honestly (high / medium / low) and let the So What section respect the rating._

## 4. So What?
- **Product strategy implications:** [exactly 3 — label, confidence, URL where relevant]
- **Competitive risks:** [exactly 2]
- **Product opportunities:** [exactly 2]
- **Assumptions to validate:** [exactly 3]

Quality checks before you call it done

Every section serves the decision named in Scope — anything else is a market report, not a snapshot
No competitor claim from their own marketing is labeled as more than a Fact about the claim
The Evidence quality row is filled in, and low-rated columns don't drive So What conclusions
The As-of date is present — competitive-intel-watch needs it to diff

Third-party checks

1 warning2mo3 checks · Risk SAFE

Gen Agent Trust Hub2mo
The skill is a structured workflow for competitive research that processes information from external websites. It has a low risk of indirect prompt injection, mitigated by built-in verification steps including evidence quality ratings and mandatory labeling of facts versus assumptions.
Socket2mo
No alerts
Snyk2mo
Risk: MEDIUM · 1 issue

Capability

argument-hint: [company/product/segment, and the decision it supports]
type: workflow
theme: market-intelligence

Other metadata

intent: Autonomous competitive research as a workflow: search plan, competitor selection, just-enough research, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, real URL citations, and next-step options — producing a stable snapshot schema that battle cards and delta monitors consume and diff.
best_for: [ "Grounding a positioning, roadmap, or deal-support decision in cited competitive evidence", "Creating the baseline snapshot that the competitive intel watch diffs against", "Board or exec prep that needs labeled facts instead of confident storytelling" ]
scenarios: [ "We're rewriting our positioning next sprint — get me a cited read on our top three competitors", "Sales keeps losing to one rival; I need evidence on where they're actually strong and weak" ]
estimated_time: 20-40 min per run

/competitive-research-snapshot

template.md